In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Habeas in re: Ex Parte Baby Kevin Before

Clerk Molly Dwyer Esq. for the Court Seeking declaratory relief that the US occupies the Kingdom of Hawaii airspace, in fact and law, from the USAF bases on the islands, and under the Treaty of Friendship with Kiribati purportedly relinquishing the US District Court for Hawaiis jurisdiction under 28 USC 91 and 48 USC 644a over Canton and Enderbury while maintaining complete US control in sovereign exclusion of any other air forces. Thus, baby Kevin was born within the jurisdiction of the United States by air occupation. Moreover, the act of delivery by a pregnant mother constitutes lawful air piracy under the law of nations, permitting her effective commandeering of the place to land immediately, anywhere, without prior authority or notice, for mother and child care needs. 1 USC 8 and the Siljander Amendment, provide: 8. Person, human being, child, and individual as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words person, human being, child, and individual, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term born alive, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor

In re Baby Kevin K. R. F. D., habeas for declaratory nationality relief under 8 USC 1503 and the Supremacy Clause and 14th amendment,
06/20/2011 Civil Action No. 1998-1192 SUNUNU, et al v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES Doc No. 64 (memorandum opinion) by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?1998cv119264 Since Sai v Obama could mean the US had a claim of right in the plane as property of the US under the law of nations, or as concurrent property under the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, articles 1721, we pray the Court reconsider her decision and declare baby Kevin to be a US citizen at birth within the jurisdiction of the Court pending final resolution of the Sununu claims against Philippine Airlines. Even putative pending status of the motion for reconsideration could be sufficient to color cognizable claims (8 USC 1503) for the birth of the child en route to US soil with American nationality and Hawaiian citizenship. Aida Alamillo, 41, went into labour while on Philippine Airlines Flight 104 from Manila enroute to San Francisco. At Mills-Peninsula Medical Center in Burlingame, where she and her newborn were transported upon landing in San Francisco. At 3:25 p.m. Monday, just a few hours before the plane was set to land, Alamillo gave birth to a healthy baby boy. Baby Kevin thus seeks to intervene, through his Relator, jus tertii, to reopen and reconsider Sununu et al v Philippine Airlines, for the purpose of securing his American nationality (http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUSidx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1901&isize=M&page=303 , http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1901.p0384&id=FRUS.FRUS1901&isize=M ) consonant the Supreme Court of the US decision in Rabang v Boyd that island citizens of the Philippines were noncitizen nationals of the US under the Treaty of Peace at Paris (viz http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgibin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1899&entity=FRUS.FRUS1899.p0304&q1=philippi ne&q2=passport, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1901&entity=FRUS.FRUS1901.p0652&q1=philippi

ne&q2=passport, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1902&entity=FRUS.FRUS1902.p0087&q1=philippi ne&q2=passport (US military government directive in US occupied Cuba(see ) Puerto Rico and the Philippines excluding Chinese contrary the Presidents racist orders(see http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgibin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1911&entity=FRUS.FRUS1911.p0084&q1=philippi ne&q2=passport, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1911&entity=FRUS.FRUS1911.p0150&q1=philippi ne&q2=passport, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1911&entity=FRUS.FRUS1911.p0153&q1=philippi ne&q2=passport ) in the Treaty of Peace contrary the 13th amendment guarantee of equality , http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1898&entity=FRUS.FRUS1898.p1057&q1=alaska &q2=treaty&q3=native

Hr. Hay to Hr. Day. [Telegram.] WASHINGTON,. November 29, 1898. The President wishes to know the opinion of the Commission as to inserting in treaty provisions on the subject of citizenship of inhabitants of Philippines which will prevent extension of that right to Mongolians and others not actually subjects of Spain; also whether you consider it advisable to provide, if possible, for recognition of existence of uncivilized native tribes in same manner as in Alaska treaty, perhaps leaving to Congress to deal with status of inhabitants by legislative act. [see http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgibin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1898&entity=FRUS.FRUS1898.p1061&q1=guam& q2=civil%20rights, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1946v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS1946v01.p0714&q1= guam&q2=civil%20rights ] [see Carino v Insular, Rubi v Mindoro, for Igorot etc as uncivilized native tribes, and see http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1944v05&entity=FRUS.FRUS1944v05.p1255&q1= formosa&q2=wards&q3=luzon, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-

bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1944v05&entity=FRUS.FRUS1944v05.p1280&q1= formosa&q2=wards ] http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1911.p0085&id=FRUS.FRUS1911&isize=M&q1 =philippine&q2=passport http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1942v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS1942v01.p0271&q1= philippine&q2=passport the Department desires that such emergency relief payments be made similarly to needy Filipinos in enemy or enemy occupied areas outside the Philippine Islands able to produce evidence of Philippine citizenship in the form of an American passport, or a certificate of registration issued by an American Consular officer http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1942v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS1942v01.p0287&q1= philippine&q2=passport 390.1115.A/725a: Circular telegram The Acting Secretary of State to Certain Consular Officers33 WASHINGTON, February 25, 1942—4 p.m.. Deserving cases of needy Filipinos able to produce evidence of Philippine citizenship in the form of an American passport or a cer— tificate of registration issued by an American Consuiar Officer and

