The Betrayal

The Post & Email published

EX-NAIDER RAIDER ATTACKS REASON AND JUSTICE, TO SUPPORT TYRANNY
Legal analysis by John Charlton

(Oct. 23, 2009)  —  Judge Jerome B. Simandle took 2 months to write his eleven page Opinion, granting the Motion to Dismiss in the case Kerchner vs. Obama.  But in the final analysis, his ruling was just that: an “opinion”, without weight or authority.

Simandle began his public career as a Naider’s raider.  The Post & Email documented his apparent membership in the radical communist student organization Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), from which Bill Ayers and the other Weatherman were nurtured into an American-hating terrorist organization.

I say , “apparent membership”, because other than the fact that 90% of the students at Princeton University, while Simandle was there, participated in the Anti-War protests organized by SDS, or the fact he was never drafted, but left the country immediately after graduation for Sweden, where he stayed until Ford offer pardons for draft-dodgers, The Post & Email has no evidence he was a SDS member.

But the mind of an anarchist is impetuous, passionate, violent and absurd; traits which never are lost without repentance, because they are the symptoms of the final collapse of reason and conscience.  And such appears to be the mind of Judge Jerome B. Simandle in his “Opinion piece.”

Let’s take a look at how Simandle attacks the American Order of things, in his ruling.

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
5 Comments »

The Post & Email published

EARLY RULING FROM COURT UPHELD POWER OF THE PEOPLE
by John Charlton

(Oct. 22, 2009) — Among the early documents which explain the authority of We the People is the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1819, in the case McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat. 316 1819), wherein Chief Justice Marshal wrote:

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
20 Comments »

The Post & Email published

IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
by John Charlton

(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is.  Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution:  the Supreme Court of the United States.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders, natural born citizen, nbc by David-Crockett
7 Comments »

The Post & Email published:

EARLY RULING FROM COURT UPHELD POWER OF THE PEOPLE
by John Charlton

(Oct. 15, 2009) — Among the early documents which explain the authority of We the People is the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1819, in the case McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat. 316 1819), wherein Chief Justice Marshal wrote:

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
7 Comments »

Leo Donofrio published

Since federal case law pertaining to the writ of quo warranto is so scarce, research on the issue is rather simple.  This is why I am shocked and confused as to why the DOJ did not cite the case UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.  I recenly explained the strict holding in the case – that no US District Court other than the DC District Court may entertain a quo warranto proceeding.
[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders, Leo C. Donofrio, Republished from Natrural Born Citizen by David-Crockett
10 Comments »

The Post & Email published

COMMON LAW & NATURAL LAW BASIS
by John Charlton

(Oct. 10, 2009) —  The nature of a quo warranto proceeding is as important to understand as its history, when considering arguments for and against standing and jurisdiction in cases seeking to resolve the national crisis brought on by the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by Barack Hussein Obama.

The Definition of Quo Warranto

Quo warranto, is a Late Latin phrase meaning “by what warrant or right do you act?”

In law it is defined by West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, thus:

A legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.

Again Webster’s New World Law Dictionary, defines Quo warranto thus

1. A common law writ inquiring into the authority by which a public official claims his/her office.

2. A state action with the intent of revoking the charter of a corporation that has abused or for a long period failed to exercise its franchise.

A History of Quo Warranto in English Law

Let’s examine the origins of quo warranto in the legal traditions of England and the United States.

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
7 Comments »

The Post & Email published the following brilliant analysis

The 7th Circuit Court’s Argument against Quo Warranto’s use
AND ITS APPLICABLITY TO ELIGIBILITY CASES
Legal Summary & Analysis by John Charlton

(Oct. 8, 2009) — Yesterday, Attorney Leo Donofrio brought again to the attention of the Nation, the existence of a case in the Federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which strangely was not cited by acting Attorney General George S. Cardona, in his Motion to Dismiss, in the case Barnett vs. Obama.

The seemingly appropriate and pertinent arguments in this case, against the claims of the Plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama, make it at least worthy of such a citation, despite the fact that precedents in the 7th Circuit do not bind Judge David O. Carter, whose court is under the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal 9th Circuit.

To understand better the arguments advanced in the case United States of America Ex Rel. State of Wisconsin vs. First Federal Savings and Loan Association and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, it will be useful to summarize the arguments of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in its Oct. 21, 1957 ruling.

