Day 3 of Arpaio contempt hearing
Arpaio critics have known for some time that Sheriff Joe Arpaio was involved with a Seattle con man named Dennis Montgomery. He sent two deputies plus Mike Zullo to Washington State to meet Montgomery, reports of payments in excess of $100,000 plus $50,000 in computer equipment have appeared, and there was also a meeting between Arpaio and a Montgomery associate in Phoenix. Phoenix New Times reporter Stephen Lemons spilled the beans from a confidential source early last June.I also believe that the "universe-shattering" reveal from Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse was also based on the Montgomery information, explaining why it was very suddenly hushed up when Montgomery's identity and past history became public.
Despite third-party denials, Sheriff Arpaio admitted in court today that he did indeed pay Montgomery for information on Judge Snow, and that he had paid a private investigator to dig up information on the judge's wife. Phoenix New Times article in hand, Judge Snow grilled Arpaio about all of this. This comes on the heels of a negative barrage of publicity in the local news media.
By way of explanation of why he deliberately ordered staff not to implement the court's orders, Arpaio said that it "slipped through the cracks."
Read more at KPHO:
- Arpaio admits to hiring private agents to investigate judge's wife
- 'Meeker' Arpaio testifies a 2nd day in racial-profiling case
- Arpaio shifts blame over disobeying court order
- Arpaio attorney quits; top deputy turns on boss
- Sheriff Joe Arpaio in court over profiling case
- AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces contempt hearing in profiling case
Read more at the Phoenix New Times:
Logging you in...
ringwind -24p · 520 weeks ago
point3r 87p · 520 weeks ago
It's all over except for the wailing and the gnashing of teeth across all of greater Birthistan.
ramboike 101p · 520 weeks ago
Nothing is conclusive on Obama's birth issues except to say it's not over. Aaron Klein's experts, Dr Con, and myself are in agreement; there's more to go.
deleted8470268 143p · 520 weeks ago
ThePunchmaster 63p · 519 weeks ago
realitycheck1776 77p · 519 weeks ago
Yes, Ike "it" is over There are no pending court cases. There is no action in Congress on eligibility. The CCP investigation is done and they themselves are the target of an investigation. President Obama is cruising through the last quarter of his term still making jokes at the expense of the Birthers.
We are not laughing with you Ike. We are laughing at you.
ramboike 101p · 519 weeks ago
You Obots are a strange lot. You worry about a $10,000 gift to Zullo and never mention the $10s of millions the Obama & their entourage spend jet-setting all over the world at taxpayers expense.
realitycheck1776 77p · 519 weeks ago
Nothing Obama has done is unusual or unethical. Every president travels as part of the job. Zullo taking $10,000 was unethical if not illegal.
A bit of advice: Seek help for your terminal case of ODS.
realitycheck1776 77p · 517 weeks ago
Here's your problem: "I will take the word of a French attorney on the translation of Vattel's 18 th century French ..."
Lupin admitted at Birther Report the translation is beyond him.
You probably should leave WFP. You've been wrong with your facts, besides cut & running from questions.
Let's see if Ike was truthful:
I challenged him to link Lupin's actual comment. As I suspected Ike was lying his ass off:
Lupin actually said this:
Look, if you wish to argue that your founders and scholars misunderstood what Vattel had written, and proceeded on that basis, I have no problem with that argument. But then please stop saying "Vattel said" or "Vattel wrote" when you refer to him.
As for "parens" you are incorrect: it has ALWAYS meant "relatives", of which father and mother are of course the most relevant subset. Vattel used that word to establish the notion that citizenship was transmitted by blood -- in effect ALL relatives had potentially the power to do so. We have precedents in the early 1800s when many men were killed during the Napoleonic Wars of children getting their citizenship from their father's brother (uncle) as opposed to their mothers, for example.
