Welden et al

v.
Obama
OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF GEORGIA
Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-: 1215137-60-MALIHI
Motion to intervene for the US as Relator, to oppose the Van Irion segregation request
Georgia lost the Civil War, it will be recalled, and was required to adopt the fifteenth
amendment, which plausibly also amended the qualifications for holding the
Presidency which serves as the Commander in Chief for the United States which
occupy the Cherokee Nation lands known pejoratively as Georgia (see Georgia
Secretary of State History of Passports issued by Georgia for travel by white persons
of the US to the Cherokee Nation, Worcester v Georgia, Elk v Wilkins (authority in
Minor v Happensett).
In Sai v Obama (now Sai v Clinton), the US Attorney in their Reply,
have invoked the DC Quo Warranto provisions, asserting to the DC Circuit
that the President is entitled by quo warranto to his office because of birth in Hawaii,
viz US v Wong Kim Ark, and
see the recent Ninth Circuit opinion, stating," In Taitz v. Obama,707 F. Supp. 2d 1,
2-4 (D.D.C. 2010), the District Court for the District of Columbia stated that "a quo
warranto action against a public official may bebrought only by the Attorney General
or the U.S. Attorney." Id. at 3 (citing Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir.
1984))." The US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald Machen Jr., retracted
his Federalist Society secret minions collusion to argue that the President was only a
citizen because of the Fourteenth Amendment by birth "Within the United States" in
the "State of Hawaii", and in their further opposition reply in Dr. SAl v OBAMA and
Clinton before the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, the US no longer asserts
the facetious argument that the President is a citizen derivative to birth in a purported
State of "Hawaii". See http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/MSA.pdflndeed, President
Barack Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" derives from his birth
in the State of Hawaii. See U.S. Const. Art. II, 1, cl. 4 ("No Person
except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
President").
Retracted by omissionary implication,
http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Feds Reply Appeal.pdf.
Van Irion makes the clearly erroneous argument that the Constitutional requirement of
being a "natural born citizen" (a requirement which is not self-executing, and has
never been parsed through any legislation by the Congress who are the sole judge of
the results of the Electoral College presented to them for adjudication as comporting
with the Constitution in their legislature's judicial capacity).
Relator agrees that Van Irion has standing to argue as a citizen of Georgia occupying
the Cherokee Nation, under Bond v US (524 US __ , 2011).
The question is thus ripe for review in this Court, and the Court should declare:
1. children of US mothers are the natural semantic sense of the phrase "natural born
citizen", because only US mothers give birth, US fathers do not give birth (at least not
at present, but if they did, they too would be mothers then and their children also
natural born).
2. Minor v Happensett only held that women as US citizens did not necessarily have
to enjoy an equal right to vote as a state elector, something one US Attorney General
had not quite agreed with (see Opinion of AG Bates, AG Opinion on Seminole
Freedmen, AG Opinion on authority of the President to repatriate interdicted slaves,
http:// digicoll.library. wisc. edulcgi -binIFR US/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id= FR US .FR US 1
87374v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS187374v02.p0684&ql=attorney%20general&q2=opi
nion&q3=citizen,
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edulcgi-binlFRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FR
US187374v02.p0589&id=FRUS.FRUSI87374v02&isize=M&ql=attorney%20genera
l&q2=opinion&q3=citizen)
Cchildren of US citizen mothers, are natural born citizens (only women give birth, natural
born citizen can ONLY mean birth to a US citizen mother, US citizen fathers' children
must be by statute naturalized), matemallineage citizens, which is
why Congress only needed to exercise the uniform naturalization authority to declare that
children born abroad of US citizen fathers heritage (but to foreign citizen mothers) were
also
citizens of the US:
see August 20, 1873 AG Opinion
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edulcgi-biniFRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUSI
87374v02.p0586&id=FRUS.FRUS187374v02&isize=M&gl=attorneY%20general&q2=0
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

