(Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty)
ARTICLE II
The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark *with the proviso that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant.* The Republic of Panama further grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of any other lands and waters outside of the zone above described which may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said ….

John Jay: Nice work. You are absolutely correct in your legal analysis. ADMINISTRATOR

John Jay: I am so very sorry for any additional anguish Orly’s Release has caused you and your family. In one of my posts, I explained that when I learned of the contents of this Release, I attempted to get her to change this. I heard from another military person who requested assistance in getting the Release he signed, revoked, which I was able to do. Just to be clear, I understand that you did not sign Orly’s Release, correct? Have you read my military Complaint? This was always my dilemma; how to both insulate the military Plaintiff from any legal repercussions and, at the same time, make clear, he/she was in imminent liability to be a Defendant in a subsequent legal proceeding under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I thought I succeeded admirably; however, I fear, people are conflating this Complaint with Orly’s Release and so, are unwilling to go forward with this. My best thoughts for you and your family. ADMINISTRATOR

It was incorporated in the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit in NH district court under case #1:08-cv-00009 but you have to dig to pull it out.

jtx: Thank you for this comment. However, this would not change the analysis. That is, JMc cannot be said to be a NBC where Panama was at all times and in all places a sovereign nation. ADMINISTRATOR

Consider…

A. Plaintiff, an active member of the United States Armed Forces, has significant reason to believe defendant is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander in Chief and consequently is unable to issue “lawful orders” to said plaintiff.

B. Plaintiff is subject to punishment IAW military jurisprudence due to his awareness of defendant’s questionable eligibility to issue said orders. Plaintiff is required by military regulation to disobey orders that are understood to be unlawful (patently of a criminal nature).

C. Plaintiff can only prove defendants ineligibility through placing himself in peril of military courts-martial due to the regulatory constraints of active service in the Armed Forces. Plaintiff asserts that his 5th Amendment rights have been violated by the defendant regarding the immanent threat of deprivation “of life, liberty,…without due process of law”. Specifically, the defendant is uniquely capable of violating “substantive due process” by which the defendant’s executive orders have subjected plaintiff to laws that are not clearly understood by a reasonable (informed) person as to whether they are of a criminal nature due to the questionable lack of issuing authorities qualification.

D. Plaintiff has three courses of action (COA) for redress of grievances- violate his oath of enlistment to “obey the [lawful] orders of the President” and follow all instructions of his usurping Commander in Chief, disobey the orders of the President and await adjudication by a military judge as to the [lawful] nature of said order, or seek discovery by the highest civilian court of the United States. The first COA is contrary to all precepts regarding the military obligation of service members to disobey “unlawful orders” IAW the Manual for Courts-Martial and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The second and third COA would require defendant to prove his eligibility. The second COA unfairly subjects defendant to potential punishment IAW the regulations of the Armed Forces.

E. Does plaintiff have to risk loss of liberty (or life) to seek redress or is he entitled to discovery by civilian authorities to protect his constitutional rights? Plaintiff contends the third COA is the only reasonable method to resolve the issue of defendant’s constitutional eligibility to serve as plaintiff’s Commander in Chief.

1. I am required to obey “lawful orders”.

Army Command Policy, Chapter 4-2. Obedience to orders
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_20.pdf
All persons in the military service are required to strictly obey and promptly execute the legal orders of their lawful seniors.

2. I am required to disobey certain “unlawful orders”.

IAW Article 90
(a) Lawfulness of the order.
(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.

3. I am subject to punishment for disobeying an order from the President under Article 92 (Failure ot obey order or regulation)

http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2008.pdf
c. Explanation.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) Authority to issue general orders and regulations.
General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Homeland Security, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:
( i ) a n o f f i c e r h a v i n g g e n e r a l c o u r t – m a r t i a l jurisdiction;
(ii) a general or flag officer in command; or
(iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).

***

(c) Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).

4. I am aware (unfortunately) that significant doubt exists as to the constitutional elegibility of my current Commander in Chief.

5. I have no intent to determine the outcome of this election in an official capacity. I ask the court to determine the the constitutional elegibility of Mr. Obama on the behalf of a citizen who happens to be subject to the unique rules of active service in the Armed Forces. If unanswered, my rights under the constitution have been violated IAW the 5th Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(substantive due process- Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior ).

