by Sharon Rondeau

(Feb. 6, 2015) — Tracy A. Fair of Sykesville, MD has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari in a case in which she asks the court to define the meaning of “natural born Citizen,” a term of art found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution solely applying to the presidency.

As reported on her website, on January 26, 2012, Fair filed a complaint of perjury against Barack Hussein Obama for allegedly swearing that he was eligible to serve as president when he was ineligible for lack of being a “natural born Citizen.”

Following her discovery that Maryland no longer requires a signed certificate of candidacy from presidential candidates, Fair and co-plaintiff Mary Miltenberger filed an amended complaint in March 2012 naming members of the Maryland State Board of Elections as having committed “malfeasance in office, dereliction of duty” and of having been “in violation of their constitutional oath.”

In August 2012, the Carroll County, MD Circuit Court dismissed the case on the premise of “laches,” meaning that the plaintiff did not file his or her petition in a timely manner, a disposition Fair has contested since that time. “It was all filed within the guidelines of the law,” she told The Post & Email.  Fair added, “The issue of laches is not trivial.  There are many Maryland cases that say that ‘laches’ cannot bar a case that deals with a constitutional question.”

The court also claimed the issue was “moot.”

In a section of her website, Fair explains why she believes that Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president, presenting historical texts, quotes from the Founding Fathers and the 18th-century philosopher Emmerich de Vattel in his treatise, “The Law of Nations,” and a congressional discussion of the meaning of “allegiance.”

In 1866, 14th Amendment author Rep. John Bingham was quoted as having stated on the congressional record that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Obama claims a father who was a citizen of Great Britain and then Kenya upon its independence in 1963.  He also claims to have been born in Hawaii, but a criminal investigation, whose conclusions Fair cited in her Maryland case (page 8), determined in March 2012 that Obama’s proffered long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries.”

Previous to his announcement that he would seek the presidency, Obama’s literary agent, the Kenyan ambassador to the United States, and several news sources, including NPR, had reported that Obama was born in Kenya.  Both the literary agent and NPR changed their reports after the fact, and the ambassador quickly retracted his claim by stating, “I don’t know where Obama was born.”

If Obama was born in a foreign country, federal law at the time would have required that one parent be a U.S. citizen who had resided in the country or an “outlying possession” for ten years, at least five of which had to have occurred from the age of 14 before his birth in order for him to have been able to inherit U.S. citizenship.

Obama’s mother was reportedly 18 when she gave birth.  In a second press conference on July 17, 2012, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Michael Zullo stated that the image posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 purported to be a scan of a certified copy of the original from the Hawaii Department of Health was not, in fact, created by that government entity (1:11:24).

Since Obama’s eligibility was raised as an issue in late 2007 by MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews and reportedly also by former President Bill Clinton during the 2008 primaries, the media and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) have conflated the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.”

In April 2010, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas admitted that the court was “evading the issue” of who qualifies to be president.

Filing pro se in the ensuing steps within the Maryland court system, Fair vowed to take her case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.  On November 20, 2014, Fair’s last appeal at the Maryland Court of Appeals was denied, leaving her 90 days to file with the high court.

In her newest petition (page 6), Fair emphasizes the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” as utilized in the U.S. Constitution.  Her case was docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 3 and notes that a response from the defendant is due on March 5.

In a press release on Wednesday, it was reported that “The last of the legal challenges to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President of the United States was docketed by Tracy A. Fair at the United States Supreme Court today. In a surprise move, Mrs. Fair argued in her Petition not that Obama was ineligible conceding that point was now moot. Instead, Mrs. Fair raised the question of the eligibility of declared Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and Governor Bobby Jindal. In particular, Mrs. Fair argued that unresolved is whether or not these three are in fact ‘natural born Citizens’.”

Sen. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a Cuban-citizen father and U.S.-citizen mother.  The Post & Email has attempted to obtain documentation that Cruz was registered at birth as a foreign-born U.S. citizen. However, the U.S. State Department does not release the certificate that would be on file if in fact Cruz had been registered as such to anyone without a direct relationship to the registrant.  Cruz’s press office has likewise declined to comment on whether or not Cruz was born a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada.