It is presumed that where loans are necessarily made for "repatriation" they will be used for travel to the United States in the status of temporary visitors pending return to the Philippine Islands at such time as this may be feasible. WELLES ).

The US continues to occupy the air above Canton and Enderbury Islands (48 USC 644a, 28 USC 91, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-

idx? type=boolean&size=First+100&q1=canton&operator1=And&q2=enderbury&op erator2=And&q3=&rgn=Page+or+paragraph&size=First+100&work= , http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v06&entity=FRUS.FRUS1948v06.p0030&q1= canton&q2=enderbury , Relinquished (http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1925v02&isize=M&page=12 ) to Kiribati by the Treaty of Friendship ( untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/28/17/00054811.pdf ), but the US retains air occupation under the Treaty. Applying the Privy Council decision from FalemaI Lesa v Attorney General, or Levave v Immigration,( http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/sol_adobe_documents/usp %20only/Pacific%20law/Tagupa.pdf , also see Lesa v. The Attorney-General of New Zealand [1983] 2 A.C.20. (2) In this case, the Privy Council held that by virtue of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens (in New Zealand) Act 1928, persons born in Western Samoa between 13 May 1924 and 1 January 1949 (and their descendants) are New Zealand citizens. 2.6 It is stated that there was considerable adverse reaction in New Zealand to the Lesa judgement, which was delivered by the Privy Council in July 1982. It was estimated that some 100,000 Samoans out of a total population of 160,000 would be affected by the decision. 2.7 The response of the New Zealand Government was to negotiate a Protocol to the Treaty of Friendship between New Zealand and Western Samoa. The Protocol was ratified on 13 September 1982 by the two parties. Within one month, the New Zealand Government passed into law the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act of 1982, which gave effect to the Protocol in New Zealand, and nullified the effect of the "Lesa" decision, except for Ms. Lesa herself and a very limited number of persons.

The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 has created a situation of mass denationalisation of about 100,000 Samoans, in violation of articles 12, paragraph 4, and 26 of the Covenant, and denies them their lawful New Zealand citizenship. 3.2 The authors claim that the 1982 Protocol is void under article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to the extent that it authorises the enactment of the 1982 Act, because it violates a norm of jus cogens, insofar as it allows New Zealand to practice racial discrimination against Samoans.
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/f45624e1683b70c7c12569ad003ae6e4?Opendocument

Communication No 675/1995 : New Zealand. 11/22/2000. CCPR/C/70/D/675/1995. (Jurisprudence)

), thus persons born in the Pacific area still remain subject to the treaty based jurisdiction and air occupation of the US. Moreover the District of Hawaii still has statutory jurisdiction over the mid Pacific, under 28 USC 91, 48 USC 644a, and the ongoing US occupation of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Palmyra Atoll (http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1894Ap&entity=FRUS.FRUS1894Ap.p0245&q1=p almyra&q2=hawaii, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1938v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS1938v02.p0086&q1= palmyra&q2=hawaii, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1938v02.p0087&id=FRUS.FRUS1938v02&isiz e=M&q1=palmyra&q2=hawaii, http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgibin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1941v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS1941v01.p0585&q1= palmyra&q2=hawaii, )

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1951v06p1&entity=FRUS.FRUS1 951v06p1.p0121&q1=canton&q2=enderbury , UNITED STATES V. FULLARD-LEO, 331 U. S. 256, Supreme Court's

1947 decision rejecting the government's 1939 claim to the atoll after review of the occupany of the uninhabited island in the last hundred. After the war the United States sued to quiet title to Palmyra, but the Fullard-Leo family successfully opposed the effort and obtained fee simple title to the island. Fullard-Leo, 331 U.S. at 280, 67 S.Ct. 1287. PALMYRA PACIFIC SEAFOODS PPE v. UNITED STATES