6. I have no intent to disobey the orders of the President or the officers appointed over me. Due to my knowledge of the questionable eligibility of President Obama, I have doubts as to if I am culpable in a crime obeying General Orders initiated by a potentially unqualified President. Likewise, I have doubts as to the validity of said orders and thier potential conflict with my oath of enlistment:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the [lawful] orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

7. I assert that I am entitled to a CLEAR and UNAMIBIGUOUS chain of command as a Soldier subject to OBEYING lawful orders. I recognize the fact a military judge IAW the MCM determines the nature of lawful orders in the case of trials by courts-martial. I contend that a Soldier should know implicitly the legality of an order from the President PRIOR to military trial; such would require a determination by the highest civilian court of these United States.

(d) Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.
Discussion
Ordinarily the lawfulness of an order is finally decided by the military judge. See R.C.M. 801(e). An exception might exist when the sole issue is whether the person who gave the order in fact occupied a certain position at the time. An act performed pursuant to a lawful order is justified. See subsection (c) of this rule. An act performed pursuant to an order is excused unless the accused knew it to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known it to be unlawful.

Anyway, jbjd, thanks for your reason and clarity regarding this constitutional crisis.

John McCain was not born on a Military Base. His mother left the base and went into the city to a regular hospital. John was born off the base in the city and in a regular hospital.

Besides this was not a regular military base as we have today in most cases.

Even at that the military base would have to be sovereign land of USA.

SORRY I thought about this for a very long time. John McCain is simply not a natural born citizen.

Chewy: Thank you for finally getting this off your chest; next time, don’t wait so long. I, too, agree, JMc is not a NBC, since he was not born on U.S. soil. ADMINISTRATOR

This is my response to any one who ever asks me to write another letter the existing Congress, Senate or Supreme Court. NOT UNTIL EVERY ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIAL IN THIS CURRENT SLATE IS REMOVED WILL I WASTE MY INTEGRITY WRITING TO ANY OF THEM. THEY ARE TRAITORS—EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM. I WILL IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ACKNOWLEDGE OR VALIDATE ANY ONE OF THEM AS MY REPRESENTIVES IN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AS THE US CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM FAILED TO KEEP THEIR OATH TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA!

(Though I wrote this to one very well intentioned lady, we will all find ourselves forgetting American is no more.)

You are in as much of a fog of confusion as all of us. On one hand you readily acknolwedge that our Congress and Senate has failed us by refusing to hear the calls and letters we sent them regarding Obama’s “natural born citizen” status. On the other hand you are asking us to write to our Congress regarding a new bill to be voted upon. It is apparent reality hasn’t hit us yet.

If Congress failed America on the most important issue in American history–the installation of a Usurper as President,– what on earth makes you think it is still OUR CONGRESS? We no longer have a Congress, Senate, or Supreme Court that gives a rats tail about us. I will never again write to a dead government.

The only issue left is terminating all our elected officials before their terms expire. WE must concentrate on finding every way to publicly expose them for the treason they committed against America and terminate them for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and treason. These elected officials are not politicians in office. They are criminals! They should be behind bars. We should be doing every thing in our power to indict all of them. We must constantly remind the public of Congress, Sennate and The Supreme Court’s betrayal of America! There no longer is a Congress that exists for the people!

Usa Patriots Shout

It HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED that Obama is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

because

HE ADMITS OPENLY THAT HIS FATHER WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN at the time of his own birth in 1961.

Ergo, since de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, used by our Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution, defines a NBC as

“someone born in the country, whose parents are citizens of the country”

Neither Obama not McCain nor Calero are NBC.

Nor can any court defined them otherwise, or change the definition.

WHY?

Because the definitin of a “natural born citizen” is a historical fact, not a legal determination, it is a truth of history and political philosophy.

You can no more change that definition of De Vattle’s, that you could demand that 1 +1 = 3 just because the Supreme Court says so.

Those who claim Obama is a NBC, have given themselves lobotomies, and abandoned all reason….in a word, they are MAD and INSANE for the sake of their political GOD.

NBC: Wonderful to see someone expend the energy to research the issues affecting this Republic. Just to clarify, no one actually ‘knows’ what a law means until the courts define this through case law. And the term “natural born citizen,” while discussed in other court cases, was never central to the holding of the case. Thus, this “dicta” holds no precedential value. The case the focus of which is a determination of what is the definition of “natural born citizen” will be a case of first impression. ADMINISTRATOR

Re: Status granted to the Democratic Party on Mississippi ballots

Reese Partridge, Assistant Attorney General of MS, responded to my leeter to Jim Hood (for Jim Hood, Attorney General of MS), by saying that the remedy does not lie with the AT’s office. She noted:

“To the extent that changes in state law will address your concerns, I suggest contacting members of the Mississippi Legislature to sponsor corrective legislation. You concerns may, however, be addressed more fully by seeking to reform party rules at the state and national levels.”