Harris Eligibility Suit Docketed in Federal Court

IS KAMALA HARRIS A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Sep. 13, 2020) — A lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris to serve as vice president is now docketed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Filed by Robert C. Laity of New York State pro se, the suit names Harris as defendant and is assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the jurist presiding over the ongoing case of USA v. Michael T. Flynn.

The cover sheet, consisting of two pages and completed on August 31, indicates that Laity cited as the suit’s “Cause of Action,” “Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 & 12th Amendment, USConst. requires a President and VP to be ‘Natural Born Citizens'”.

Page 4 of the suit states that the definition of “natural born Citizen” is “born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. Citizens themselves.”

Laity noted the matter to be one of “civil rights” associated with “Voting” and did not request a jury trial.  Page 2 claims that Harris is “attempting to usurp the Vice-Presidency and/or the Presidency of the United States, by fraud, during a time when this nation is at war with other nations.”

 

The complaint can be read here:  6738187-0–17479

In addition to the “natural born Citizen” requirement, Laity wrote in the suit, “…the 12th Amendment requires that a Vice-President of the United States also be eligible to the Office of the Presidency., that he/she be also a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States of America…” (p. 2).

The 12th Amendment reads, in pertinent part:

…But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

In an email Sunday morning, Laity told The Post & Email, “I spoke with the Clerk of the Court on Friday.  I am arranging for service of the Summons and Complaint on Senator Kamala Harris, AGUS William Barr and Michael R. Sherwin, U.S. Attorney for D.C. as required by law.  They will then have (60) days to Answer the Complaint.”

Shortly after her nomination was announced by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden last month, Harris’s eligibility as a “natural born Citizen” was challenged publicly, including in at least one mainstream publication.  The question arises, wrote Chapman University Professor of Law John Eastman at Newsweek, from the fact that Harris’s parents may not have been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States when she was born in Oakland, CA on October 20, 1964 given their respective foreign citizenship at the time. Some in the media reacted by attempting to portray questions about Harris’s constitutional eligibility as a “racist birther conspiracy,” while others declared Harris unequivocally eligible.

While the Framers mandated that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen,” they did not define the term. Historical references in the Congressional Globe and at least four U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor v. Happersett cited by Laity on page 3 of the complaint, indicate that a person born in the country to parents owing no other allegiance than to the United States was “no doubt” a natural born Citizen, while as to those born within the United States to non-citizen parents, there remained uncertainty.

In January of last year, Harris announced her presidential candidacy but withdrew from the race at the end of the year, citing a lack of funds. On the September 13, 2020 edition of “Sunday Morning Futures,” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA22) claimed that Harris was Barack Hussein Obama’s choice for the Democratic presidential nominee, a preference carrying over to Biden’s nomination of her as his running mate on August 11.

Nunes further said that should Biden, who many believe has been exhibiting signs of cognitive decline, be unable to finish his first term if elected, Harris would become the next President of the United States.

Like Harris, Obama’s eligibility to serve as president was questioned beginning in 2007 when credible media reports stated that he was born in Indonesia or Kenya and not Hawaii, as he claimed. In 2012, as Obama sought reelection, Breitbart News located a 1991 promotional brochure produced by his then-literary agent stating that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

The biography, which stood unchanged for approximately 16 years, was altered in 2007, shortly after he declared himself a presidential candidate, to say that Obama was “born in Hawaii.”

There remains doubt as to Obama’s eligibility given that his claimed father was never a U.S. citizen as well as the fact that a 5+-year criminal investigation determined his “long-form” birth certificate, purportedly held by the State of Hawaii and released publicly on April 27, 2011, is a “computer-generated forgery.”

Neither Congress nor the U.S. Justice Department has addressed the claims generated from the probe, which was conducted by former police detective and private investigator Mike Zullo under the authority of the Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

According to Zullo in August 2018, citing two U.S. intelligence agents, “It’s been an open secret” in Washington, DC that Obama could never satisfy the constitutional requirement of being born on American soil.”

In April 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 511, with Obama and then-Democratic presidential contender Sen. Hillary Clinton voting in favor, stating that Republican presidential candidate John McCain was a natural born Citizen.  McCain was born outside of the United States to two U.S.-citizen parents, one of whom was an admiral in the Navy stationed in Panama.