The ruling was written by Judge John Simpson Hastings, a former field lieutenant in the U.S. Army Field Artillery.  Judge Hastings was appointed to the bench by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, on March 14th of the same year.

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
6 Comments »

The Post & Email published

From time to time The Post & Email will reprint in their entirety, pertinent laws and statutes which are in the news.  Such is the Quo Warrento Statute in the District of Columbia Code, following the on-line debate that has arisen from actions in the case Barnett vs. Obama. The following is the current version of chapter 35 of the D.C. Code, according to D.C. LAW 17-288, which became effective on DECEMBER 24, 2008, by D.C. ACT 17-602.

——————–

CHAPTER 35: QUO WARRANTO

SUBCHAPTER I —  ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES

SUBCHAPTER II — ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OR CORPORATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUBCHAPTER III — PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENTS

——————————

SUBCHAPTER I: ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES

§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

[Read more →]

Tags: Barnett v. Obama, Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
2 Comments »

The Post & Email published

OF VERY RECENT PRECEDENT, A SELF-ABDICATION BY THE COURTS OF THEIR AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION
by John Charlton

(Oct. 7, 2009) — Standing is a legal concept which has been employed in many suits regarding challenges to Obama’s usurpation of office.  For most Americans it is a concept which is obtuse, illogical, and non-sensical; but what most do not know that it is of very recent provenance, originating only in the last 35 some years.

A legal definition of the standing doctrine is as follows — I quote from Lectric Law Library:

STANDING – The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

Standing is founded “in concern about the proper–and properly limited–role of the courts in a democratic society.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ ” Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity , 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).

Let’s Break down the Legalese in Lujan

First, the often praised Justice, Justice Anthony Scalia, wrote the key decision in Lujan vs. Defenders of Wildlife; so it is a judge praised for his upholding of the Constitution, who in fact undermined the rights of all U.S. Citizens to see that the Constitution is upheld.  Let’s examine the arguments Scalia marshalled in Lujan to see how he did this.

[Read more →]

Tags: Constitutional Backgrounders, Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
14 Comments »

The Post & Email published

RULING IN FAVORITO vs. HANDEL OPENS DOORS TO POTENTIAL OF CONTINUOUS ELECTION FRAUD IN THE STATE
Legal Analysis by John Charlton

(Oct. 2, 2009) — In a State ruling that challenges the very notions of an open democracy and common sense, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled in Favorito et al. v. Handlel et al., that the easily tampered with electronic voting machinery used by the State in no way infringes upon the rights of citizens to a fair and verifiable election.

This ruling, handed down on Sept. 28th, follows the controversial decision of the U.S. Justice Department to constrain Georgia not to request identification verification at the polls, so as to prevent non-U.S. citizens from voting.

The unanimous ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court is notable for its deftness of argument to cleverly conceal its unreasonable pretentions.  Presiding Justice George H. Carley wrote on behalf of the entire court.

Justice Carley begins his ruling thus, by explaining the historical context of the case:

After a Pilot Project was conducted in 2001 pursuant to Ga. L. 2001, pp. 269, 285, § 19, the General Assembly established a uniform direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system. Ga. L. 2002, p. 598. See also Ga. L. 2003, p. 517. The Secretary of State examined, purchased, and distributed touch-screen voting machines, testing them at various points during the process. In 2006, several Georgia residents (Appellants) filed a multi-count complaint for declaratory judgment, injunction, and mandamus against the Secretary of State, the Governor of Georgia, and the Georgia State Election Board (Appellees), challenging the authorization and use of the DRE equipment. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered an extensive order granting Appellees’ motion in its entirety. Appellants appeal from that order.

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
3 Comments »

Mario Apuzzo Published

On September 16, 2009, the Hon. Clay D. Land of the United States District Court in Georgia dismissed Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D.’s action against Obama and the military, finding that the court had to abstain (when a court declines to hear a matter because of comity and respect for the unique military decision-making process) from deciding the case because for the court to exercise its jurisdiction would be an inappropriate intrusion into military matters. In his opinion, Judge Land said that Obama’s “ ‘short-form’ birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. . . .” In deciding the abstention issue, even though there has not yet been any discovery allowed in the case, the Court commented on the underlying merits of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs on the question of Obama’s place of birth. In discussing what evidence the plaintiffs rely upon to show that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims, Judge Land address the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate and said the following in Footnote 5:

“One piece of evidence Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying ‘a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy’ of the document. (Smith Decl. Para. 7, Sept. 3, 2009). Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.”
[Read more →]

Tags: Capt. Connie Rhodes, DR. ORLY TAITZ, Legal Backgrounders, Lucas Mombasa BC, Mario Apuzzo, Rhodes v. Obama by David-Crockett
11 Comments »

Leo Donofrio Published

Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point.  But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times.  But that’s exactly what has happened this week.  A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN.  They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.