Lupin did not say he could not translate Vattel. In fact he said the opposite. Ike you are a liar. He said he could not speak to the misuse and mistranslation of Vattel by others. This is why I never trust a Birther when they provide a paraphrase of a quote without a link. More often than not the words are taken out of context or in this case they outright lie about what was said.
drconspiracy 111p · 516 weeks ago
Vice-chancellor Sandford, Lynch v Clarke, NY (1844):
"The policy and legislation of the American Colonies, from their earliest times until the Revolution, was adapted to foster immigration, and to bestow upon foreigners all the rights of natural born subjects. And this policy continued unchanged in the thirteen original states, while they were united by the Articles of Confederation. The uniform course was, to extend, not to abridge, the right of citizenship. The common law by which all persons born in the king's allegiance, became subjects, whatever were the situation of their parents, because the law of the colonies, and so continued, while they ere connected with the crown of Great Britain.
"It was this the law of each and all of the states at the Declaration of Independence, and so remained until the National Constitution went into effect, that a child born within their territory and legeance respectively, though of alien parents, who were abiding temporarily, thereby became a citizen of the state of which he was a native.
"The Constitution of the United States, as well as those of all the thirteen old states, pre-supposed the existence of the common law, and was founded upon its principles, so far as they are applicable to our situation and form of government. And to a limited extend, the principles of the common prevail in the United States, as a system of national jurisprudence.
"The subject of alienage under the national compact, became a national subject, which must be controlled by a principle co-extensive with the United States. And as there is no constitutional or congressional provision declaring citizenship by birth, it must be regulated by some rule of national law; and from the necessity of the case, that rule must have been co-eval with the existence of the Union.
"The law on this subject which prevailed in all the states, because the covering principle or common law of the United States, when the union of the states was consummated, and their separate legislation on the point was terminated. It is, therefore, the law of the United States, that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents."
So Ike, you still haven't read Lynch v. Clarke, have you?
realitycheck1776 77p · 516 weeks ago
The 1920 Nineteenth Amendment, the women's suffrage amendment, gave ALL women the right to vote, but it was not until the 1922 Cable Act that a wife was given the political right to retain her citizenship independent of her husband.
If the wife retained her alien citizenship after marriage to a U.S. citizen husband, the child had dual U.S./foreign citizenship and did not have POTUS eligibility.
If the wife acquired U.S. citizenship after marriage to her U.S. citizen husband before the child was born, the child had singular U.S. citizenship and POTUS eligibility.
Vattel never dealt with the singular U.S. citizenship vs. dual U.S./foreign citizenship issue, and neither did the framers of Article II section 1 clause 5. The framers did not debate the meaning of "natural born Citizen" because the obviously understood it to mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship acquired by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents. Married? In 1787 America? Definitely.
As both Cheryl Suber and (CDR) cfkerchner have clarified in their own ways, the tacit implication is that BOTH parents, AFTER September 17, 1787 when "nbC" was adopted, and AFTER the 1922 Cable Act, BOTH parents MUST be U.S. citizens married ONLY to each other so that their U.S. born child would have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and allegiance and thus POTUS eligibility.
I like "tacit implication" that both parent have to be US citizens. That is code for "I have no proof".
I was wondering how these idiots would handle the situation of a same sex marriage where one of the female partners gives birth through artificial insemination. The child would be a citizen at birth and have two citizen parents so would be eligible. I am sure they would figure out a way to figure the Founding Fathers had a tacit implication that the sperm had to come from one of the parents.
For Ike...
Now that I reread Ajtelles comment I think Lupin was just politely telling him he didn't want to get into a discussion with someone who obviously had no clue. Lupin sounds like a real gentleman and appears to avoid these endless and pointless discussions. That's my opinion of the comment of course.
Lupin · 516 weeks ago
I was responding to someone who claimed that what mattered was NOT what Vattel actually wrote, but what was understood of his writings in America.
Clearly, if Vattel was either mistranslated or merely misunderstood by Americans, this is beyond my brief. I can only attest as to the meaning of what he actually wrote & meant; not to that others might have thought (erroneously) that he said.
ramboike 101p · 516 weeks ago
English translation of Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Do you agree with that translation?