pinion&q3=citizen
Question VII. Are the children born abroad of a person who has been a citizen
of the
United States, but who "has become a subject or citizen of another
power, or who
has expatriated himself, citizens of the United States, and entitled to
its protection?
Answer. Section 1 of the act of February 10, 1855, (10 U. S. Stat., p.
604,) provides that 11 persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born,
out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers
were, or shall be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States,
shall be deemed and considered, and are hereby declared to be, citizens
of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United
States5;" from which, as well as from other considerations, it is evident
that children born abroad of persons once citizens of the United States,
but who have become citizens or subjects of a foreign power, are not
citizens of the United States, or, as such, entitled to their protection.
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-biniFRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FR
US 187374v02.p0573&id=FRUS.FRUSI87374v02&isize=M&g I =attorney%20genera
1&q2=opinion&q3=citizen
AG Bates Opinion in re Minor v Happensett principles of civil rights to vote
http:// digico ll.library. wisc. edu/ cgi -binIFRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id= FR US.FRUS 1
8737 4v02&entity=FRUS.FRUS 1873 74v02.p073 8&q1 =attorney%20general&q2=opi
nion&g3=bates
United States Department of State I Executive documents printed
by order of the House of Representatives. 1873-74
(1873-1874)
Papers relating to expatriation, naturalization, and change of
allegiance, pp. [1185]-1438 m PDF (117.2 MB)
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

Page 1368
-Extracts of an opinion of Ar. Attorney-General Bates, dated November
29, 1862.
Who is a citizen? What constitutes a citizen of the United States? I
have often
been pained by the fruitless search in our law books and the records of
our courts for
a clear and satisfactory definition of the phrase citizen of the United
States. I find no
such defmition, no authoritative establishment of the meaning of the phrase,
neither
by a course of judicial decision in our courts, nor by the continued and
consentaneous
action of the different branches of our political government.
http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=-jwanJTWDaAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=att
orney+general+opinion&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ei=yEHITqbTIouimQWC3JmBAg&redi
r esc=Y#v=onepage&g&f=false
Also see
http:// digicoll.library. wisc. edul cgi-biniFRUS/FR US-idx?type=tum&id= FRUS. FR US 1
914&entity=FRUS.FRUSI914.p0132&ql=ben%20zion&q2=fourteenth
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

16
Stat.es when such perrons were born. Moreover, the Dapartment con-
siders that these persons were not born citiz(l:ns of the t'nit,l'd States
under the pronsion of 1992 of Revised or the pro-
'Vision of the fourteenth amendmellt to the Const.itution just quoted,
which, in the Department's opinion, are apptirahie oIlly to easrs 01
persons actually born wit.hin the te:rritory and jurisdiction of the
United Conwqu!'ntly the Ilcp11,rlment holds that l)orSolls of
the class mentioned not citizens of the United StatE'S, even though
their fathers may have resided in &;\merican communitie.s and submit-
ted themReheE -to the extraterritorial jttrisdietl0n flf the Unit<Jd
States. SUdl pprsons tire not entitled to the protection of
this Oovernlllent.
It is it.lIportant. to ol.lBerve tllat. thi;!l nlling.is eontrary to the ruling
of the S(lt forth in til!' ini!ltruetlOn No. 22" of Augllst
to Consul at Hmvl'1la, Turkey, (Fm'eign llelnt.ions of the
Fuited States fol' page 1125; Moore's Inte:l'llationftl Law Digt',\;l,
vol. a, !lp. 287 and to the similar ruling contained in the Depart-
ment's intitru,tiofl No. 28, of .1ItlluaJ."V to the Consul-Geuetl'll
at A pia, Samoa. Intel'1l11tinual Law f>ig'(';8t. vol. Pl'.

A COPy of the opinion of the Snlidt(.r, !bted.lune :2'2, IOU, ill the
eaSEl oBl'n Zil)n Li.lienthal is appruH[(j(l hereto!
1 am (etc.]
W . LBRYAN.
OPENING OF TltE PANAMA CANAL.
DEPARTlo1l':N'l' Of' ,Q,'tA'f'E,
fV rtflkington, It,,'?! 3.1, n)/.i.
To the DiplomAtic Officers of t!w UlliJ:e(i Sta.tes.
GENTlil':'tN: You are ro (,'tlmrmmiclltc to the
ments to which YOll are respectively accredited the following in1orma-
tion relative to tht, openin!! of the Panamu Canal, which hItS be.()u
furnished by the S(,r,rctary of W
"l1In I'aWH!l1l eftlllli 1':111 ()lJellfil .trw (!Omll!(>rep to Vf"t;(!ti; not I)(.fflilll{
11mB 00 feH fA' water, un lind anN' Allinl"t U;, Ifn4.
The offidul (>J)(ltJtn.>: of the {!ft!.1 11 I, Juwetofurn wlll 00 in IlJH
mOlitb Il! Mnfch. 11H5. An apLJrolW!U t() nnnonncement will be :lll1tl(! Whf'll 1)
grPlltf'r '!('f,rh flf watt"l' t.httt, SO .I111J< IlI'()1l StX'\1red.
I am l etc.] For the St'(retn.ry of State:
ROflltllT LANR1NG.
INTERNATIONAr.. :OllY.FARYlIING OONGRESS.
D)l!'.All:'l:'1>Ul'ST OF S'rATF.,
lfadtington, Allgrut 3, mIS.
To the lIipl.fJmfltic Ofllcers of t;l.e lIt.ired .8tates.
In of a. joint rellolution of the
of the lJnited Stat!'s, .Tuly 17, 1914, a r;opy ",hith is
hereto att!t\'ued, YOll IHO 1ll.struet4;!d to extend an llH'ltntlf)f) 10 the
Govt'rnrn{'nt;; ti; which yon 1\1"0 l"t'spt'tti,'(>ly to !lppoint
CITIZENSHIP OP PERSONS WHOSE AMERICAN FATHERS HAVE
NEVER RESIDED IN THE UNITED STATES. 1
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