In 2015, days after Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) announced he would seek the presidency, former Solicitors General Neal Katyal and Paul Clement published an essay in the Harvard Law Review claiming that, although born in Canada to a non-U.S. citizen father, Cruz was a “natural born Citizen” of of the United States by virtue of his mother’s American citizenship.  The year prior, Cruz renounced the Canadian citizenship bestowed upon him at birth after claiming to have been unaware of it.

Harris’s Senate office did not respond to questions from constituent Gary Wilmott nor to those posed by this publication when asked in 2017 and 2018, respectively, about her parents’ citizenship status as rumors about her plans to seek the presidency swirled world in various political circles.

Despite a number of lawsuits reaching its chambers during the last 12 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to rule on the meaning of “natural born Citizen.”  According to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in 2010, the high court was “evading the issue.”

Under “Relief Sought” on page 7, Laity wrote:

71 Responses to "Harris Eligibility Suit Docketed in Federal Court"

  1. Paul Smith   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 2:56 PM

    He has no standing with the court. That will go nowhere except in the round file.

    Reply
  2. Rob Laity   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 4:50 AM

    Harris was officially served the Summons and Complaint in this case on 09/23/2020.

    Reply
  3. Richard Johnson   Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:22 PM

    How could she renounce being a British Subject if “once a Brit, always a Brit”?

    Reply
    1. Robert Laity   Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM

      Richard, Kamala Harris IS a Citizen of the US by virtue of naturalization law. She was also born with claims to British Citizenship/Subjecthood. She is NOT then a Natural Born Citizen of the United States since that requires birth in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. Neither of her parents were that.

      Reply
    2. Rob Laity   Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 10:26 AM

      Richard, Kamala Harris IS a Citizen of the US by virtue of naturalization law. She was also born with claims to British Citizenship/Subjecthood. She is NOT then a Natural Born Citizen of the United States since that requires birth in the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. Neither of her parents were U.S. Citzens. People renounce their previous nations all the time when they naturalize as US Citizens. That renouncement does NOT ever create a status of NBC and cannot change one’s circumstances at birth. One is an NBC or one is NOT.

      Reply
      1. Richard Johnson   Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 11:22 AM

        Doesn’t “Once a Brit Always a Brit” mean it is impossible to renounce British citizenship?

        Reply
        1. Leonard A Daneman   Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 12:15 PM

          Under British law, if a foreign born child of a British subject is not registered with the British Secretary of State within one year, the child loses British subject status. This is what happened to Obama, his father neglecting/choosing not to register.
          Of course, an analysis of five purported birth documents indicate, pending official verification (which has been blocked), Obama was born in Kenya. In that case, he was a dual citizen upon reaching the age of majority.

    3. Paul Smith   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 3:14 PM

      Only with permission of the Queen.

      Reply
  4. Wenske Dieter   Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 1:46 AM

    Hello,
    I have been a silent reader here for a long time and still have to translate the topics into German via Deepl, that works quite well, I am just too stupid to learn your language or the program makes it too easy for me.

    If so, then all naturalized Americans with dual citizenship should not participate in the election, because by running for president or vice-president if elected, he or she would be able to re-declare their original citizenship and America would be lost.

    The 12th Amendment clarifies in the last sentence the requirement of who can stand as a candidate, but not the consequences of a possible dual citizenship.

    Harris would then only have a chance to become president if she (Harris) had returned her original citizenship or if she (Harris) had been removed from citizenship by her birth state because she had already accepted American citizenship.

    As the vice-president, the American citizen is in no way complained because the president has the “say”. Therefore, the lawsuit that has been filed will not be successful, and I see this as a flaw in the 12th Amendment
    But, this is only my opinion

    Reply
    1. Rob Laity   Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 10:47 AM

      Wenske, Guten Tag. Eingeburgerte Burger sind nicht berechdigt. Praesident oder Vizeprasident zu werden in den Vereinigten Staaten. Man muss ein naturlich geborener burger sein.

      Das ist einer, der in den Vereinnigten Staaten von Eltern geboren wurde, de biede Burger der Vereinigten Staaten selbst sind.