Lupin · 516 weeks ago
1) It is utterly preposterous for a bunch of non-French speaking, non-French lawyers to argue about the meaning of a french legal text from the late 1700s with a French lawyer.
2) Assuming that I was one of those eccentric or maverick scholars defending a rather odd interpretation, it would be easy to prove me wrong: after all, this is classic legal stuff with hundreds of years of scholarship and jurisprudence.
So either google enough research online on the topic or even better email a Constitutional Law professor at the Sorbonne or any other French University and ask him the same questions, e,g.: did Vattel required that both be parents be citizens etc etc, or did Vattel distinguish three classes of citizenship instead of two, to name but two of the most basic questions.
I am totally confident that any other french legal scholar will give exactly the same answers that I have been providing.
Now, Rambo Ike et al, you may argue that Vattel was MISUNDERSTOOD by your founders and that they acted in a way contrary to what he wrote; I have no problem with that.
You may also, like J B Williams, argue that because Obama's father as not a US citizen, under a strict Vattelian interpretation, in the 1800s, Obama would not have been deemed a US citizen at all (but only a British one), until he applied for US citizenship at the age of his majority. That is indeed how things would have stood in 1800 France. Whether or not this is applicable to the US in 2000+, I doubt, but that is a correct Vattelian interpretation, and i have no problem with that.
But the rest of what you claim is simply and totally erroneous.
Lupin · 516 weeks ago
After JB Williams, it is now Sharon Rondeau who has just switched to the "father only" notion.
Apuzzo seems to be retreating from it (sort of); so that would leave the so-called Commander Kerchner as its loudest proponent.
puzo1 36p · 516 weeks ago
I am absolutely amazed that someone with all your years of study could make such a mixed up salad out of all this. The word “parens” can have an ambiguous meaning in French when standing alone, with its meaning possibly being parents, relatives, blood relatives, etc. But when the word is read in context, the meaning becomes clear. In Section 212, Emer de Vattel used “parens,” and within the context of that section there is no doubt that he meant parents. He clearly says born to “parens.” Children are born to their father and mother, not to some undefined relatives. One would have to have some wild imagination to think that Vattel meant to say born to uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. Even in Section 212 itself, Vattel in French wrote: "Parens Citoyens," followed by "Pe'res," "Pe'res," and "pe're Citoyen." So what followed "parens" was "pe'res" and pe're." "Parens" meant parents and "pe'res" and "pe're" meant fathers and father. So fathers and father related to parents and of course is one of the parents. If "parens" meant relatives, Vattel would not have focused on the father as he did. Vattel's structure also follows from the idea that parents got their citizenship from the husband (father of the children). Hence, Vattel explained how the parents of the child got their citizenship and that was from the father. Your statement is utter bunk given the context of Vattel's entire treatise in which he makes numerous references to the father and mother and never to any extended family or relatives. Every English translation since 1759-60 to the present has translated “parens” to parents. Finally, every U.S. Supreme Court that has cited and quoted Vattel's Section 212, starting with Chief Justice John Marshall In The Venus (1814), has accepted that "parens" meant "parents." So, your argument that within the context of Section 212, “parens” means relatives is absurd.
Regarding whether one or two citizen parents are needed, clearly it is two. When defining a natural born citizen, Vattel said In Section 212: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” That is his definition of natives, which he calls natural born citizens. In that definition he used "parens" (parents) followed in his explanation of that definition by "pe'res" and "pe're" (fathers and father). Vattel did not say born to a father or fathers. If Vattel meant that only a father citizen was sufficient, he would have written: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of fathers who are citizens.” After all, he used that exact word in the explanation of the definition. Since he used "parents" and later "fathers" in the same paragraph, there is no doubt that Vattel when he said "parents" was referring to both the father and mother and that they had to both be citizens at the time of the child's birth in the country of which they were citizens in order for their child to be a natural born citizen.