Last May, Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship after having claimed not to have known about it his entire life.  Cruz served as Texas Solicitor General and worked in private practice as an attorney before running for the U.S. Senate in 2010.

Last June, Fox News reported that Cruz’s renunciation process was completed and that “The possible 2016 presidential candidate’s mother is American, making him eligible for the White House.”  Fox presented no documentation to prove its claim.

The North American Law Center (NALC) contends that Cruz is ineligible for the presidency and called upon him more than a year ago to step forward to also clarify Obama’s claimed ineligible status.  Cruz did not respond to NALC’s letter.

In August 2013, The Dallas Morning News reported that although Cruz was born in Canada, he “became an instant U.S. citizen” but presents no proof.  Although the newspaper acknowledged that “The Constitution says nothing about would-be presidents born with dual citizenship” in questioning Cruz’s eligibility, it did not mention the fact that on Barack Obama’s “FighttheSmears” campaign website, Obama also claimed to have been born a dual U.S.-Kenyan citizen because of his claimed father’s Kenyan citizenship.

FighttheSmears, whose content is now hidden, even from the Wayback Machine, reported that Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 23, according to the laws at the time.  The new Kenyan constitution, which was approved by voters on August 4, 2010 coinciding with Obama’s claimed 49th birthday, declares him again a citizen of the East African nation because of his father’s citizenship there.

In the same August 2013 article, The Dallas Morning News reported that Cruz’s spokeswoman said that Cruz’s U.S. citizenship was established at birth by his mother by having filed the necessary registration and that Cruz traveled on a U.S. passport overseas during high school.  The paper again showed no proof of its statements.

According to the Government of Canada website, a person wishing to renounce Canadian citizenship must:

  • be a Canadian citizen
  • prove that you are or that you will become a citizen of a country other than Canada if your application to renounce is approved
  • not live in Canada
  • be at least 18 years old
  • not be a threat to Canada’s security or part of a pattern of criminal activity and
  • understand the significance of renouncing your Canadian citizenship.

The application asks the applicant if he or she is “a citizen or a national of a country other than Canada,” and, if the applicant answers “yes,” he is asked for the name of the country and to “attach proof.”  The form also asks for the applicant to state the reason for his renunciation of Canadian citizenship.

In the cases of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. Marco Rubio, both were born in the United States to foreign-citizen parents who were, to the public’s knowledge, admitted to the country legally.  Today, children born in the U.S. to illegal-alien parents are automatically awarded U.S. citizenship, although controversy about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment as applied to those children exists.

On October 18, 2009, The Post & Email’s founder and previous editor, John Charlton, wrote an article entitled, “4 Supreme Court Cases Define “natural born Citizen,” subtitled “Irrefutable authority has spoken.”  The four cases from which Charlton drew his conclusions were The Venus (1814);  Shanks v. Dupont (1830); Minor v. Happersett (1875); and U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

In her interview with The Post & Email regarding the filing, Fair quoted from Wong Kim Ark, which she noted used the word “domiciled” to describe the petitioner’s parents’ residence in the United States when he was born in San Francisco in 1873.

The case arose after Wong Kim Ark visited China and attempted to re-enter the U.S., upon which he was held in custody by U.S. Customs.  In response to a habeas corpus petition filed on his behalf, the “District Attorney of the United States” responded that “Because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the State of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons and subjects of the Emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Ark, in fact, was a U.S. citizen “by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, ‘All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'”

“The main thing in Wong Kim Ark is that it says his parents were ‘domiciled’ here,” said Fair.  “When you’re domiciled somewhere with the intent to stay, that’s different from traveling through  In Book II [of “The Law of Nations], Vattel also mentioned the term “domiciled,” she added.  “It’s natural law, and natural law can’t be changed.”

The Post & Email asked if Rubio, Jindal and Cruz have formally “declared” themselves presidential candidates, to which she responded, “There is so much interest on the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ that it doesn’t matter who is going to run.  We need to determine it now so that we don’t have to go through this again. If someone does plan to run, there are going to be a lot of cases flooding the courts, so why not deal with it now, saving the courts time and money?”