File No. 130/508a.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Was hfngton, July 1914.
To the Diplomatic and Consular Officers of the United States in China and
Turkey.
GENTLEMEN: The Department's attention has been drown oflate, through

for passports and registration in consulates, to the question of the citizenship
of persons born in China and Turkey, whose fathers were also born therein
and claimed American citizenship under the provision of Section 1 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States but had never resided in the United
States.
Sections 1992 and 1993 of the Revised Statutes of United States read
as follows:
SEc. 1992. All persons born in the United States and not subject to any
foreign $ power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens
of the United
States.
SEC. 1993. All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits
and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be, at the
tM'ne of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the
United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children
whose fathers never resided in the United States.
The provision of section 1992 is similar to the following provision of the
fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, so far as it applies to native
citizens:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside.
It is obvious that persons of the class mentioned can not claim American
citizenship under the provision of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes,
since their fathers had never resided in the United
States when such persons were born. Moreover, the DGpartment considers that
these persons were not born citizens of the United States under the provision
of section 1992 of the Revised Statutes or the provision of the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution just quoted, which, in the Department's opinion,
are applicable only to cases of persons actually born within the territory
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

and jurisdiction of the United States. Consequently the Department holds
that persons of the class mentioned are not citizens of the United States,
though their fathers may have resided in American communities and submitted
themselves to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore,
such persons are not entitled to the protection of this Government.
It is iipportant to obserye that this ruling is CP_loJhe of
intheinstructi,pJl to
.. ntif.linitelfSt8tes for
" , . "" .' ,:'"tt>" n*.tt' fu:,";'" -' ' " '
188!i I'm ... :'1,,:1' 281 288)
'.:;" P4,gC.;. . . -;-:;' ,

289).
A copy of the opinion of the Solicitor, dated June 22, 1914, in the case
of Ben Zion Lilienthal is appended hereto.9
I am [etc.]
W.J.BRYAN.
The US has never supposed that the Constitutional term of art, "natural born citizen",
as requirement for the office of President, required any affirmative legislation by the
Congress, for all candidates have always been the natural born children of US citizen
mothers and thus were, by mere nativity, regardless of situs, "natural born citizen"(s).
President Blessed Barack Obama, is admittedly the child of his US citizen mother,
and thus within the natural plain meaning of the Constitution, President Obama,
though born in the US occupied abdicated Kingdom of Hawaii (Fullard-Leo v US,
Supreme Court of the US rejects the US assertion of de jure sovereignty in the
Palmyra Atoll, 48 USC 644a, 28 USC 91), thus remains, as from his birth to his
mother, a natural born citizen.
Prayer For Relief
1. Recommend the California Bar enquire whether Dr. Taitz DDS has unethically
associated her practice of law with a California Supreme Court disbarred attorney (as
the Washington Post recently opined).
2. Permit intervention, jus tertii, as Relator for the US and the Cherokee Nation, 25
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

