by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 3, 2017) — On August 31, The Post & Email reported that New York State resident Robert Laity filed an appeal to the dismissal of a presidential eligibility case he has pursued since early last year.

In mid-August, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department of the New York State Unified Court System dismissed his case on the grounds that the 2016 presidential election is over and the matter therefore “moot.”

In what began as a ballot challenge in February of last year, Laity questioned the placement of the names of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, and former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on the New York State Republican presidential primary ballot, alleging that each does not qualify as a “natural born Citizen,” as the U.S. Constitution requires for the presidency.

In 2011, Laity filed a similar challenge to the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama for the 2012 election given that Obama claims as his father a citizen of another country who never became a U.S. citizen.

While Obama has claimed to have been born in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961, a number of credible reports published both prior to and after his declaration of his candidacy stated that he was born in either Kenya or Indonesia.

On his 2008 “FighttheSmears” website, Obama claimed to have been born a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S., although “Kenya” was at that time still a British colony.  An article dated August 24, 2010 by Dr. Jerome Corsi reported that the U.S. State Department confirmed Obama’s dual citizenship.  “…the State Department…confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961,” Cosi reported.

Faced with dismissals from New York’s courts, Laity appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which distributed the pro se case for conference but ultimately denied it a court hearing.

The Framers of the Constitution stipulated three requirements for the nation’s chief executive: that he have resided in the country for 14 years; that he have reached the age of 35; and that he be a “natural born Citizen.”

Laity believes that the term refers to one born in the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth and nothing less.

In late 2015, Laity filed objections with New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster regarding the eligibility of Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.

Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father and U.S.-citizen mother. He possesses a Canadian birth certificate and held Canadian citizenship until 2014, when he officially renounced it.

In 2013, The Dallas Morning News reported that Cruz was born a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen. Despite numerous FOIA requests, The Post & Email has been unable to obtain any documentation from the U.S. or Canadian government affirming that claim.

Cruz himself was unresponsive to The Post & Email’s request that he release documentation of his presumed U.S. citizenship just after he announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on March 23, 2015.

The backgrounds of Rubio and Jindal are very similar in that both were born in the United States — Rubio in Florida and Jindal in Louisiana — to parents legally residing in the United States but not yet citizens.

After passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, anyone born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, is granted U.S. citizenship, with exceptions applied only to children born to parents serving as ambassadors from other countries. Many believe that the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted by omitting the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” with some encouraging Congress to pass legislation clarifying that point.

On Saturday, September 30, 2017, Laity wrote to the Clerk of the Court of the New York State Court of Appeals in Albany to address a specific point maintained throughout his ballot challenge and lawsuit: that the presidential citizenship requirement, as presented to voters on the New York State Board of Elections website, is incorrect.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president and commander-in-chief to be a “natural born Citizen”

The BOE website states the requirement as “Born a citizen” rather than that which appears in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, “natural born Citizen.”

In his letter, Laity wrote, “There is a Constitutional issue in this case, namely misrepresentation of the US Constitution by the NY State Board of Elections. The criteria of requiring that a President and a vice President be a “Natural Born Citizen” in Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 and the 12th Amendment is mandated by federal law and cannot be changed by anyone outside of the parameters set forth by Article V of the US Constitution for amending the US Constitution.”

“The issue is not moot,” he continued in the following paragraph.

On page 2, he wrote, “the US Constitution applies everywhere within the United States of America and is thus under federal control. No provision of the U.S. Constitution can be unilaterally changed or misrepresented by ANY State.”

His three-page letter is below.

“Not once have I seen any effort in NY’s Briefs to explain why it uses the wrong terminology,” Laity told The Post & Email on Tuesday in response to our question, “Has the Elections Board ever responded about why it uses the term “born a citizen” when it should be ‘natural born Citizen?'”

It is unclear if the BOE has always used “Born a citizen” instead of “natural born Citizen” on its website.

After receiving Laity’s response, The Post & Email contacted the New York State Board of Elections via email and asked:

Hello, I note that in your listing of the requirements for running for president, your website states “Born a citizen” as one of them.

However, Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

Why is your wording different from that of the Constitution in this regard?

Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email

No response was received by press time.

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. No Judge is proscribed from enjoining a person from continuing to break the law by issuing a cease and desist order. NY State continues now to misstate the law. Part of my case involves mandamus to the NY State Board of Elections ordering it to change the wording on it’s website. That issue is ripe for review since it includes all (6) elements of a continuously ongoing fraudulent misrepresentation by a State entity.

  2. 3#

    “Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible.”

    Do you see the word “should” not the word “must”.

    “Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States.”

    Do you see where it says “may cause problems” not “will cause problems”.