Rubio, Cruz and Jindal appear in a presidential straw poll at the website of the Republican National Committee, which has declined to address the issue of “natural born Citizen” to The Post & Email.

Fair also raised the specter of Cruz or another questionably-eligible candidate becoming the Republican nominee, only to have a Democrat legal challenge prevail, disqualify him or her, and leave no viable Republican opponent for 2016.  “If they take Cruz to court, they will, in turn, prove that Obama is ineligible.  But that’s another reason why they need to take care of this now so we don’t have that situation,” Fair said.

Donald Trump has already visibly raised the question of Cruz’s constitutional eligibility given his birth in Canada.  Fox News has declared Cruz eligible based on the CRS memos issued by Jack Maskell beginning in 2009 exclusively critiqued at The Post & Email by legal scholar Joseph DeMaio.

Fair then informed us that she made a video about the essay penned by former Ambassador to Italy Breckinridge Long on the topic of “natural born Citizen” in which Long claimed that Charles Evans Hughes, who was challenging Woodrow Wilson for the presidency in 1916, was ineligible due to his birth in the U.S. to two British-citizen parents.

Long worked as Assistant Secretary of State in refugee admissions during World War II under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  In an article masquerading as a biography, Boston’s WGBH excoriated Long’s alleged paranoia and distrust of Eastern Europeans.  The news outlet also reported that Long feared that Nazis would infiltrate the U.S., which, in fact, occurred in November 1944.

Long has also been heavily criticized by historians as having failed to admit Europeans, particularly Jews, fleeing the Nazi Holocaust into the U.S. and for indirectly causing tens of thousands to perish.

In a memo dated June 26, 1940, Long wrote that “We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls, to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas. However, this could only be temporary. In order to make it more definite It would have to be done by suspension of the rules under the law by the issuance of a proclamation of emergency–which I take it we are not yet ready to proclaim.”

However, according to a journal entry of Long’s dated October 3, 1940, Roosevelt was “100% in accord with my ideas.”  In 1944, FDR created a “War Refugee Board” by executive order to conduct “the immediate rescue and relief of the Jews of Europe and other victims of enemy persecution.”  Consequently, Long’s position in the State Department ended on December 15 of that year.

Constitutionally, the president is the chief executive of the federal government and oversees executive-branch departments, including the U.S. State Department, Department of the Treasury, and today, the Department of Homeland Security, which manages immigration policy.

The Post & Email asked Fair how likely she believes it is that her petition will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, to which she responded, “The newest justice, in this case, Elena Kagan, chooses 40 cases which go to conference, and they decide which ones to hear.  The court won’t even know the case has been put in until she picks her 40 and brings her selection to them.  She could cut it off right there, though.”

“Do you think she is compromised, seeing as she was appointed by Obama, whose eligibility you have questioned?” we asked, to which Fair responded, “I’m sure.”

“Should she recuse herself?” we asked.

“Oh, definitely.”

“Should she recuse herself from being the person who selects the 40 cases?”

“Yes, 100%, because if our facts come out to be true when they hear it, her vote means nothing.  It’s all leveraging on the case at hand.”

“What happens if your petition for a Writ of Certiorari is granted?”

“If it’s granted, we file briefs.  With the petition, I don’t get to put in my arguments.  They don’t even see the whole record until they agree to hear the case, then the record is brought over.”

Fair’s closing thought was, “In the Circuit Court, they used English common law over and over, but they reasoned that we’re the equivalent to ‘natural born subjects,’ which is totally different from ‘citizens.’  Subjects are under the king’s rule, and we rule ourselves.”

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Tracy is doing a great job, however I part with her over the reliance on Vattel “as if” it is a Constitutional source of authority on the subject. Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was indeed the contemporaneous handbook on foreign trade, treaties and maritime concerns and many of the ideals and principles of a political societies formation & construction are mirrored in the history of the U.S.

    However, Vattel would have been among the 1st to say that a nation has a right to say for its-self who and how their citizens are to be made.