      Man kann die Umstande der geburt nicht andern.

      Ubrigens. Du bist nicht “Dumm”!

      Reply
  5. Daniel Tompkins   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 6:47 PM

    Harris has a birth certificate issued by California saying she was born in Oakland. Is there any evidence that her citizenship status ever changed?

    Reply
    1. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:39 PM

      No, she has been a Citizen of Jamaica since her birth with the Queen of Jamaica/England as her Sovereign since her birth: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-not-eligible-to-be-president-and-cinc-or-vp/ … and … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Jamaica

      CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

      Reply
      1. Lindsay Boxer   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 11:28 PM

        Reposting this hypothetical:

        Donald Trump was born in 1946, his Scottish born mother was naturalized in 1942 (mother not able to pass British citizenship to son).

        1) So born in US to two citizen parents – eligible

        But suppose (keeping everything else the same through today) that she naturalized in 1947.

        2) now born in US to one citizen and one alien and holds dual British and American citizenship – not eligible.

        But how about mother naturalized in 1942 and able to automatically pass British citizenship to son (everything else stays the same)..

        3) born in US to two citizen parents and holds dual British and American citizenship – eligible or not eligible?

        Under 3 is Trunp then eligible?

        Reply
        1. Robert Laity   Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:25 AM

          Lindsay, Naturalized citizens give up ALL allegiances to their former country upon becoming a US Citizen. Trump’s Mom after she naturalized as a US citizen did NOT have dual citizenship. She had US Citizenship. Trump WAS born IN the US to two US Citizen parents. He is incontrovertibly an NBC. Had the US been a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, like Harris’ Jamaica and India, Trump would have been born to one US Citizen and one Brit. Like Obama. Trump IS eligible. Harris and Obama NOT!

        2. Lindsay Boxer   Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 11:00 AM

          This confusing.

          On the one hand you are saying that under Jamaican law Harris is a citizen of Jamaica but on the other hand it does not matter if British law made Trump a citizen of Great Britain.

          Suppose Jamaican law said that only people born in Jamaica were citizens – then she would not have Jamaican citizenship.

        3. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 6:42 PM

          Lindsay: Stop with the hypothetical arguments nonsense and trolling in this thread. Stick to the facts. British law did NOT make Donald Trump a British Subject or British Citizen at birth. Donald Trump was born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the USA and only the USA since he was born in the USA to two U.S. citizen parents, both citizens of the USA at the time of Donald’s birth. Donald Trump was not born a dual-Citizen. Kamala Harris was born a dual-Citizen. Donald’s Scottish mother had long since renounced any foreign citizen and allegiances when she naturalized as a U.S. citizen years before Donald Trump was born. The Jamaican Constitution and Kamala having a Jamaican foreign national father made Kamala Harris a Jamaican Citizen at birth. And under the same Jamaican Constitution the Queen of Jamaica is the Queen of England. And as a citizen of Jamaican, Kamala Harris owes homage and allegiance to her sovereign Queen of Jamaica/England. https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-not-eligible-to-be-president-and-cinc-or-vp/ … and … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Jamaica Stick to the facts for Trump and Harris and stop trying to gas-light people.

          CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

    2. Rob Laity   Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 6:02 AM

      Mere birth in the USA does NOT connote or confer Natural Born Citizenship. One MUST be born IN the USA (US Jus Soli) IN ADDITION TO being born to parents who are BOTH US citizens themselves (100% US Jus Sanquinis). Harris was born with 100% BRITISH Jus Sanquinis and US Jus Soli. BOTH India (The British Raj) and British Jamaica are members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The USA is NOT. The US severed ALL TIES with Britain in 1776. ALL TIES. Harris was born with dual British/US citizenship.

      Reply
    3. Rob Laity   Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:34 AM

      Mere birth on US Soil does NOT suffice to be an NBC. One MUST also be born to parents who were both US Citizens themselves. Harris’ parents were BOTH Brits since BOTH India and Jamaica are independent members of the BRITISH commonwealth of nations. Dominions and Commonwealths of the Crown have the monarch of England as their head of State. India chose not to have the queen as head of State but IS never-the-less in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Jamaica has the queen as it’s head of State. Harris was born to two parents having allegiances to the UK. Chester Arthur and Barack Obama also had a British subject parent. It appears that the Brits may even be deliberately trying to reclaim it’s former colonies by subterfuge.