3. In the light of present and foreseeable strategic factors and from the military point of view, the Joint Chiefs of Staff consider .the following islands to be of sufficient, strategic importance as-to warrant United States claim of sovereignty thereto: Canton r(Phoenix Group) Enderbury -(Phoenix Group) Funafuti (Ellice Group) Christmas (Line Islands) The importance of these islands to the United States is predicated upon strategc, use for air bases and seaplane anchorages in the maintenance of lines of communication to the Australia, New Zealand, and Malaya (ANZAM) area. United States military interests will be best served by establishment of full United States sovereignty over at least these four islands. For the Joint Chiefs of Staff: OMAR N. BRADLEY Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Air occupation and pacific air blockade: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgibin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS195254v01p1&entity=FRUS.FRUS195254v01p1.p 0460&q1=aircraft&q2=jurisdiction&q3=flag FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1952-1954, VOLUME I The policy statement also says that the US should continue- to provide the aeronautical communication services for international

aviation operations within areas under US jurisdiction, where as a contracting state of ICAO it has accepted such responsibilities, and that this shall be on the same basis for foreign aircraft as for US craft. Likewise, it is to seek to assure, principally through the ICAO machinery, that our civil aircraft are provided aeronautical services on the same basis as are provided for foreign aircraft by the US. S/S-NSC files, lot 63 D 351, "U.S. Civil Aviation Policy-U.S.S.R. and Satellites" Memorandum by the Secretary of State to the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council (Lay), SECRET [WASHINGTON,] May 12, 1954. Subject: Fourth Progress Report on Implementation of NSC 15/3, entitled: "United States Civil Aviation Policy Toward U.S.S.R. and Its Satellites.",. Part I No significant actions have been taken with regard to the policy since the progress report of November 4, 1953.2 It can be noted, however, that in view of steps taken by the Czechoslovakian Government to remove the causes for which a restriction on flights of the Czechoslovakian airline, CSA, over the territory of the German Federal Republic was originally imposed by the Occupying Powers, the United States and France are prepared to lift this ban. \ http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1914Supp&entity=FRUS.FRUS1914Supp.p0869& q1=aircraft&q2=jurisdiction&q3=flag WOODROW WILSON No. 1287] Proclamation of November 13, 1914: RFuZes and regulatio-ns governing the use of the Panama Canal and neutrality in the Canal Zone BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION WHEREAS the United States is neutral in the present war and whereas the United States exercises sovereignty in the land and waters of the Canal Zone and is authorized by its treaty with

Panama of February twenty-six, nineteen hundred and four, to maintain neutrality in the cities of Panama and Colon, and the harbors adjacent to the said cities: Now, therefore, I, WOODROW WILSON, President of the United States of America, do hereby declare and proclaim the following 552 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1926v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS1926v02.p0942&q1= aviation&q2=jurisdiction ARTICLE X All aircraft and aviation centers in the Republic of Panama other than those pertaining to the defensive forces of the Canal and those owned and officially operated by the Government of Panama shall be subject to inspection by both the United States and the Panaman Governments to insure compliance with such rules and regulations as may hereafter be agreed upon. 846 Aircraft owned and operated by the nationals of the United States or Panama may operate in the Republic of Panama, provided both the aircraft and the operators thereof hold a joint United StatesPanama license issued by a board composed of representatives of the Governments of the United States and Panama and otherwise conform to restrictions recommended in the Convention for the Regulation of Aerial Navigation signed at Paris, October 13, 1919, or such other restrictions as the two countries may from time to time jointly prescribe. All aircraft other than those pertaining to the defensive forces of the Canal and those owned and officially operated by the Government of Panama must follow routes prescribed jointly by the United States and Panama in flying over the Republic of Panama and must land at airports or airdromes designated jointly by the United States and Panama and must otherwise conform to such restrictions as the two countries may from time to time jointly prescribe. In applying and enforcing the rules and regulations regarding

aircraft and aviation centers the two Governments shall regard as the deciding factor the safety of the Panama Canal. The Republic of Panama agrees not to permit flying in Panaman territory over areas near the defenses of the Canal except in agreement with the United States.

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx? type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1933v01&entity=FRUS.FRUS1933v01.p1060&q1= aviation&q2=jurisdiction Article 40 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relative to International Transportation by Air signed at Warsaw, Poland, on October 12, 1929, reads as follows: " (1) The High Contracting Parties may, at the time of signing, of depositing their ratifications or adhering, declare that their acceptance of the present Convention does not apply to all or part of their colonies, protectorates, territories under mandate, or any other territory subject to their sovereignty or authority, or to any other territory under suzerainty. "(2) They may, accordingly, subsequently adhere separately in the name of all or part of their colonies, protectorates, territories under mandate, or any other territory subject to their sovereignty or authority, or any other territory under suzerainty." The American delegates to the Third International Conference on Private Aerial Law should advocate the incorporation of a similar article in the proposed conventions relating to (1) precautionary attachment of aircraft and (2) liability for damages caused to third parties on the surface in order that it may be discretionary with each contracting state to have the conventions made applicable to territories under its jurisdiction. In view of the fact that these conventions deal with new and untried principles, this Government considers that, in the event that it should become a party to the conventions their application should be limited to continental United States of America, excluding Alaska. If, therefore, such an article is agreed to, you should, at the time of signing the conventions, make a declaration such as is referred to in paragraph 1 of article 40 of the Warsaw Convention.

