Georgia Eligibility Case Co-Conspirator Jill Pryor Gets Payback After Lying For Obama

Georgia Eligibility Case Co-Conspirator Jill Pryor Gets Payback From Obama After Lying For Him Regarding Natural Born Citizen

Jill PryorPic

I’m sure those following Obama’s ineligibility can remember the eligibility case from Georgia, where Judge Malihi illegally amended Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution and unlawfully redefined the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”, with the stroke of a pen, right? Well, it seems that one of the co-conspirators in helping to redefine Natural Born Citizen, Attorney Jill Pryor, could be getting her payback for aiding and abetting in the cover up of Obama’s eligibility.

Back in February of 2012, Administrative Law Judge Malihi handed down his order claiming that “President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b)” and labeled his as a “natural born citizen”.

Jill PryorSomehow Judge Malihi came across a 19 page “note” from the Yale Law Journal titled “The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years” and the note was added in as a footnote to Malihi’s February 3, 2012 opinion supporting the natural born citizen definition, which you can see on page 6 of his decision.

You will notice that the web address from the The Yale Law Journal note is from the “WayBack Machine” and not the Yale Law Journal and that is because it was deleted by someone. Why would someone want to delete this note? Perhaps it was to cover someone’s behind in the event Congress wanted to research Jill Pryor, the author of the YLJ note. Jill Pryor is currently an attorney in Georgia working for Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore and less then 2 weeks after Judge Malihi’s decision in the eligibility case was handed down, Jill Pryor gets nominated by President Obama for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Georgia. Is this just a coincidence or is Obama paying her back for aiding and abetting him in his quest to fool the American people on his true identity?

Although Jill Was nominated for the position over 2 years ago, it wasn’t until just last week on May 13, 2014 that she had her hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee which will confirm or deny her appointment. We can not let this woman get appointed to Federal Court when her idea of a natural born citizens is “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born”. While she might be correct that native-born “citizens” qualify as natural born, she completely ignores the fact that all native born people are not automatically citizens according to the law. To be a native born citizen also called a natural born citizen, you must be born to parents who are citizens, as stated in the Supreme Court Case of Minor v. Happersett which states:

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

Please help stop this woman from being appointed to the Federal Appeals Court in Georgia by contacting every member on the Senate Judiciary Committee and letting them know that she is aiding and abetting Obama in covering up his identity and helping to hide the truth that he is not a natural born citizen. Whether they believe Obama is eligible or not is irrelevant, it is the connection to Obama and his eligibility case that is the problem, which is a serious conflict of interest.

The members of the Judiciary Committee are listed below along with their phone numbers and a link to send them an email. Please call AND send an email for maximum exposure. Let’s get those phones ringing off the hook!

 

Senate Judiciary Committee Members & Contact Info

Chairman

photo of Patrick Leahy  Senator Patrick Leahy (D – VT) Biography »

437 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-4242     Contact: www.leahy.senate.gov/contact/

 Ranking Member

photo of Chuck Grassley
  Senator Chuck Grassley (R – IA) Biography »

135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3744     Contact: www.grassley.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Majority

photo of Diane Feinstein   Senator Diane Feinstein (D – CA) Biography »
331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3841     Contact: www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me
photo of Charles Schumer   Senator Charles Schumer (D – NY) Biography »
322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-6542     Contact: www.schumer.senate.gov/Contact/contact_chuck.cfm
photo of Dick Durbin   Senator Dick Durbin (D – IL) Biography »
711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2152    Contact: www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
photo of Sheldon Whitehouse   Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D – RI) Biography »
530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2921     Contact: www.whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/
photo of Amy Klobuchar   Senator Amy Klobuchar (D – MN) Biography »
302 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3244     Contact: www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/contact-amy
photo of Al Franken   Senator Al Franken (D – MN) Biography »
309 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5641     Contact: www.franken.senate.gov/?p=contact
photo of Christopher A. Coons   Senator Christopher A. Coons (D – DE) Biography »
127A Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5042     Contact: www.coons.senate.gov/contact/
photo of Richard Blumenthal   Senator Richard Blumenthal (D – CT) Biography »
724 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2823     Contact: www.blumenthal.senate.gov/contact/
photo of Mazie Hirono   Senator Mazie Hirono (D – HI) Biography »
330 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-6361     Contact: www.hirono.senate.gov/contact

Minority

 

photo of Orrin G. Hatch   Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R – UT) Biography »
104 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5251     Contact: www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=Email-Orrin
photo of Jeff Sessions   Senator Jeff Sessions (R – AL) Biography »
326 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-4124     Contact: www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-jeff
photo of Lindsey Graham   Senator Lindsey Graham (R – SC) Biography »
290 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5972     Contact: lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.La…
photo of John Cornyn   Senator John Cornyn (R – TX) Biography »
517 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2934     Contact: www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm
photo of Michael S. Lee   Senator Michael S. Lee (R – UT) Biography »
316 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5444     Contact: www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
photo of Ted Cruz   Senator Ted Cruz (R – TX) Biography »
185 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5922     Contact: www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=email_senator
photo of Jeff Flake   Senator Jeff Flake (R – AZ) Biography »
368 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-4521     Contact: www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-jeff

2,763 total views, 13 views today

ShareShare on Google+0Tweet about this on Twitter3Pin on Pinterest0Share on Facebook1

33 thoughts on “Georgia Eligibility Case Co-Conspirator Jill Pryor Gets Payback After Lying For Obama

  1. It is actually really a very useful piece of details. I am glad that you simply shared this helpful details with us. Be sure to remain you up to date similar to this. Many thanks spreading.

