OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.  -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.  -- Mahatma Gandhi

Here is an interesting thread as to why we follow Vattel theory of natural born citizen and not British “Common Law” theory of “Natural born subject” of the crown

Posted on | November 29, 2010 | No Comments

Have a chuckle at Politijab
InboxX

 Reply |Michael to Mario, Charles, me
show details 11:20 PM (6 hours ago)

To join-in the forum you will need to register, but I think you can read it as a guest.
 
https://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=4898&p=189071#p189071
 
gentrfam wrote:English Common Law (See The English Common Law (Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati. 1 – Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I [1600])
states that to be an English ‘natural born subject’, the father must FIRST be an English ‘natural subject’ and is considered a ‘subject’ (albeit the alien born)
Wrong.

Do you want to actually see Calvin’s Case before you point people there?

1. An alien in England, even temporarily, owes the King allegiance, and is, therefore, within the legiance of the King:
—————————————————————

And is therefore a ‘natural subject’ if in amity.
a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject;
And is furthermore if he had a child in the sovereign’s dominion, then the child would be a ‘natural born subject’
for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia)
 
———————————————————————-
gentrfam wrote:The third is ligeantia localis wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.
2. The local allegiance owed by a foreigner in the country temporarily is enough to make a natural subject if that foreigner has kids:
——————————————————————————

It’s not IF he had kids that the alien born would be a ‘natural subject, but rather because he is a ‘natural subject’, his kids would be ‘natural born subjects’.
———————————————————————————
gentrfam wrote:Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.
You know, MichaelN, it’s not like no one has ever looked at Calvin’s Case in the 410 years since it has been written. Dozens,
———————————————————————————————

Yeah, I know.
—————————————————————————————-
gentrfam wrote: if not hundreds of judges and scholars have written about it. Why is it that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM got it wrong, only to be corrected by you?
————————————————————————————————-
I dunno ………….. maybe they had a monopoly on the law libraries and thought they could get away with the deception ………….. or they just didn’t read it properly.

Btw, are you aware of what a logical fallacy is, yes?

Hint: hundreds of people thought the earth was flat.
————————————————————————————————
gentrfam wrote:I mean, we could take the word of MichaelN and his infinite wisdom, or William Blackstone: “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

Blackstone has been quoted by our Supreme Court hundreds of times. How many times has MichaelN been quoted?
———————————————————————————–
I don’t think I differ with Blackstone per the quote you post, Blackstone was generalizing with his ‘generally speaking’, you wanna know how this is so?

Well here’s an example of an alien whose child, if born in the land is not a ‘natural born subject’.
And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies [ my comment – aka a form of alien] should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.
———————————————————————————————————-
gentrfam wrote:MichaelN wrote:Problem is, US doesn’t automate citizenship of aliens as did the English its subjects.
England didn’t automate citizenship, either.
—————————————————————————————————–

Well not ‘citizens’ but they did ‘subjects’ ………… you only just said they did with the quotes you posted (above)

You haven’t been smokin’ some of that silly stuff have you?
——————————————————————————————-
gentrfam wrote:Aliens in the country owed a temporary allegiance to the King, but they were still aliens. They couldn’t own land, etc. They weren’t subjects, or denizens, but aliens who owed a temporary allegiance to the King.

———————————————————————————————
Correction, they were alien born, then, if visiting in amity, they were ‘natural subjects’ & ONLY then their kids were ‘natural born subjects’, IF born in the dominion of the sovereign.
————————————————————————————————————–
gentrfam wrote:Are illegal immigrants allowed to disobey our laws? Are they allowed to plot against the government? No? Then they owe our government the same temporary allegiance that the alien owed the King in England. That’s what WKA decided. That was confirmed in Plyer v. Doe.
————————————————————————————————————-
They may well owe a temporary allegiance to the sovereign state, but the problem is that US (unlike England) doesn’t FIRST deem these aliens (legal or illegal) as ‘citizens’ so their kids might be ‘natural born’ as the English do & if they were illegal aliens then they were not in amity either, because they committed crime against the state.

For a US ‘natural born Citizen’ to come anywhere near the equivalent to an English ‘natural born subject’ and within the definition per Common Law, then the father of the child born in US, must FIRST be a ‘citizen’, but because US doesn’t automatically give US citizenship to ANY legal or illegal alien, then the child of such an alien cannot be a ‘natural born’.

English ‘natural born subjects’ are those who are born of a ‘natural subject’ (under the principle of jus sanguinis) AND in the dominion of the sovereign (under the principle of jus soli)

The only ‘natural subjects’ that the US has, are called ‘citizens of the United States’, acquired by either born in the land or naturalized under due process of law.

It follows, and in keeping with this criterion in Common Law, that to be ‘natural born’ in US, one must be born of a US ‘natural subject Citizen’, i.e. one that is deemed or formally accepted in amity, by due process of law, as a US ‘citizen’

Basically the primary requirement is jus sanguinis, i.e. born under the allegiance & obedience of the subject citizen father.
And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born
Are you suggesting that US must follow English practice and give US citizenship to every legal or illegal visitor?

Weird!

Category: HOT ITEMS!, Legal Actions, Letters from Readers and Patriots, Letters/Feedback from Readers, Supporting Documentation

Comments

Leave a Reply