I will show you why I am very concerned about Theresa Cao and how she may well be tragically mis-served by her attorneys from the Rutherford Institute.  Here is a public quote from the Rutherford Institute regarding her case:

 

"This case is not about President Obama's eligibility for office or Theresa Cao's affiliation with the birther movement—it's about free speech in its purest sense," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

 

Did you catch that?  This case is not about Obama's eligibility or Theresa's involvement with a political movement ("birther")?  Say whaaaaat?  Now you can see what I am talking about.  It appears that her attorneys are going to make this case strictly about First Amendment rights, but somehow gut that right by removing the political context and content from those First Amendment speech rights because "it is not about Obama's eligibility" according to them?  That is a good trick.  I would like to know how in the heck they are going to argue a First Amendment right to yell fire in a crowded house when there is no fire, because they have removed the burning issue of the political content of her speech and claim it is not about Obama's eligibility or her involvement in a political cause, according to them. 

 

There is no First Amendment right to yell fire in a crowded house when there is no fire, which is essentially what the charges against Theresa are all about.  The entire point of the First Amendment is to protect POLITICAL SPEECH.  If it is not about Obama's illegitimacy which is about the NATURAL POLITICAL RIGHTS of the people that are being ignored by Congress --that Theresa was asserting by exercising her political rights of Free Speech directed exactly to those who were causing a political injury (fire), in order that she may secure those political rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the very Constitutional subject that Congress was reading at the time but they are ignoring by failing to enforce regarding Obama-- then what right is it that she is claiming?   Do her attorneys honestly believe the First Amendment creates a speech right to disrupt Congress devoid of any political content?  There is no such First Amendment right.  If you remove the political content of her speech, like the President of the Rutherford Institute has publicly stated, then you have admitted that there is no fire in the house, and then I don't see how it is a First Amendment right to disrupt Congress that she is exercising.  Do they even know what the First Amendment right of Free Speech is even all about?

 

So far I have watched many attorneys who have not been able to craft a suit that can clear the jurisdictional elements needed to have standing in a court of law, such as I have shown are essential.  (See my article here at the Post and e-Mail on “Standing”)  They flail their theories of jus soli and unity of parents (plural) with petitions that are devoid of proper legal jurisdictional subject matter.  Not one of any of these attorneys so far (except perhaps Leo Donofrio, maybe) seem to even be able to explain the self-evident meaning of "natural born Citizen", that it is referring to one who is born as a native NATURAL SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY who can claim the political right to be a native SOVEREIGN REPRESENTATIVE of the native SOVEREIGN PEOPLE; that such rights are Natural Rights that are  inherited according to Natural Laws from our native sovereign citizen fathers, just like Vattel explains-- if they would just read past the first sentence of section 212 of Chapter 19 book 1 of Vattel’s "Law of Nations".  How difficult is this to comprehend?  They cannot even tell you the difference between Natural Law and Positive Law.  They cannot even tell you the difference between Natural Rights and Legal Rights and where the two derive their authority from.  They cannot even read the Declaration of Independence and understand that it spells out that Sovereign political rights are Natural Rights that belong to everyone equally (“men” or mankind) and that these are Natural Rights that are endowed to us from the Laws of Nature (that is what is stated) that are secured by governments (Positive Law) that are created by "Men" meaning males, our fathers and forefathers.  See how easy this is?  The Creator or God creates the Laws of Nature (Natural Law jurisdiction from where our natural rights come from) and "Men" create the Positive Law jurisdiction (the jurisdiction where statutes or "legal rights" come from) in order to secure and protect the Natural Law jurisdictional rights.  How difficult is this to read in the Declaration of Independence, and comprehend?  Even Jesus understood this: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (Positive Law jurisdiction) and render unto God that which is God's" (Natural Law jurisdiction).  I am sorry to have to say this, but in my opinion, those who do not know or understand this are just ignorant fools who don't deserve a representative government because they are unaware of what it is that is even being represented. 