      Reply
      1. Leonard A Daneman   Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 12:40 PM

        When Article II was drafted, Alexander Hamilton suggested ‘native born citizen.’ John Jay insisted upon ‘natural born citizen.’ Why? Because ‘native born’ is only an adjective with no legal ramifications.
        Proof? A ‘natural born citizen’ can be U.S. (native) born, or foreign born. This was U.S. law (1790), and in British law going way back to 1772 (British statute).
        Another proof is the determination that foreign-born John McCain (Colon, Panama) was deemed Article II eligible by the Senate’s bi-partisan report SR511.
        The framers were big on Natural Law (Laws of Nature and Nature’s God), which was where ‘unalienable rights’ came from.
        Even going back to Feudal times, the nationality of the father took precedent over the ‘place of birth’ when determining mandated allegiance. Nationality, allegiance, was conferred by blood, jus sanguinis. So, while a child of a ‘native’ subject had allegiance mandated, a ‘sojourner’ whose child was born within a foreign king’s dominion reserved the option and right to the father’s national allegiance.
        The allegiance and nationality of the child strictly followed the father for over a century, even when the Civil Rights Act (1866) and 14th Amendment (1869) guaranteed U.S. citizenship if the child was born on U.S. soil–both laws sharing a caveat from the 1866 statute that U.S. citizenship was not conferred if the father ‘was subject to any foreign power’ (rephrased as ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ in 1869).
        The ‘native born’ birthright citizenship we assume today began in 1898, created unconstitutionally (my opinion) by the U.S. Supreme Court to bypass existing statute and treaty to create citizenship ‘at birth’ for a 22-year old Chinese cook named Wong Kim Ark.
        Citizenship at Birth, conferred solely by a U.S. citizen mother, did not exist until revisions to the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952.
        In fact, if not for this revision, Ted Cruz would not have ‘citizenship at birth,’ which even a legal scholars, like Ted Cruz and Mark Levin, assume gave him Article II eligibility–it did not.

        Reply
    4. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 4:00 PM

      Harris could have had a birth certificate issued by the state of California and blessed by the pope himself; it does not matter. Harris, who was – in my opinion – issued a US birth certificate in accordance with the ill-interpreted idea that the 14th Amendment made her a US citizen, is then only a statutory (per positive man-made laws) US citizen.

      A statutory US citizen can never be a natural born (US) Citizen (NBC) because an NBC is a US citizen in accordance with the law of nature – born in the country (USA) to two USA citizen parents.

      Congress cannot make anyone a natural born Citizen; that is why you will not find that phrase (natural born Citizen) in any active US law. The only place that you will find “natural born Citizen” phrase is in the active US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

      Stop with the designer natural born Citizen scenarios, already.

      Start reading articles here to gain knowledge on who is and who is not a natural born Citizen: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

      And, here: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

      Reply
  6. Jeffrey Harrison   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 4:52 PM

    Sandy Taylor, thanks for your outstanding post and it got me wondering. Others, chime in.
    It got me thinking, as I recall, Harris spent some time as a youth in Canada. What relevance
    is there here? What was her citizen status after birth in USA? What kind of birth certificate do foreigner receive?

    Reply
    1. Lindsay Boxer   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 7:08 PM

      You can get a copy of her California birth certificate by contacting the state registrar. Ask for an informational copy, not a certified copy. Both the same but one is stamped.

      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/w2w/california.htm

      Reply
      1. Rob Laity   Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:55 AM

        A mere BC will NOT help Harris. Her Parents were NOT US Citizens when she was born. Harris is an anchor baby.

        Reply
      2. James Carter   Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 9:42 AM

        Both are not the same.

