Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed.”[1]
In dismissing eligibility cases some federal courts have gone so far as to find “Rule 11” violations by plaintiff’s counsel.[2] A federal district court in Georgia fined plaintiff’s counsel $20,000 for a “Rule 11” violation, that is, for filing “frivolous” motions and for “using the federal judiciary as a platform to espouse controversial political beliefs rather than as a legitimate forum for hearing legal claims.”[3] In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in dismissing another challenge to the President’s “eligibility” by an attempt to press an “interpleader” claim, the judge ordered plaintiff’s counsel to “show cause” why he should not be fined under Rule 11 for frivolous filings, and eventually “reprimanded” the counsel for filing a frivolous lawsuit.[4]
Allegations of Loss of Citizenship
In some of the cases filed, plaintiffs have argued that even if President Obama had been born in Hawaii, the move to Indonesia by his mother with him at the time he was a minor in some way “nullified” the citizenship “at birth” status of President Obama, even though as a minor he moved back to and resided within the United States.[5] It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that a citizen at birth, such as one born “in” the United States, does not forfeit his or her citizenship-at-birth status because of removal as a minor to a foreign country, even a country in which one or both parents are or become citizens and nationals. Rather, citizenship may only be forfeited by a citizen of the United States by an affirmative action of renunciation by one having the capacity to do so (that is, as an adult):
It has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. …
- ↑ Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204, 209 (3rd Cir. 2010). Damages were not assessed, but Appellants were ordered to pay costs. Judgment, Kerchner v. Obama, No. 09-4209, Document: 003110204065 (July 2, 2010).
- ↑ The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at Rule 11(b)(2) require that in signing briefs and complaints to the court, an attorney represents that “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.”
- ↑ Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F.Supp.2d 1363, 1378–1380 (D.M. Ga. 2009), aff’d, Rhodes and Taitz v. MacDonald, 368 Fed. Appx. 949 (11th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, Taitz v. MacDonald, 131 S.Ct. 918 (2111): “The absolute absence of any legitimate legal argument, combined with the political diatribe in her motions, demonstrates that [counsel’s] purpose is to advance a political agenda and not to pursue a legal cause of action. Rather than citing to binding legal precedent, she calls the President names, accuses the undersigned of treason, and gratuitously slanders the President’s father. As the Court noted in an earlier order, counsel’s wild accusations may be protected by the First Amendment when she makes them on her blog or in her press conferences, but the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes, not as a platform for political rhetoric and personal insults. … The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. … Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. … Her initial complaint was legally frivolous. Upon being so informed, counsel followed it with a frivolous motion for reconsideration. In response to the Court’s show cause order, she filed a frivolous motion to recuse.”
- ↑ Holister v. Soetoro, memorandum order, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. March 24, 2009), aff’d 368 Fed. Appx. 154 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (consolidated with 09-5161), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 1017 (2011).
- ↑ Berg. v. Obama, 574 F.Supp.2d at 513.