 

How in the world can people believe that these attorneys, who put forth the notion that it requires BOTH parents and soil, have any credibility when they cannot even explain the basics of Natural Law and Positive Law just mentioned, or even craft a petition that can even meet the jurisdictional requirements to have standing in a court of law?  If they are that incapable, why would anyone believe that their legally-unsupported claims are valid, that one must be born without any competing jurisdictions at birth in order to be President?  They fail to realize that the soil and your mother are not competing jurisdictions to the Natural Law jurisdiction of your father, which is a superior jurisdiction, no matter whether or not the soil or your mom are native or foreign, which is why these do not matter.  It is beyond all reason, for example, how a man like Reverend Manning, whom I love and admire, cannot understand that God's jurisdiction (Natural Law jurisdiction) is a superior jurisdiction and that the natural unalienable sovereign political rights that God endows us with (why do you think they are called “God-given” rights?) cannot be taken away or denied by the Positive Law jurisdiction of mankind that is the soil jurisdiction (native or foreign) or by the jurisdiction of a foreign mother.  I guess Manning does not believe that God’s jurisdiction is superior after all, if it can be so easily trumped by soil jurisdictions or a foreign mother’s?

 

As far as I have been able to determine, I am the only one who has discovered the complete legal understanding that is required for Theresa to properly defend her political rights of free speech and be found NOT GUILTY.  You cannot remove the issue regarding Obama's eligibility and claim a First Amendment right to disrupt Congress, which has been publicly stated by the president of the Rutherford Institute to be their proposed legal approach.  I suspected that no attorney would touch the issue.  Without the political context and content of  Theresa’s words as being pleaded and made central to the defense of her actions that disrupted Congress, then she will be found to be guilty.

 

This is such a tragedy and my heart aches for Theresa and the country.  I contend that if Theresa was born to a citizen father then she will be a "natural born Citizen" so that she would be one who Article II was meant to protect which would give her the right to disrupt Congress.  I fear that Theresa's heart is in the right place but she will be found guilty and her actions will come to naught, and will be just one more nail in the coffin of Freedom that the liberal left communists will gleefully hammer closed.  I am bound and determined to not let this happen and so I will now provide once again my outline of the situation as I see it, that I believe Theresa and her attorneys must adopt in order that she may be found to be not guilty.  I provide this e-mail below that was written by me and directed to an individual who is equally concerned about Theresa as we all are:

 

 

Dear Sir;

 

I am very happy that you are in contact with Theresa's attorneys and that you might have some influence.  I also want to thank you for corresponding with me.  Thank you for updating me on Phil Berg's refined understanding which was not at all clear to me when I spoke with him on the phone, as he did not seem to accept at that time that only a citizen father was required.  Perhaps he has thought about what I had said to him and he has changed his mind.  Please disregard the grades I gave as being poetic license, as they all deserve A's for their efforts even though they have not fully understood the correct theory of law that explains Article II.  That having been said, I wish to lay out what I see as the correct concept that must be conveyed.  It is really very obvious if you just apply the jurisdictional legal arguments correctly. 

 

I must disagree with you on just one point and that is regarding arguing both parents.  Not because you are incorrect in so much as you would cover your bases, but the problem with that approach is the same as those who argue jus soli and unity of parents both.  There is no support in law for this and you go to the court cap in hand asking for an advisory opinion that the court is neither bound to give nor empowered jurisdictionally to make such a determination.  This has been one of my peeves so far at these attorneys who don't seem to understand that the courts are not empowered to make a judicial determination on the meaning of Article II "natural born Citizen".  It already means what it means, and the court just must accept and apply the meaning.  Please allow me to lay out the simple and obvious interpretation that shows the court what it means, without relying on the court for a ruling on its meaning, which they cannot and must not provide anyway.  You don't want a Supreme Court Ruling that is at odds with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and natural reality, for heavens sake!  Don't give the Supreme Court that authority, that they do not have anyway, by asking them to answer what does Article II "natural born Citizen" mean.  Here is what it means:

 

1) The Constitution embodies only two jurisdictions from where authority is derived, a Natural Law jurisdiction and a Positive Law jurisdiction.