        California Department of Public Health website:

        “If you cannot obtain an authorized copy under California law, you can obtain an informational copy. An informational copy contains the same information as an authorized copy, but will have a legend across the face with the statement “Informational, Not a Valid Document to Establish Identity.” Certain items may be redacted and an informational copy may not be used to obtain identification. However, authorized and informational copies are both considered ‘certified copies.’ ”

        Why do you so often equate things which are in fact not equal…like “citizen”, “subject” and “natural born Citizen”?

        Reply
        1. Lindsay Boxer   Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 11:40 AM

          Reposting to add link:
          “Both are not the same”

          Informational copies are identical to authorized copies. Here are several examples,

          https://imagez.tmz.com/image/58/o/2006/07/10/58bc80a1eb78518bb263eaa8eac8ed57_md.jpg

          https://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/galleries/Hunter_Edwards_080609/images/Hunter_Edwards_021.jpg

          Here is a cropped version of Harris’,

          https://pressreality.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/kamala_white-1200×768.png

          Her certificate is amended (I suspect to correct the spelling of her middle name).

          You should get both pages of her certificate if you request an informational copy. I did when I requested one for a distant relative.

          “Why do you so often equate things which are in fact not equal…like “citizen”, “subject” and “natural born Citizen”?”

          In re Lockwood, Chief Justice Fuller said about the Minor case,

          ” …women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution as since”

          And Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark said this,

          “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States”

          Both referred to her as only a “citizen of the United States” but clearly she is also a natural born citizen.

          Referring to someone as a citizen of the United States does not tell us what type of citizen they are (natural born or naturalized).

          Referring to Wong Kim Ark as a citizen of the United States does not tell us what type of citizen he was but Chief Justice Fuller considered him eligible to be president.

          re Lockwood:
          https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/116/

  7. Sandra Taylor   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:52 AM

    Harris is NOT a natural born citizen, since her parents were both foreign nationals, not citizens, when Kamala was born in Oakland, CA. They had not lived in the U.S. long enough to have become citizens prior to her birth. It takes a minimum of 5 years legal residence to be eligible for naturalization. Obama could have been born in the White House and he still wouldn’t be a natural born citizen, simply because his Kenyan, British subject father was not a US citizen.
    As for Pres. Trump, his parents (Fred was born in NY and MaryAnne was born in Scotland) met in 1930, married in 1936 and she became a naturalized citizen in 1942. Donald was their 4th child, born in NY in 1946, so he was born on U.S. soil AND to two citizen parents. He is a natural born citizen. However, four of his five children are not natural born citizens. All five were born in NY, but Don, Jr., Ivanka and Eric were all born before their mother, Ivana, became a naturalized citizen and Barron was born the same year as, but about three months before Melania became a naturalized citizen. Only Tiffany, his daughter with Marla Maples, was born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents.
    I was taught what a natural born citizen is in high school in the 1950’s, before Obama was born, and confirmed in college.

    Reply
    1. Daniel Tompkins   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM

      Do you remember which textbooks you used in high school and college with this definition?

      Reply
      1. Robert C Laity   Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:53 AM

        The definition is found in the several US Supreme Court opinions that were decided prior to 1950 such as The Venus;Minor v.Happersett,Shanks v Dupont and Wong Kim Ark. It was long established law in 1950.

        Reply
        1. Daniel Tompkins   Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 1:10 PM

          Was Sandra Taylor taught using those cases, or was she taught with textbooks? Are US Supreme Court cases read in high schools?

  8. Robert C Laity   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:13 AM

    Yes. If I can show Bias on the part of the Judge.

    Reply
    1. Daniel Tompkins   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 2:02 PM

      What evidence can you present to Sullivan that shows that he is biased against you?

      Reply
      1. Robert C Laity   Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 5:48 AM

        He may have to recuse himself based on his connection with the Obama “administration” and other issues that would have a bearing on the fair and impartial disposition of the case. It is too early in the process to go there now.

        Reply
        1. Daniel Tompkins   Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM

          What connection does Sullivan have to Obama’s administration? What are these other issues?

          Wouldn’t it be better to get a new judge sooner rather than later?

  9. Jeffrey Harrison   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:47 PM

    Sharon, thanks for posting this article. CDR Kerchner, thanks for all your work and efforts.
    Robert Larity, also, I thank you for previous efforts and I wish you success on your court case.