USC 175, in US occupied Cherokee "Georgia".
3. Declare that "natural born citizen" must naturally, plainly, semantically mean, in a
self-executing sense, the children of a US citizen mother, and by statute, through the
uniform naturalization and necessary and proper authorities of the Congress, extended
by the principle of equal protection embodied in the fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments (adoption of which was imposed on rebellious Georgia as condition
precedent to readmission by Congress of representatives from Georgia), to include
children of US citizen fathers even when born abroad, as statutory, natural born
citizens, see 8 USC 1401(a), compare Elk v Wilkins, 8 USC 1401(b), accord Rubi v
Mindoro.
4. Declare that Van Irion has standing as an occupant in Cherokee Georgia, under
Bond v US (524 US __ , 2011) to request constitutional interpretation that the
President is a natural born citizen through birth to his US citizen mother.
5. Declare that the decision in Happensett parses only the possession of the civil right
to vote, and not the rights of citizenship (8 USC 1503) to an American nationality and
its privileges and immunities of protection on the high seas or abroad (Slaughterhouse
Cases), nor the transmission of American nationality.
6. Declare that Indians not taxed, at birth, are constitutional American nationals,
though not citizens of the United States (Elk v Wilkins, Article I Indian clause,
Indians not taxed clauses, Fourteenth Amendment, sixteenth amendment), see 8 USC
1401(a,b) (or (1,2)).
7. Declare that Africans are whites, being non-Indians, see Wilson v Omaha Tribe on
25 USC 94 burden of proofs in civil land title actions affecting Indian lands' alloidal
aboriginal title (Carino v Insular).
8. Declare that the paternal nationality status nor situs of nativity affect the
constitutional status of the President as a natural born citizen through his mother.
9. Declare that the fourteenth amendment and fifteenth amendment, equal protection
of the law, require the result that a US citizen mother indeed conveys and transmits to
her children, their natural born citizen status, under the Constitution, as a
self-executing, motu proprio grant, and only children of US citizen fathers require
statutory transmission of American nationality by nativity whilst abroad.
9. Declare that Hawaii remains occupied, US v Fullard-Leo, Mankichi v Territory,
Kawakanoa v Territory, Duncan v Kahanamoku, Duarte v Dade (military government
may be conducted by democratic election processes subject to the Commander (in
Chief)).
10. Declare Van Irion's argument that US citizen mothers who serve in the US armed
forces in combat abroad, are not good enough to convey that true allegiance necessary
for fidelity in executing the duties of the office of Commander in Chief, is spurious,
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

ahistorical, counterfactual, and contrary to the constitutional principle of equal
protection.
11. Declare American mommies fully able to convey Americanness to their American
(citizen) born children.
Respectfully,
Dr. Paul Maas Risenhoover
Robin Hood International Human Rights Legal Defense Fund
Tainan, allied American Formosa trust territory island of TAIWAN, West Pacific,
USA
drpaulmaas@gmail.com, ilovelibby@gmail.com
Certificate of service by email to:
van@libertylegalfoundation.com, charles.e.lincoln@worldnet.att.net,
david.dejute@usdoj.gov, roger. west@usdoj.gov,
molly _ dwyer@ca9.uscourts.gov,"ninth.circuit.oil"<Ninth. Circuit. OIL@usdoj.gov>,
"Communications, Civil (CIV)"<Civil.Communications@usdoj.gov>, "Dr. Orly Taitz
ESQ" <dr _ taitz@yahoo.com>,orly.taitz@gmail.com, keanu.sai@gmail.com ,
"scott _ atchue" <Scott _ Atchue@cadc.uscourts.gov>,
"mark _langer" <Mark _ Langer@cadc.uscourts.gov>,lisa_einsel@cadc. uscourts. gOY,
Ronald.machen@usdoj.gov, david.dejute@usdoj.gov, roger. west@usdoj.gov,
molly_dwyer@ca9.uscourts.gov, "ninth.circuit.oil"<Ninth.Circuit.OIL@usdoj.gov>,
"Communications, Civil (CIV)"<Civil.Communications@usdoj.gov>, "Dr. Orly Taitz
ESQ" <dr _ taitz@yahoo.com>,orly.taitz@gmail.com, keanu.sai@gmail.com ,
"scott_ atchue" <Scott _ Atchue@cadc.uscourts.gov>, "mark _langer"
<Mark _ Langer@cadc.uscourts.gov>,lisa_einsel@cadc.uscourts.gov,
Ronald.machen@usdoj.gov,rajska7@gmail.com,orly. taitz@gmail.com,
dr _ taitz@yahoo.co, david.dejute@usdoj.gov,christopher.tucker@usdoj.gov,
gary .kreep@usdoj .gov, roger. west@usdoj .gov ,michael.j ablonski@comcast.net,
openrecords@osah.ga.gov, media@osah.ga.gov,vruff@osah.ga.gov,
vhightower@osah.ga.gov,
kbeal@osah.ga.gov,btravis@osah.ga.gov,vramsey@osah.ga.gov,
hj ackson@osah.ga.gov, kwestray@osah.ga.gov,kwestray@osah.ga.gov,
mhatfield@wayxcable.com,
van@irionlaw.com,michael.hatfield@ttu.edu
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m