 

2) Article II "natural born Citizen" is a unique construct that is not defined in English Common law, or U.S. Positive Law, but is defined solely in Natural Law and just declared in the Positive Law at Article II in order to be protected.  Article II "natural born Citizen" derives its authority solely from the Natural Law jurisdiction of the Constitution as meaning one who is born a native sovereign of the country.  Sovereign political rights are Natural Rights that are inherited from males (father) under the Natural Law jurisdiction, because it is males who create the Positive Law (government) to secure the natural political rights and membership in the father's society that is inherited.  (Explained by Vattel and declared as a self-evident truth of Nature in the Declaration of Independence.)  This is probably due to the natural fact that under the Natural Law jurisdiction, males are physically superior in strength and aggression and no female can physically prevent a father from securing the political rights and membership of his children into his society.

 

3) When it comes to citizenship and political rights, the jurisdiction of foreign soil or a foreign mother are only considered to be a Positive Law jurisdiction in contrast to that of the father's Natural Law jurisdiction.  The soil is obvious because soil is always a Positive Law jurisdiction.  A foreign mother might seem to be a Natural Law jurisdiction that is equal to the father's, but upon investigation you will see that this is not so.  Whenever there is a foreign father, then the political rights and membership of the children in the mother's society are in question, and must be adjudicated and secured solely by the Positive Law via statute.  Any citizenship or political rights must be defined by statutory authority due to the competing superior Natural Law jurisdiction of the father.  The father's Natural Law jurisdiction is always considered to be the superior controlling jurisdiction and forces the mother to be under the Positive Law jurisdiction for describing or securing any political rights or membership in the mother's society.

 

Since the Natural Law jurisdiction is superior to and controlling over that of the Positive Law jurisdiction, it makes no difference where you are born or the citizenship status of a foreign mother, as both jurisdictions will only be Positive Law jurisdictions that will define the citizenship rights or political rights which will not compete with the father's pre-eminent Natural Law jurisdiction no matter whether the father is native or foreign.  Therefore your place of birth or the status of your mother is irrelevant as long as you have a citizen father.

 

4) Loyalty and Allegiance considerations.  Any loyalties or allegiances that are derived from foreign soil or a foreign mother at birth are only statutory in nature due to the Positive Law jurisdictions that are controlling in such matters, and so they are not inherited loyalties or allegiances from a citizen father due to the Laws of Nature for the reasons outlined above.  Therefore, it makes no difference whether one is born into the Positive Law with foreign loyalties and allegiances or if one develops foreign Positive Law loyalties and allegiances after birth through migrating to some other country.  Both situations are easily remedied by the repatriation requirements of Article II, that requires one to be born a native citizen of the country which is secured solely by a citizen father under Natural Law jurisdiction (Vattel), and the 14 year residency requirement in Article II that causes one to sever any foreign loyalties or allegiances that are derived solely form the Positive Law jurisdiction and repatriate and reestablish the loyalties and allegiances of the native father, that one is born inheriting as a function of the Laws of Nature which is the Natural Law jurisdiction.  Patriot is derived from the Greek/Latin "patros" meaning "father", so to repatriate means to return to the land of your father and take up his loyalties and allegiances.  This is what Article II requires and provides for.