They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now.  A wonderful contributor to comments at this blog – Kamira – is part of that team.  This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries.  It will be guest blogged by them right here when it’s ready for public consumption.

But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds.  It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884.  The American Law Review was a premier legal journal -  the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.

[Read more →]

Tags: Backgrounders, Essential, Legal Backgrounders, Leo C. Donofrio, natural born citizen by David-Crockett
10 Comments »

Lawyer outlines strategy to prompt court decision
By Bob Unruh

An Ohio State University associate professor who includes election law among his specialties says there is a logical legal strategy to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.

Daniel Tokaji, in an interview with WND, confirmed the thesis of a “First Impressions” column he’d written for the Michigan Law Review that a lawsuit in a state court probably would have the best chance at success in obtaining a decision.

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
8 Comments »

by Jack Ward

Most of us have a cursory knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and that the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. But few know any of the amendments other than the first (freedom of speech) and the second (gun rights).

But one amendment has been totally ignored by our political leaders. The forgotten amendment is the tenth amendment which enumerates the rights of states and the people.

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders, Restoring the authority of the States by David-Crockett
3 Comments »

Personally I see secession as a last resort for the several States in case that the conspiracy of tyranny & usurpation cannot be defeated. We the people of this Constitutional Republic should and will fight for the Constitution whatever it takes. Nevertheless at least in theory secessions cannot be excluded.

David Crockett

The Ludwig von Mises Institute Published

Can states secede? There are three levels on which this question can be answered:

1. the inalienable right of secession,
2. the international law of secession, and
3. the US law of secession.

All three say yes.

The Inalienable Right of Secession

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America invokes the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that governments are formed to protect these rights and gain their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the right — no, it is the duty — of the people to alter or abolish that government.

[Read more →]

Tags: Backgrounders, Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
5 Comments »

Aristotle the Hun wrote this outstanding and highly important article that should be spread all over the country.

David Crockett

by Aristotle the Hun

Somehow, you know it’s coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans. “For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17
It isn’t hard to imagine the gnawing anxiety that AKA OBAMA (Also Known As: an acronym used to describe suspicious persons who use more than one name) lives with, day in and day out. Much has been written about AKA OBAMA’s behavior that reminds mental health experts and others of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder.) A frequent manifestation of such a disorder is The Narcissist, as Liar and Con-man.

This disorder is frequently misunderstood as “self-love.” A more accurate understanding is love of a reflection of one’s self. Abused, abandoned and neglected children will compensate for damaged egos by creating an ideal reflection of themselves that they then embellish and vigorously defend. A person with NPD is quite capable of a mind twisting position like, “I have nothing to hide but I am hiding things anyway.” AKA OBAMA certainly fits the model of having such a childhood. While I am not in the position to deliver an official In Absentia diagnosis of a full strength NPD case, many of the indicators are present.

[Read more →]

Tags: Backgrounders, Common Law Grand Jury, Constitutional Backgrounders, Legal Backgrounders, Obama Taqqiya Muslim, Obama coming down, Stop the usurper, common law grand juries by David-Crockett
10 Comments »

Aristotle The Hun of The Steady Drip published this outstanding article which should be read and memorized by every American citizen.

Grand Jury Recommends: Indict Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama
Mark S. McGrew

The fifth amendment of the US Constitution states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”.

So who or what is a Grand Jury?

Most Americans, including most Judges, most prosecutors and most lawyers think a Grand Jury is a function of the government, at the whim of the government, under the control and direction of the government. However, this is constitutionally false and always has been.

[Read more →]

Tags: Backgrounders, Common Law Grand Jury, Legal Backgrounders, National Grand Jury, common law grand juries by David-Crockett
7 Comments »

Leo Donofrio published the following well researched articel of which I am not fully aware of what it’s implications are. So I will refrain from writing a comment at this stage, I need to study it further and as I am no lawyer I look forward insights from more knowledgeable commentators. Nevertheless Leo’s assertion  “…This means that under current United States law, the “natural born citizen” clause is presumed to mean something other than a “14th Amendment citizen”. And no other construction is even admissible…” shows me that Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 holds and has been strengthened and thereby our case has been strengthened.   