    This to me is a great article and I will make some copies and sent it to my elected officials and
    other for awareness, support, and action. Godspeed.

    Reply
  10. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 2:14 PM

    The Queen of England is also the Queen of Jamaica. So Queen Elizabeth II of England is Kamala Harris’ sovereign. She owes allegiance at birth to the Queen of England/Jamaica. The founders and framers kicked out any allegiance to the Kings and Queens of England in 1776 via our Declaration of Independence and the formation of a more perfect union and Constitutional Republic in 1787. They would be absolutely astounded and shocked that a person holding allegiance to the Queen of England/Jamaica would be allowed to be VP of the United States and thus via the back door a possible Commander in Chief of our military. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Jamaica

    Kamala Harris is a Citizen of Jamaica at Birth and as such she “owes homage” and allegiance because of her Jamaican citizenship at birth to the Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of England. Again see and read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Jamaica … and … https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/08/14/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-jamaican-citizen-at-birth/ Gaining possible U.S. citizenship at birth does not dissolve or remove her Jamaican citizenship at birth. She was born a dual-Citizen with divided allegiance at birth. Such a person born with foreign influence and allegiance per the founders and framers was not to be allowed to become Commander in Chief of our military, via the front door or the back door as VP.

    Reply
    1. Daniel Tompkins   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 4:01 PM

      Isn’t the same true for President Trump?

      https://cosmopolismigration.com/2016/12/17/donald-trump-is-a-british-citizen

      Reply
      1. Lindsay Boxer   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:09 PM

        “If British nationality had been transmissible by descent from a UK-born mother, he would be a British citizen today.”

        As I read that Cosmo article – British law can determine who is eligible to be President of the United States.

        Reply
        1. Robert C Laity   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:49 AM

          US law determines who can be President. Persons who are British subjects under British Law are not eligible to be President or VP under US Law. There are certain places that were once under the jurisdiction of the British Empire that the British Nationality Act authorizes a claim to British Citizenship. Those born in such places can claim British Citizenship. The British Commonwealth is expansive. Canada is an independent member of the Commonwealth. It has a representative to the queen. It has a prime minister. It has the queen as it’s head of State, as does Jamaica. India is also in the Commonwealth. The US is NOT. However, those born in Hawaii have a claim under UK law to be a British Citizen/subject (That’s what people are nowadays in the UK., citizen/subjects). Obama has claim to being a Brit. His claim of being born in Hawaii,especially to a British Father gives him that legal standing. If those are the circumstances of his birth as he claims (no one really know since his BC is a forgery) then he was born a dual US citizen/British citizen/subject. Under US Law he is also a dual citizen and NOT a Natural Born US Citizen.

        2. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 10:01 AM

          Until you accept the fact that there are fundamentally only two types of US citizens, natural born and statutory (by law), your delusional debate issues are non-factors in your wide, wide world of natural born Citizen designer development.

          Mark this date on your calendar: July 4, 1776.

          The below weblink, and many contained within, will help you discriminate a natural born (US) Citizen from a statutory US citizen.
          http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

        3. Daniel Tompkins   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 2:05 PM

          How can those born in Hawaii be British citizens?

        4. Lindsay Boxer   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 4:52 PM

          “Persons who are British subjects under British Law are not eligible to be President or VP under US Law.”

          This is becoming very technical.

          Donald Trump was born in 1946, his Scottish born mother was naturalized in 1942 (mother not able to pass British citizenship to son).

          So born in US to two citizen parents – eligible

          But suppose (keeping everything else the same through today) that she naturalized in 1947.

          Now born in US to one citizen and one alien and holds dual British and American citizenship – not eligible.

          But how about mother naturalized in 1942 and able to automatically pass British citizenship to son (everything else stays the same)..

          Born in US to two citizen parents and holds dual British and American citizenship – eligible or not eligible?

          BTW, Trump said this about his mother:

          “Her loyalty to Scotland was incredible. She respected and loved the Queen.”