    The Preamble suggests that the Founders anticipated their children would also be members of this new society; … ” … We the people of the United States, in order to …..[snip]……. secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” and in its whole the Preamble serves as an Oath of naturalization conforming those State Citizens into the NATURE of a National, Federal, Sovereign Citizen………………………………..———————————————————————————————-
    The Ratification of the COTUS “made” U.S. Citizens of all the existing State Citizens, and no others; (see Scott v, Minor v, US v Villatto, Talbot v Janson, Collet v Collet).
    The COTUS at A1S8C4 & A2S1C5 requires that “an uniform Rule” binds ALL U.S. Citizens.
    The 1790 Act which DECLARES to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship{implicit}) naturalization provides for the residual effect of acquiring of U.S. Citizenship as being; …
    ” … Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise … ”
    When the doctrine of coverture is taken into account in regard to the political character status of women / wives / mothers it is found that ALL children born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father were born as or considered as U.S. natural born Citizens anywhere in the world between March of 1790 and January 1795 when the “place” of birth of a U.S. natural born Citizen became limited to within the limits of the U.S..
    The 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act abrogated the doctrine of coverture and introduced the circumstance of “dual-citizens at birth”, a circumstance that theretofore was not possible (i.e., not legally recognized), under the U.S. Laws.
    Insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned the history of U.S. Citizenship began with the Ratification of the COTUS.
    It IS really that simple.

    Interjecting ANY FOREIGN sources in order to determine what is Constitutional is somewhat antithetical to the Supremacy Clause in the 1st instant and an admission of inability to interpret the statutory construction of the Organic Laws, the COTUS and the Acts made in pursuance thereof in the final analysis.

  2. Regarding aka obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and other would-be usurpers, here is an analogy that is food for thought.

    To understand the meaning of a natural born Citizen to a country, think of the meaning of a natural born child to a family.

    Natural born child == born of parents’ blood and into the parents’ family / home.

    Natural born Citizen == born of citizen parents’ blood and into the citizen parents’ home country.

    Adoption of an older child is akin to naturalization. Adoption of a child at birth is akin to anchor baby naturalization. A sperm donor child is akin to a dual citizen. In none of these cases is the child a natural born child to the family.

    Ted Cruz is like a child created by a father’s sperm and gestated by a surrogate mother, then born and raised in the surrogate’s home for four years before being brought into the family of the father and his wife — definitely not a natural born child.

    For all we know, aka obama, the criminal-identity-fraud-and-cheat is like a foreign child that was fraudulently swapped into an American family at the hospital.

  3. Citizenship is either obtained naturally or is granted by legislation or amendment to the Constitution. To be President we hold candidates for that office to a higher standard than others. It is not unreasonable to do so. In fact, we should require ALL members of Congress and the Judiciary to be “Natural-Born Citizens”. There can be no higher standard than to require someone to be born IN the United States of America of parents who are BOTH American Citizens themselves. This standard is NOT insurmountable or unreasonable. After all, “We the People” deserve and we must demand that our President be a 100% American.,the closest that we can get to a person who would,figuratively speaking,have red,white and blue blood. We have over 340 Million people in the U.S. Why is it so damned hard to find people whose parents were both Americans at the time of said persons birth in the United States? It is the circumstances of Birth that determine who is an NBC. Anything that occurs later is irrelevant. Cruz’s renunciation of his Canadian citizenship does not and cannot change the circumstances of his birth to a Cuban father in a foreign country. This premise applies equally to Obama,McCain,Jindal,Swarzenegger,Rubio and Santorum. NONE of whom meet the required NBC Standard which has already been established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett. That precedent is still “Good Law” as they say in the legal profession.

    1. Both parties are in on the ploy. They are BOTH acting to inculcate foreign influence into our sovereign nation. Neither major party can be trusted. If a panel of Democratic Judges were to find Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, et al, ineligible, Democrats would be admitting that Obama was ineligible and would be shooting themselves in the foot. A wise person named Judi Murthi, on the day Obama was elected, wrote in a Kenyan Newspaper about this very topic, a bipartisan “Shadow Government” in which “it doesn’t matter what party wins, they both do”.