The comments herein made are considered necessary in order that the American delegates to the Third International Conference on Private Aerial Law may fully understand the aviation conditions in the 17 50 Stat. 1121, 1166. 958 579.6L8/60: Telegram The Armba8sador in Italy (Garrett) to the Secretary of State ROME, May 20, 1933-1 p. m. [Received 2: 45 p. m.] 38. For Latchford 20 from Cooper. Reference Department's instructions May Ist Conference aerial law, Conference has completed final draft convention relative precautionary attachment and drafting committee will present it for Conference adoption next week. Text much improved will include paragraph similar article 40 Warsaw convention. Reference article 1 Conference refused change outlined our instructions contending recent treaties use form objected to by Department. We will accept this correction. Reference articles 2 and 7 Conference definitely determined convention applicable to aircraft of one contracting state while in other contracting state whether engaged in international commerce or not, but is not applicable aircraft of any state in own territories. Due obvious advantage to America aircraft abroad to be free from seizure we recommend authority to sign with declaration that convention applies only continental limits United States. Please answer not later than Monday 22nd. [Cooper.] GARRETr 579.6L3/61: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambasdador in Italy (Garrett) WASHINGTON, May 22, 1933-7 p. i. 27. Your 38, May 20, 1 p. m. For Cooper. American delegates are authorized to sign convention with declaration that it applies only to continental United States. HeuL 10 Stephen Latchford, legal assistant, Treaty Division. 961

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Precautionary Attachment of Aircraft Signed at Rome, May 29, 193321 ARTICLE 2 (1) By precautionary attachment within the meaning of the present Convention shall be understood any act, whatever it may be called, whereby an aircraft is seized, in a private interest, through the medium of agents of justice or of the public administration, for the benefit either of a creditor, or of the owner, or of the holder of a lien on the aircraft, where the attaching claimant cannot invoke a judgment and execution, obtained beforehand in the ordinary course of procedure, or an equivalent right of execution. (2) In case the applicable law gives the creditor who holds the aircraft without the consent of the operator the right of detention, the exercise of this right shall, for the purposes of the present Convention, be the same as precautionary attachment and be governed by the regime contemplated in the present Convention. CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE AERIAL LAW ARTICLE 9 (1) The present Convention shall apply on the territory of any one of the High Contracting Parties to any aircraft registered in the territory of another High Contracting Party. (2) The expression "territory of a High Contracting Party" includes any territory under the sovereign power, suzerainty, protection, mandate or authority of the said High Contracting Party, for which the latter is a party to the Convention. Rules and Regulations governing the Use of the Panama Canal by Vessels of Belligerents and the Maintenance of Neutrality by the United States in the Canal Zone, which are in addition to the general " Rules and Regulations for the Operation and Navigation of the Panama Canal and Approaches Thereto, including all Waters under its jurisdiction " put into force by Executive Order of July 9, 1914, and I do bring to the attention of all concerned the Protocol of an Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Panaima, signed at Washington, October 10, 1914, which protocol is

hereunto annexed. Rule -15. Aircraft of a belligerent power, public or private, are forbidden to descend or arise within the jurisdiction -of the United States at the Canal Zone, or to pass through the air spaces above the lands and waters within-said jurisdiction. Legal presence, not bodily presence FAA rules apply to flights coming in to the US, so do DHS rules.

www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs b. Comments on the applicability of the 14th Amendment to vessels and planes, are found in Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8,