  2. “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”—The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”—Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    • To suggest that any child born in the United States is a natural born citizen thereof is ludicrous. Senators Graham, Hatch and the “eccentric” Wall Street Journal author must all indeed be delusional. Think of Natural Born citizen as one who cannot be denied American citizenship. He or she gets it automatically: the way 95% of us got it – US citizen parents and born in the US. Anyone born on US soil of foreign parents is certainly not a natural born citizen since his parents owe allegiance to a foreign govt. Last time I checked all naturalized citizens must take an oath of allegiance to the US. Children too young to take this oath must by necessity be subject to the foreign govt. of their parents. Graham, Hatch and WSJ are shoveling manure. Well, they didn’t want a natural born citizen for their president and they got their wish. I want a natural born citizen for president. I didn’t get my wish or my legal due. I am a natural born citizen who has been disenfranchised and given the middle finger by the federal govt.

  3. Reading these arguments–I get the impression of a puff of smoke in a 30 kt. wind. It means nothing. To convince anyone of anything takes POWER.
    Power corrupts and power gets things done. Without POWER all the “chit-chat” is a “puff of smoke in the wind.” Arguments are settled by Power-Brokers.
    Work to get “your” Power Broker in power, instead of yak-yak.

  4. Excellent investigation on the Jill Pryor quid pro quo. She wants to use her talents to support fed govt. corruption. Must be a higher pay scale attached. I think the best approach to the eligibility issue is through state govt if anyone at that level can be found who will press the issue. The Senators I watched in the provided video link of confirmation hearing were living in a fantasy world, or pretending to be anyway. I continued to watch and was particularly embarrassed to see Mr. Boggs of the second group back-peddling, retracting and apologizing on his previous record of support for: The Confederate Flag, opposition to same sex marriage, and publishing names of Doctors who do abortions. These must be litmus tests for federal judges.

    • KenyanBornObama

      I really didn’t even investigate it…I was sitting there switching through the channels and came to CSpan and noticed her name and that she was from GA and was like OMG, that is the lady from the Georgia Case…

  5. HistorianDude

    Minor v. Happersett is ultimately irrelevant.

    1. It was a suffrage case, not a citizenship case. Virginia Minor’s citizenship status was never an issue before the court.

    2. The “definition” it offers in its dicta is neither an inclusive nor exclusive definition. It provides criteria that are sufficient but not necessary for NBC status.

    3. The Minor court explicitly declined to settle the more inclusive definition.

    4. Even if (arguendo) the Minor “definition” had been considered authoritative, that definition would have been superseded by the more inclusive (though still not exclusive) definition provided by the court in their decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark. That definition remains the only SCOTUS definition of NBC that has ever been cited as precedent by any subsequent court. To wit:

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    • KenyanBornObama

      Sorry, but as the Declaration says, we cut the ties and assumed the laws of nature!

      And don’t forget to read:
      Title XXV, Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes of 1873 AND the Civil Rights Act of 1866!

  6. Unfortunately, stuff gets moved around on the Internet all the time. I am constantly fixing hyperlinks on my sites and a link going bad is no sign of some great conspiracy. Jill Pryor’s article is widely known and cited, not just by Judge Malihi (I used it in an a 2008 article). Over a dozen other judges have ruled exactly the same way as Judge Malihi since 2008 both in courts of original jurisdiction and multi-judge courts of appeal.

    The citation from Minor preceding is an example of birthers misreading decisions. It should be obvious from that text that there are exactly two possibilities for someone born in the United States: “natives, or natural born citizens” and “aliens of foreigners.” What the Minor decision inescapably says is that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen. What it does not say is whether children of aliens are always citizens–that was settled by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong case.

    The birthers would have the inability to read law as a criterion for a federal judge. That’s really bad thinking.

    • You are so wrong and it seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the intention of punctuation. Many of your kind misunderstand the intention of our 2nd Amendment for the same reason; Simply put, you suffer from poor reading comprehension skills. is it truly ignorance or is this willful?

    • KenyanBornObama

      Hey Doc, it must suck to know you are 100% wrong, but have to lie and act like we are wrong. The pay MUST BE GOOD or you just have no soul!

  7. Ed Sunderland

    This is so irritating I don’t know where to start but here goes for the hundredth time.