    Okay so what is required of a child born overseas to US citizen parents to prove US citizenship?

    “Citizenship Evidence

    When applying on Form DS-11 [first time application for US Passport], you must submit either:

    One document from the primary list below, or
    A combination of documents from the secondary list below.”

    [primary list includes CRBA but secondary list does not]

    “U.S. Citizenship at Birth
    If you were born outside the United States and acquired U.S. citizenship through your U.S. citizen parent(s), please submit the following with your passport application:

    Your foreign birth certificate listing your parent(s)
    Your parent(s)’ evidence of U.S. citizenship
    Your parents’ marriage certificate, if applicable
    A statement from your U.S. citizen parent(s) detailing all periods and places of their residence or physical presence in the United States and abroad before your birth.”

  3. Robert Laity is, of course, free to believe that the issue of applying “federal standards” “must be addressed.” But if the issue is moot or unripe, the New York Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction. And if Laity isn’t challenging any particular election, then he lacks standing, which also means the court lacks jurisdiction. All of these topics should have been covered in online law exams that Laity claims he passed.

    Once the New York Court of Appeals dismisses Laity’s appeal, he is free to seek cert. with the U.S. Supreme Court. And once that is denied, it will be the end of the court challenges to 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections.

  4. T.F. Bow, The COA does not lack jurisdiction. The issue of misapplying federal standards is a federal question that must be addressed. I challenged the candidates right to be on both the primary and general ballots. They have no right. They are not eligible for the office for which they ran. NYS Election Law Sec. 6-122. My case concerns the “Reading of” Federal Law, the US Constitution, which NYS has no legal authority to abrogate. NYS has been abrogating the Constitution since at least 2008. The matter has “evaded review”. In any event, if the NYS Court of Appeals so decides not to address the matter, I will, as I have in the past, file a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court for the SECOND time on the same issue of constitutional import. That the NYS Court of Appeals would AGAIN “kick the can down the road” demonstrates their lack of interest in upholding their Judicial oaths of office to defend the Constitution.

  5. David L., Apples and Oranges. A person not born IN the United States, such as McCain, is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” even IF both Parents were US Citizens themselves.

  6. Three-Pound Sledge is, of course, free to believe whatever he desires about Ted Cruz and his mother, but he still doesn’t show that a CRBA is required for U.S. citizenship. Cruz and his mother could have not acquired one for any number of reasons, such as believing it was not worth the hassle.

    In any event, none of this is relevant as to why the New York Court of Appeals will dismiss Laity’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, that is, because the challenge is moot (for past elections) and unripe (for future elections).

  7. In the simplest form of law or instruction, go to the USCIS.GOV and hover over the drop down menu on the left under citizenship. Then drop down to “Citizenship under parents” and click that. On the page on the right it clearly states two things are required for parents to pass their citizenship to their children like Ted Cruz.
    1. The parent’s (note plural) must be married
    2. Both parent’s (note plural) must be US citizens at the time of birth

    We know Ted failed this test because Raphael was a Cuban and as I recall even Sharon tried to find information their marriage in Canada. But, Raphael was married to Julia Garza in Texas in 1959 according to the only license found so far……

    The last election cycle myself and Laura Wilkenson filed an affidavit under Texas Election code 273.001 that states the following;
    (a) If two or more registered voters of the territory covered by an election present affidavits alleging criminal conduct in connection with the election to the county or district attorney having jurisdiction in that territory, the county or district attorney shall investigate the allegations. If the election covers territory in more than one county, the voters may present the affidavits to the attorney general, and the attorney general shall investigate the allegations.

    Please note the word “shall” according to legal minds in the Texas Attorney General, Secretary of State and the Texas Supreme Court means “discretion” so all attempts by Texas voters to seek justice under the law “shall” be ignored.

    It is very difficult to repel the urge to throw my truck across the street when thinking of this entire issue is so infuriating! Many months of paperwork, time and money in a walk through the minefield to be punished by the very people hired to protect the Texas voter.

  8. From the website:

    “According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.

    The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.

    Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.”

    “A more secure Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen was introduced in January 2011. This new CRBA has been updated with a variety of state of the art security features, and is printed centrally in the United States. U.S. embassies and consulates no longer print CRBAs locally, but you still must apply there. The central production was initiated to ensure uniform quality and reduce vulnerability to fraud. The previous version of the CRBA continues to be valid proof of U.S. citizenship.”

    Since Cruz does not mention CRBA in any of his speeches, there is a high likelihood that Ted’s mother was a converted Canadian citizen, so she would have been ineligible to obtain a CRBA, Form FS-240.