In respect to Quo Warranto my understanding would be that instead of filing it at SCOTUS it should first be brought to the  District Court of the District of Columbia and than in case of dismissal be brought to SCOTUS in appeal.

Please correct me if I am wrong. 

 - David Crockett

Leo Donofrio wrote

Before I address the legal facts of this headline, I want to address all of the other Before I address the legal facts of this headline, I want to address all of the other Presidential eligibility cases that went before SCOTUS including my own. It’s true that - technically - Donofrio v. Wells could still be pending if I chose to submit a full petition for writ of certiorari. Many have written to me and asked why I haven’t resorted to that tactic. The answer is fairly simple: my case is moot.

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders, Leo Donofrio by David-Crockett
6 Comments »

Dr. Orly Taitz published
Please post as article by EA LEO

A Call for a few Good Men & Women to Unite for Our Country

To find standing the Court need look no further than the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Thus, “we the people,” individually, are established as one party among many to a contract binding upon the executors of this contract, our Constitution.

[Read more →]

Tags: DR. ORLY TAITZ, Legal Backgrounders by David-Crockett
4 Comments »

ADMIN NOTICE: for data security reasons this blog will republish all Leo Donofrio’s articles and updates. This blog runs on a save server that for all intends and purposes should be out of the Obama Mafia’s reach
Donofrio writes:

[I originally posted this essay at my Citizenspook blog back in 2005.]All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders, Leo C. Donofrio, Leo Donofrio, Republished from Natrural Born Citizen by David Crockett
6 Comments »

The Right Side of Life reports:

I happened to find the following comment from “Sola Veritas” (do a search on the page to find it; #32) at FreeRepublic.com:
[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David Crockett
3 Comments »

Background to:

• For immediate release 01.19.09.
• A new action filed by Orly Taitz, ESQ based on the Executive Order by President Bush

Executive Order: Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 1104(a)(1), 3301, and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, and in order to simplify and streamline the system of Federal Government personnel investigative and adjudicative processes to make them more efficient and effective, it is hereby ordered as follows:
[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David Crockett
6 Comments »

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Ph.D., J.D., is interviewed by Aaron Bolinger on the NVCCA/RTR weekly conference call on 10-7-2008. I strongly recommend the views expressed by Dr. Viera.

Visit http://www.committeesofsafety.org/ for more information. Also, be sure to read Dr. Vieira’s writings at http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm.

Report of the Edwin Viera/Steve Pidgeon dialog during an historical Plains Radio broadcast.
[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders, Revitalizing The Militia by David Crockett
2 Comments »

The Obama File reports

To: Drew68

My eighty-nine year old father practiced law for over 50 years.  He was top in his class and clerked for the federal court.  When the Gore case went to the SCOTUS he wrote the chapter, paragraph etc. that the court would decide the case on a piece of paper. He also wrote the vote tally and which justices would vote which way…..He gave the paper to a young judge in town and told him to open it when the decision was published……..He was 100% correct.  He thinks any one who thinks that the SCOTUS is going to ignore or dismiss this case is delusional.  He is much more qualified to judge the case then you are.

[Read more →]

Tags: Berg v. Obama, Donofrio v. Wells, Legal Backgrounders by David Crockett
16 Comments »

The article may be somewhat old but I think it more than relevant.

timesexaminer.com
Written by Jeff West
Dec 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Millions of Americans are awaiting an answer to the question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President, as a national drama unfolds. In June, a copy of his Certification of Live Birth was posted on his website, which was later proven to be altered electronically. A lawsuit against him by Atty. Phillip Berg has gone to the Supreme Court, in addition to another by Atty. Leo Donofrio. The Court ordered Obama to respond to Berg’s suit by December 1 and they will meet in conference on December 5 to consider hearing Donofrio’s suit. Additionally, Presidential candidate Alan Keyes has sued Obama in California for being ineligible. Meanwhile, rumors swirl about his birth and citizenship, including whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya or later became an Indonesian citizen.
[Read more →]

Tags: Legal Backgrounders by David Crockett
8 Comments »