    You have be 16 to get a drivers license, 18 in most states to sign contracts, a certain age to join the military, and read this-according to the INS in 1961 you had to be a certain age to legally transfer your US citizenship on to your progeny. According to the forged birth document
    Obama says is his long form certificate on the White House website his daddy was from Kenya. The forged document also says his momma was 18 years of age but the age to transfer citizenship was 19 years of age. Therefore, jurisdiction with regard to the citizenship of the child falls to the Nationality of the father.

    That means Obama was actually born a Kenyan if we are to believe the lie and forged document Obama want’s the world to believe is true. Obama cannot even prove he is a US citizen.

    This same principal would apply if an American couple had a child born abroad. Jurisdiction of the American couple belongs to the USA. Barack Obama if that is his real name is a fake, a fraud and a treasonous liar so much so the lies he manufactured as his narrative are so corrupt in their construction it is insane but the worst part is many people believe it. That is sad.

    • > his momma was 18 years of age but the age to transfer citizenship was 19 years of age

      This would only have been relevant if Obama had been born abroad which he hasn’t.

      > Obama cannot even prove he is a US citizen.

      His Hawaiian COLB and LFBC, both confirmed by Hawaiian authorities on both sides of the aisle, and his US passport beg to differ.

      You, OTOH, still have to find one shred of evidence he was born somewhere else, let alone abroad.

    • slight problem there skippy!

      as the documents obtained by birther christopher strunk show, dunham had her first passport (number F777788) issued on july 18 1965!

      so how did dunham enter kenya, and then re-enter the u.s. in 1961 when she didn´t have a passport!

      oops! one of your own guys just screwed your theory LOL!

  8. I guess Magic M has never heard of the Vattel Law of Nations. Real bright there genius. You probably couldn’t smell a conspiracy if it had thermite all over it.

    • I have, but I also know the writings of some Swiss dude are not authoritative when it comes to the US Constitution. Especially since Vattel never wrote “natural born citizens” but “les naturels ou indigènes”. Linking Vattel with NBC happened the first time 10 years after the Constitution was ratified, by an unknown translator – who is, by birther logic, magically authoritative for the linkage between the Constitution and said Swiss book. And you birther laymen magically “got” this while SCOTUS and all other legal experts disagree. Right…

      • KenyanBornObama

        The Constitution was WRITTEN using Vattel’s Law of Nations!

        Moreover, if you look up allegiance in the Congressional Records, it says to look to VATTEL! DOH!

  9. Wow, what a “payoff” for one of many footnotes referring to a single sentence in her paper that itself refers back to several other sources for the claim. Where do I sign up to be named next Pope for telling your birthers your “two citizen parents” fantasy is nowhere to be found in legal history?

    • KenyanBornObama

      Try Minor v. Happersett, ya Fogblower

      Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
      “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

      • Yes, please read that citation again. And again, please. Notice these sentences:

        “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

        At the time that Minor was decided there doubts about the NBC status of children born to foreigners, but ‘Some authorities’ thought they were. That doubt was removed by the Wong Kim Ark case. Neither of Wong’s parents were citizens, or even eligible to become citizens due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts. Wong himself however was found to be a citizen by nature because of the simple, unquestioned fact that he was “born within the jurisdiction” and “without reference to the citizenship of [his] parents”. The minority report even remarked that their major objection was that this holding of the court meant that Wong Kim Ark was indeed a Natural Born Citizen and was therefore eligible to hold the office of President of the United States (the implication being: what right thinking American would want a ‘Chinaman’ as President? – sound familiar in any way?).

        Now if Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, “without reference to the citizenship of [his] parents”, neither of whom were citizens; then how could President Obama be any less a natural born citizen? Just like Wong, Obama was “born within the jurisdiction”. Unlike Wong, Obama had more than zero citizen parents.

        • KenyanBornObama

          Maybe YOU should read it again and again..Notice this sentence:
          “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”

          There are doubts about that class, meaning it is NOT settled whether they are “citizens”, NOT Natural Born-Citizens, JUST Citizens. There have NEVER been doubts as to the natural-born citizen class, which is defined as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens”

          Now what is it you can’t comprehend???? LOLOL

      • y´know, i love birfoons who quote this from the dicta, and conveniently omit the next line…

        “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

        as we all know, the PRECEDENT set in M v H was WOMENS SUFFERAGE – it was NOT a case defining NBC, and as such DID NOT set precedent on NBC

        the courts explained this years ago tracey – please wake up

        • KenyanBornObama

          That’s right, they don’t have to resolve the doubts because they are looking for the natural born definition and they found it, the case is not on whether those born to non citizens are natural born, so why waste the time? DOH

          Virginia was natural born because both parents were citizens, END OF STORY!

    • KenyanBornObama

      So are you saying that it is a TOTAL COINCIDENCE that Obama just happens to nominate her one week after the case is decided, even though the position had been vacant for more than 2 years….UM SURE! LOLOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

PETITION: Help advise Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera that Presidential Eligibility is in fact in the public interest and must be heard!

CLICK HERE TO SIGN MY PETITION