      2. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:18 PM

        If you read any of my links you would know that is not true and their birth status is not similar at all. Donald Trump was not born a Citizen of Scotland or the UK. Kamala Harris was born a Citizen of Jamaica at birth. Daniel, you probably know the difference. Donald Trump was born with citizenship and allegiance to one and only one country, the USA, since he was born in the USA to two U.S. Citizen parents. Kamala Harris was born a citizen and has allegiance at birth to two countries. Of course if her 14th Amendment U.S. Citizenship is challenged since her parents were not under the political jurisdiction or permanent residents of the USA when she was born, then she was only born a Citizen and allegiance to Jamaica, and would not be a Citizen at all in the USA. IMO, you just want to play/troll disinformation into the thread here. I guess you are resident gas-lighter here for now. See my webpages for more: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org … and … http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

        Reply
        1. Robert Christopher Laity   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:36 AM

          Cmdr., Permanent Residents are NOT citizens of the US unless they Naturalize. The two are not mutually inclusive. Harris’ parents were both unnaturalized permanent residents when Harris was born. They however, were NOT able to confer NBC US citizenship on their daughter since they themselves were not citizens of the US.

      3. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:26 PM

        As far as I know, England never had any citizens in their country or in its empire, only subjects.

        Reply
        1. Lindsay Boxer   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:46 AM

          It seems a little confusing:

          https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject

      4. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:42 PM

        The same is not true for Donald Trump. He was not born a Citizen of any foreign country at birth as Kamala Harris was. Kamala Harris was a Citizen of Jamaica at and by birth via her Jamaican citizen and foreign national father: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/08/14/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-jamaican-citizen-at-birth/

        Reply
        1. Daniel Tompkins   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 9:02 PM

          If someone has the ability to obtain another country’s citizenship, doesn’t that mean that person’s alliance to the United States is questionable?

        2. Lindsay Boxer   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:40 AM

          This line from the article seems important,

          “If British nationality had been transmissible by descent from a UK-born mother, he would be a British citizen today.”

          English law at the time only allowed the father to pass on citizenship, today the mother can too.

          If English law had been slightly different – Trump would have been a British citizen at birth.

          Wouldn’t that have made him ineligible?

          And doesn’t that mean that English law can determine who can be President?

        3. Robert Christopher Laity   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:30 AM

          Both of Trump’s parents were U.S. Citizens when President Trump was born in the U.S. Trump IS a Natural Born Citizen.

          British law has absolutely NO pertinence or applicability to the United States.

          ALL ties to Britain were SEVERED in 1776 when the United States of America was established. British legal precedents and interpretations must be TOTALLY disregarded as immaterial and irrelevant to American Jurisprudence. It is frequently given undue import to determine what our sovereign laws are.

          That is malfeasant since British Law does NOT control in the US. We are neither a dominion or are we a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations like India and Jamaica are.

        4. Lindsay Boxer   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 10:21 AM

          What the article is saying that Trump could have been born to two US citizen parents and still have been born with dual citizenship (American and British).

          That being the case, would he still be eligible to be President?

      5. Sandra Taylor   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 10:03 AM

        Pres. Trump’s father was born a citizen and his mother was born in Scotland. She became a naturalized citizen four years before Donald was born in NY, so he was born on U.S. soil to parents who were both U.S. citizens. He IS a natural born citizen.
        Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, Ca in 1964. Her mother came here from India in 1960 and her Jamaican father came here in 1961. It takes a minimum of 5 years legal residence to be eligible for naturalization and they had not lived here long enough to have become citizens prior to Kamala’s birth. They were still foreign nationals when she was born. Her only claim to citizenship is the 14th Amendment, which does not and cannot make anyone a natural born citizen. Parents may be immigrants, but they must have already become U.S. citizens, prior to the birth of their child(ren) on U.S. soil, for them to be natural born citizens.

        Reply
    2. Rob Laity   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:57 AM

      India,formerly known as the “British Raj” is still currently an independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Kamala Harris was born to two British Parents in the US. Harris has 100% British Jus Sanquinis and US Jus soli. Unless she was alive during the American Revolution and supported it’s cause AGAINST Britain she is not one of those persons grandfathered in by Article II. She is also NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the US.

      Reply
      1. Daniel Tompkins   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 2:12 PM

        How can Harris be British by blood on her father’s side if India became a republic before she was born? Is everyone born in a commonwealth country also a British citizen?