 

5) The term "natural born citizen" that is defined under the 14th Amendment and by U.S. case law and Supreme Court decisions is only referring to "subject" status as in one who is "subject to the jurisdiction of" the Positive Law, and so it is only a Positive Law construct of a "legal right" or privilege, not a Natural Right; and any political rights that are derived from "natural born citizen" status are thus only legal political rights and not natural political rights.  This term is defined and borrowed from English Common law as a citizen "subject" of the King/State whose authority is derived solely from the king's/state's soil jurisdiction that the king/state claims dominion over.  This is solely a Positive Law jurisdiction, as the King/State is not the source of Natural Rights only Positive Law "legal rights".  This is what defines the difference between "natural born citizen" and "natural born Citizen".  The former is a function solely of Positive Law and is a privilege of soil only, where a citizen father is not even required, and the latter is a function solely of Natural Law where ONLY a citizen father is required and the soil is irrelevant.  Article II is a unique construct that has nothing at all to do with Positive Law or English Common Law, but rather represents the break with England and the form of monarchy political system that caused an automatic involuntary allegiance to the King/State by being born under the king's/state's soil jurisdiction.  Instead this construct is defined solely under Natural Law to represent the Natural Sovereign authority that all People inherit and are entitled to, that was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the war of 1776 that secured the recognition of these natural sovereign political rights to be inherited from our fathers that the King had refused to recognize.

 

6) One can see that not only is there a big legal difference, as defined by the Constitution and by Supreme Court cases, between "natural born citizen" and "natural born Citizen", as just outlined in 5 above, but also between "Citizen of the United States" and the 14th amendment "citizen of the United States".  The term "Citizen of the United States" is referring to a sovereign State Citizen.  The term "citizen of the United States" is referring to a citizen "subject" of the State that is declared in the 14th amendment to be a citizen "subject" of the State jurisdiction, as in a ward of the State, and not a sovereign State Citizen who is not a "subject" of State jurisdiction without voluntary consent and who is not a ward of the State.  Here is a link with Supreme Court references that helps to clarify this distinction: http://usa-the-republic.com/mark%20of%20beast/AppendixC.htm

 

As you can see, a correct understanding of the Natural Law jurisdiction and the Positive Law jurisdiction --both of which are well-defined in law to be opposite and "opposed" jurisdictions, with the Natural Law jurisdiction being superior-- perfectly defines and describes Article II "natural born Citizen" as only requiring a citizen father who creates you, and your place of birth and the status of one's mother are both irrelevant.  One need only claim the natural political rights in order to be a sovereign representative of the sovereign citizens of the country and then repatriate for 14 years to sever any foreign allegiances or loyalties, in order to qualify under Article II for the Office of President.

 

Regarding Theresa's defense.  It would have been nice if Theresa would have been born to a citizen father, because then her actions would speak directly to the outline above and she could have argued that she was protecting her own inherited sovereign political rights to a representative President as is meant to be secured by Article II "natural born Citizen".  However, I agree with you that functionally it should make no difference in the end to her defense, but it does modify the approach somewhat.  She will have to argue that she is fighting to secure the political rights of her adopted society for her children's sake (I wonder if she has any children born of a U.S. citizen father?), or for the sake of the members of the jury and society who are themselves "natural born Citizens" due to inheritance from a citizen father.  I would think that should be sufficient.

 

Finally, I agree with you regarding whether or not the Courts will even allow any of this.  However, now we are not talking about the correctness of the legal reasoning but rather to just what have the so-called courts and legal system in America come to, when the Law (Natural Law) and the Sovereignty of the People is not even permitted in or recognized by the courts.  Now you have put your finger on the actual problem, which is the corruption and power grab of the Judiciary which has nothing at all to do with the Law or the validity of what I have described above.  The real problem is that the government and judiciary do not represent or work for the People.  They represent their own interests.

 

I hope you find this dissertation to be helpful.  It is my sincere desire that you might help influence those who are charged with the responsibility of defending Theresa, that they might learn from this exposition and will adopt the wisdom of these explanations which I offer as the correct discovery of the Law that cannot be legitimately refuted.  I will send a copy of this to Theresa and others.  If you can forward this to those who you have been in contact with regarding her legal defense I would be grateful.

 

Jedi Pauly