    If that is the case, Ted Cruz’s parents brought him to the mainland U.S. with no proof of U.S. citizenship. His proof of U.S. citizenship still has no documentation roots nor legality associated with his purported statutory U.S. citizenship because of the lack of proof of a CRBA Form FS-240. Ted Cruz is an undocumented alien just like the Barry Soetoro that we all know nothing about.

    Re: John S. McCain:

    From the government website, above:

    Persons who acquired U.S. citizenship or U.S. nationality at birth in one of the following current or former territories or outlying possessions of the United States during relevant time periods are not eligible for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen because such persons are not considered to have been born abroad. Individuals born in these locations during the relevant times may establish acquisition of U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality, based upon the applicable agreement or statute, by producing their birth certificate issued from the local Vital Records Office along with any other evidence required to establish acquisition:

    Puerto Rico
    U.S. Virgin Islands American Samoa
    Swains Island
    The Panama Canal Zone before October 1, 1979
    The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands after January 8, 1978 (8PM EST)
    The Philippines before July 4, 1946

    i.e., John S. McCain too is a U.S. citizen by statute, not a natural born U.S. citizen.

  9. Robert Laity’s comments clarify that the New York Court of Appeals examined his preliminary statement, and then expressed concern that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear his appeal.

    As Laity challenged Cruz’s, Jindal’s, and Rubio’s appearances on the primary ballot, and that primary election had concluded, the lower court dismissed the challenge as moot.

    To the extent Laity challenged future elections based on his reading of New York’s laws, the lower court dismissed that challenge as unripe.

    The New York Court of Appeals will likely agree with the lower court, conclude it lacks jurisdiction because Laity’s challenge is both moot (with respect to past elections) and unripe (with respect to future elections), and dismiss Laity’s appeal.

  10. “A person born overseas is not automatically a U. S. citizen unless the parents obtain a Consular Report on Birth Abroad (CRBA). To-date, Cruz has not proffered this document nor does he even mention the CRBA requirement.”

    That’s not true. While it is recommended that the parents get a CRBA, it is not required for citizenship.

  11. KUDOs to Robert Laity and this P&E knowledge center, in spite of occasional website parasites herein, for KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON NEVER-presIDent SO2 (SOETORO-OBAMA II)!

    Our U.S. Government, Congress, all derelict “sanctuary city and state” legislatures et al CONTINUE TO FAIL and DEFY WE the PEOPLE ON MAIN STREET USA relative to honoring U.S. Constitutional citizenship requirements.

    Congress, and Nancy Pelosi and the NY BOE et al, can either follow the U.S. Constitution through the eyes of the original framers, or amend it. How is Robert Laity’s case “moot” when Mr. SO2 himself is receiving a tax-paid-for pension, lifelong security detail protections and now roams free on the streets of USA to overthrow legal President Trump et al?

    ONLY WE the PRIVATE CITIZENS ON MAIN STREET USA WILL ENFORCE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENSHIP BORDERS in lieu today’s can-kicking Congress of Criminals, just as Knowledge Patriot Laity is doing at this time in American history!

    Congress is to determine if one is Constitutionally eligible to be a U.S. president; legal voters shall determine if a presidential candidate is like-minded enough to be one’s consentable overseer.

    Imagine that on the moment the Framers ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1789, Jon Mooers and SO2 walked into their chamber just before adjournment. Who would they find Constitutionally eligible to run for U.S. president then, in 2008 and in 2012?

    ANSWER: Only Jon Mooers


    Since the U.S. Constitution did not specify a list of qualifiers to be an eligible president, and since any list of any qualifiers after 1789 (such as allowing “anchor baby” presidents, allowing native Canadian presidents etc.) would require a formally ratified Constitutional Amendment, THE SIMPLEST UNSPECIFIED AND 100% UNCONTESTED ALLOWABLE CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE PRESIDENT SINCE 1789 IS ONE BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL OR WITHIN AN AMERICAN JURISDICTION OF LEGALLY-MARRIED AMERICAN CITIZEN PARENTS, just like Jon Mooers (and millions of other American citizens with similar Jon-Mooers-birth-parentage circumstances).

    PROVE TO ME Congress, PROVE TO ME T.F. BOW, PROVE TO ME Nancy Pelosi and SO2 and NY BOE et al HOW THE FRAMERS IN 1789 COULD LOOK OUT OVER Jon Mooers and SO2 standing side by side in front of said framers and find SO2, a father-abandoned full-term-sperm-of-the-moment-of-unwed-teenaged-mom cocaine-stained-brain hidden-identity homosexual foreign-raised dual-citizen disbarred-for-lying-attorney muslim-Marxist-sympathies-nurturing mulatto to be their unanimous uncontested Constitutionally eligible Commander-in-Chief in 1789, in 2008 and in 2012.