        Reply
        1. Paul Smith   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 3:07 PM

          Everyone born of a UK subject in any country of the World, whether or not a commonwealth nation, is a subject of the Crown, a UK subject.

  11. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 12:52 PM

    U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen” of USA – NOT Eligible to be VP, or President and Commander in Chief: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-not-eligible-to-be-president-and-cinc-or-vp/ … and … http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/Kamala-Harris-Jamaican-Citizen-at-Birth.pdf

    CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

    Reply
  12. Millie   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 10:49 AM

    Thank you for doing this, Robert Larity.

    Reply
    1. Robert Laity   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:15 AM

      I have to give it the old college try.

      Reply
  13. James Carter   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 9:07 AM

    BRAVO and THANK YOU Robert C. Laity.

    There are 14 District Judges serving on the U.S. District Court for the District Court of D.C. I assume new cases are assigned to them in rotating order, which leaves me to wonder what the odds are that President Trump hating lefty Judge Sullivan was next in line to get this case as well as General Flynn’s.

    Any chance of having the case assigned to a different judge?

    Reply
    1. Lindsay Boxer   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 10:06 AM

      Rotating or random?

      Reply
      1. James Carter   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 1:11 PM

        or intentional?

        Reply
    2. Daniel Tompkins   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 1:41 PM

      If there are 14 judges, then the odds are 1 in 14. So around seven percent.

      Can you file a motion or something for a different judge?

      Reply
  14. Rob Laity   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 1:04 AM

    Joseph Biden was a phony VP to a phony President. Now Biden, on usurper Obama’s say so, has named another ineligible candidate to be his phony VP. This is corruption on the highest scale. I believe that the Democratic Party is a treasonous Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization. Stay tuned for further developments in this case.

    Reply
  15. Robert C Laity   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 1:02 AM

    Joseph Biden was a phony VP to a phony President. Now Biden, on usurper Obama’s say so, has named another ineligible candidate to be his phony VP. This is corruption on the highest scale. Is the Democratic Party a treasonous Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization? We’ll find out. Stay tuned for further developments in this case.

    Reply
  16. Daniel Tompkins   Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 10:43 PM

    60 days seems like a long time. The election is around 50 days away.

    Reply
    1. Lindsay Boxer   Monday, September 14, 2020 at 10:09 AM

      That’s right. Probably nothing will happen until after the election.

      If Trump wins, the case is moot.

      If Biden/Harris wins, maybe then Sullivan will act in some way. Dismissing for lack of standing, or for not being an interested party?

      Reply
      1. Robert Laity   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:05 AM

        The case goes on even if Trump wins. It would still be a matter of attempted fraudulent usurpation of the Presidency, in time of war, on the part of Harris, that the courts, civil and military, would have to resolve. If Harris and Biden wins it could not be “evaded” as Clarence Thomas asserted, any longer. It has been going on for the last twelve years. As for standing, I am a relator acting in the name of the United States government. I HAVE standing.

        Reply
      2. Sandra Taylor   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 10:24 AM

        I don’t believe the case is moot at all, no matter who wins. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal were also ineligible in 2016. None of the three of them is a natural born citizen and even though they didn’t win the nomination, they are young men and may try again in the future. As a lifelong, conservative Republican who believes in the Constitution, the Constitution is more important than any political party or candidate. It must be adhered to, or we will lose its protections against having foreign influence in the presidency. As much as I love the Trump family, even four of his five children are not “natural born citizens” and I would not support their candidacy in the future.
        Obama wasn’t eligible, Kamala is not eligible. Anyone else who does not have all three elements of a natural born citizen, place of birth and citizenship of both parents, should not be allowed to run. If we allow one of “ours” to usurp the presidency, how do we challenge the next “Obama”?

        Reply
    2. Robert C Laity   Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:11 AM

      Trump will be President until January,20,2021 and until January 20,2025 if re-elected. A preliminary injunction would stop an elected Harris from entering the Office of VP.

      Reply
      1. Paul Smith   Friday, September 25, 2020 at 2:58 PM

        Would that make Pelosi VEEP (defacto POTUS)?

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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