Nationality and Citizenship, Chapter 92, 92.03 (New York: Matthew Bender, 2007). This volume states: The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to airplanes. Thus a child born on a plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at birth. c. Under the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, articles 1721, all aircraft have the nationality of the State in which they are registered, and may not have multiple nationalities. For births, the nationality law of the aircraft's nationality may be applicable, and for births that occur in flight while the aircraft is not within the territory or airspace of any State, it is the only applicable law that may be pertinent regarding acquisition of citizenship by place of birth. However, if the aircraft is in, or flying over the territory of another State, that State may also have concurrent jurisdiction. d. Cases of citizenship of persons born on planes in airspace above the United States land territory or internal waters may be adjudicated by passport specialists at domestic passport agencies and centers or consular officers at posts abroad in accordance with 7 FAM 1116. e. For cases of persons born on a plane in airspace above the U.S. territorial sea (12 nautical mile limit): Posts abroad should refer the case to CA/OCS/PRI (ASKPRI@state.gov) for decision, upon consultation with L/CA; and Domestic Passport Agencies and Centers should refer the case to CA/PPT/L/LA (CA/PPTAdjQs@state.gov) which will confer with CA/OCS/PRI and L/CA. f. Cases of persons born on planes in airspace outside the 12 nautical mile limit would be adjudicated as a birth abroad under INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401) or INA 309 (8 U.S.C. 1409) as made applicable by INA 301(g). 7 FAM 1116 DOCUMENTING BIRTH IN U.S.

WATERS AND U.S. AIRSPACE (CT:CON-314; a. Proof of birth in U.S. internal waters or U.S. airspace consists of a U.S. birth certificate certified by the issuing authority in the U.S. jurisdiction. b. There is no U.S. Federal law governing the report of such births. 08-21-2009) 7 FAM 1110 Page 8 of 13 U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs c. Generally speaking, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would require some documentation of the birth, generally an excerpt of the ships/aircrafts medical log or master/captains log, reflecting the time, latitude, and longitude when the birth occurred. d. For ships/aircraft in-bound for the United States, the parents would then be responsible for reporting the birth to the civil authorities in the U.S. jurisdiction where the vessel put into port. (See the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publication Where to Write for Birth Certificates.) The parents will have to contact the state vital records office to determine the exact procedures for report such a birth. Parents should obtain a certified copy of the ships medical log, airplanes log, or other statement from the attending physician or other attendant and attempt to obtain information on how to contact attendants in the future should further questions arise. If the mother and child were immediately taken to a U.S. hospital, authorities there may be of assistance in facilitating contact with the appropriate state authorities.

It is unlikely that the vital records office in the parents state of residence will issue such a birth certificate. Parents may be redirected to the vital records office in the state where the ship first put into port after the birth of the child. Prayer for Relief 1. Permit intervention if necessary. 2. Issue habeas and require the Secretary of State and San Mateo Clerk Mark Church to respond. Also require Acting Regent Dr. David Sai to reply for the occupied Kingdom of Hawaii. 3. Declare Baby Kevin to be a US national at birth in air occupied by the US. 4. Declare Baby Kevin to be a US national at birth under the 13th amendment to ameliorate the racist en masse involuntary denaturalization of the Philippine islanders contrary their rights under the Treaty of Peace at Paris through the Supremacy Clause, US Constitution, to voluntary expatriation (Rabang v Boyd opines voluntariness to the failure to naturalize from noncitizen nationality to full citizenship when in the continental US and finally eligible to have done so). 5. Declare Baby Kevins mommy to have a constitutional natural right to remain in the US with her US national child (see Kunqian Catherine Zhu, Man Lavette Chen, v Secretary of State for the Home Department). 6. Compel the Secretary of State to issue an American passport for Baby Kevin and his mommy. Noting American passports are issued in the alternative, to persons with treaty rights of American protection, as our protgs, ressortissants in the passport prayer French text, such as under the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines and USA. 7. Declare that international aviation law and extensive USCIS, ICE, CBP, FAA, regulation of airlines flying into the US constitute sufficient jurisdiction for conferral of the nationality sense of the Fourteenth Amendment for birth subject to the jurisdiction and within the US (Sabangan v Powell holding the CNMI, which is not a state, is deemed within the several states anyway). Respectfully,

Dr. Paul Maas Risenhoover Robin Hood Tainan, allied American Formosa drpaulmaas@gmail.com Certificate of service by email to: ZTillman@alm.com, mnardotti@pattonboggs.com, mguiffre@pattonboggs, chull@pattonboggs.com, ASKPRI@state.gov, CA/PPTAdjQs@state.gov, countyclerk@smcare.org, emilia.bardini@dhs.gov, james.booe@dhs.gov, carolyn.muzyka@dhs.gov, anita.erfan@dhs.gov, rosemary.melville@dhs.gov, larry.crider@dhs.gov, robin.barrett@dhs.gov, aaron.goldsmith@usdoj.gov, USCIS-FMD-Support@dhs.gov, seeger@sfmlawfirm.com Mark Church Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder San Mateo County 555 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1665 Phone: (650) 363.4988 E-mail: mchurch@smcare.org