Vattel’s reference to fathers and father was only to show how the parents became citizens themselves, with their citizenship and allegiance following that of the husband (father of the child). He later focused on the father because parents obtained their citizenship through the father. The father was only the means by which parents obtained their citizenship. The end result was still that the child needed both a father and mother who were both citizens. And under jus sanguinis, it was only by being born to two citizen parents that the child inherited his or her common citizenship from both of them and not some other foreign citizenship from one of them. Put all together, a child born in the country to parents who were both its citizens inherited from his or her parents one and only one citizenship and allegiance and acquired only one citizenship and allegiance from the country in which born. Born under such circumstances, the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance and not subject to any foreign power. Hence, unitary citizenship and allegiance required not only birth in the country, but also birth to two citizen parents.
So, Lupin you are wrong on both your translation of “parens” within the context of Section 212 and on your position that one citizen parent is sufficient to make one a natural born citizen. When Vattel wrote “parens” in Section 212, he meant parents and when he wrote parents, he meant two citizen parents, not one.
nancyrowens 83p · 516 weeks ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSRbfL507Eg
Prestidigitation · 516 weeks ago
But Apuzzo's contortions of section 212 are just as pathetic as his dogged refusal to use the correct section of Vattel's treatise.
In other words, Apuzzo wins again. But only in his own little mind.
Sad. But then that's a description of Apuzzo and his legal craptice.
puzo1 36p · 516 weeks ago
You argue that the Framers did not use Vattel’s Section 212 to define a natural born citizen, but rather Section 214. Vattel in Section 214 of The Law of Nations states: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstances of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” The Framers were well aware of what constituted naturalization and Section 214 of Vattel's The Law of Nations. Vattel spelled it out clearly. In England, a child born in the country to alien parents was naturalized at birth to be a natural born subject. See Calvin's Case (1608) (Lord Coke naturalized Calvin at birth to be an English natural born subject). The Framers and early Congress did not adopt that colonial English common law rule on the national level. Rather, they adopted the law of nations rule which was incorporated into American national common law. That uniform rule provided that a child born in the country to alien parents was an alien and became a citizen of the United States either upon the naturalization of the parents if done during the child's years of minority and when he/she shall be dwelling in the United States, or if not done during those minority years, then upon the child-turn-adult's personal naturalization petition during adult years.
So, with their argument, the Obots have the Framers relying upon the wrong law for their definition of a natural born citizen. They did not rely upon the English common law. Rather, they relied upon American national common law and that common law defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a county to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) (adopting Vattel's Section 212 definition of the clause, so defined a natural born citizen); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (distinguished a natural born citizen from a citizen of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment).
Sue · 516 weeks ago
So are you saying that a child had to be born to 2 alien parents to be considered an alien?
puzo1 36p · 516 weeks ago
The Cable Act of 1922 broke the wife from the husband's citizenship. Thereafter, an alien wife had to get her own citizenship to be a U.S. citizen and satisfy the common law rule that a natural born citizen was a child born in the country to parents to were its citizens at the time of the child's birth or else face the reality that the child had to qualify as a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty.
drconspiracy 111p · 516 weeks ago
Again Apuzzo would undermine public education by asserting a malicious fancy.
There are any number of cases involving dual citizenship prior ti 1875. The War of 1812 was largely fought over British impressment of American seamen who were British subjects under British law.
It was only after the Expatriation Act of 1868 that American citizens could freely expatriate themselves. Irish-Americans who participated in the 1867 Fenian Rising were charged with treason by Britain, even though they were American citizens.
Your analysis is made in total ignorance of the fact that dual citizenship is not created by American law, but by inconsistencies between American law and that of other countries.
ramboike 101p · 516 weeks ago
Why are you Obots propping up a French pro-commie socialist who is laughing at yas for being so gullible? He belittles all you who are Americans and your country. He has you turning against your own people; your English language, translators, and dictionaries; your own country.
What the hell is a matter with yas? Lupin relishes in the fact you support him with his contempt for you & America.
I've been looking at it for over 3 years.
drconspiracy 111p · 516 weeks ago
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. · 516 weeks ago