    If the NY BOE sees SO2 through their own eyes, and refuses to see SO2 through the eyes of the signatory Framers of 1789 as required, what Constitutional Amendment or other legal instrument do they purport to use to justify their modern-day myopia other than nationally syndicated judicial criminal-hood?

  12. T.F. Bow, I filed both a Motion for permission to appeal to the NY State Court of Appeals AND a Notice of Appeal as a matter of right due to the Constitutional question. My “Letter” is not a Motion in Opposition to any Motion made by NY State to dismiss. NY State has already been informed by the Court that dismissal of the case or the processing of it will be determined pursuant to NYSCOA Rule 500.7.

    All parties were solicited by the Court to proffer “Comments” on the Jurisdiction issue pursuant to NY Court of Appeals rule 500.10. If the court decides that my Constitutional question is not moot then the case must and will proceed as a matter of right under NY State Law.

  13. Would the Framers of the U.S. Constitution allow this narrative-dual-citizen with obvious foreign sympathy associations, with obvious foreign sympathy behaviors, and only proffering a forged birth certificate while sealing his other critical identification documents from public consumption, to be a “natural born Citizen” >>> THESE FRAMERS: >>> THIS GUY >>> ?

    ANSWER: No. >>> note that Mexico and Philippines require their nation’s president to be “natural-born citizen” and Mexico further requires “with at least one parent who is a natural-born citizen of Mexico”.

    Also of note:

    Naturalized Mexicans cannot occupy any of following posts:
    •The Mexican military during peacetime
    •Captain, pilot, or crew member on any[dubious – discuss] Mexican-flagged vessel or aircraft
    •President of Mexico
    •Member of the Congress of Mexico
    •Member of the Supreme Court of Mexico
    •Governor of a Mexican state
    •Mayor or member of the legislature of Mexico City

    As Nancy Pelosi has willfully refused to see the eligibility of SOETORO-OBAMA II (= SO2) through the eyes of the Framers since 08-28-08, and since Congress (and NY BOE et al)willfully refused/refuses to hold Nancy accountable for her criminal “presIDential amnesty”, there is no justifiable reason to follow or continue any law in our nation 08-28-08- TODAY, until after Pelosi and all Congresspersons and SO2 are arrested and prosecuted for NATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL MALFEASANCE 08-28-08- TODAY!

    I think the Framers would agree with me all during 08-28-08- TODAY!

  14. It’s pick on Ted Cruz time, again since his name was mentioned in this Robert Laity article.

    The following weblink relates to a pathetic journalistic piece of trash from CNN, mid year 2014. Nothing makes sense about Cruz’s U.S. citizenship, both from the author’s words and those from Cruz’s mouth.

    To wit:

    The gist of the above joke article is that Ted Cruz was considered a U.S. citizen (and a citizen of Canada), just because his mother was purported to be a U.S. citizen.

    A person born overseas is not automatically a U. S. citizen unless the parents obtain a Consular Report on Birth Abroad (CRBA). To-date, Cruz has not proffered this document nor does he even mention the CRBA requirement.

    According to the above CNN article (first weblink), Cruz prepared a document to renounce his Canadian citizenship. Cruz also stated: “……….and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter,””. What kind of double-talk is that? If he was a dual citizen, why would he state that I did not claim Canadian citizenship. If Canadian citizenship is automatic, you don’t have to claim.

    Summary: CNN and Cruz are making up their own citizenship laws according to their own needs. In my humble opinion, Cruz is a man without a country. Rafael E. Cruz: “Your papers are not in order!!!!!”

    Cuba, do you want Ted Cruz?

    And don’t get me started on 14th Amendment anchor babies, Jindal and Rubio.

  15. Laity’s letter suggests that New York moved to dismiss Laity’s appeal (for lack of jurisdiction), and Laity’s letter is the opposition to that motion.

    Will New York’s motion be published?

  16. Robert, thanks so much for all your efforts. Your efforts have educated many. Like you,
    I hope the rest of us will continue to make efforts to educate others and continue efforts
    for justice. We can’t let it stand that we had an USURPER in the White House.

    In repeating myself, Smokey The Bear had repeatedly said, “it only takes a match to start
    a forest fire”. While many have given efforts to defend the Constitution and hold Obama
    accountable not all efforts are successful immediately and like a seed it takes time for
    a tree to mature and produce fruit.

    You have been an example of keeping your hands on the plow. I hope others out there
    like Robert will get educated and start taking action in revealing the fraud of Obama.
    Together, all of us can achieve more.

    As Arpaio had stated, …”this issue needs to go to Congress”. Therefore, let’s support the
    Sheriff and assist him in this.

    Find your Reps. and and
    Here, locate you Rep. by last name or by your home state.