The Post & Email 10/17/2024
As Sibley related in his original complaint, Harris was born October 20, 1964 in Oakland, CA to parents who were in the U.S. on student visas, her mother having come from India and her father from Jamaica. They were therefore not U.S. citizens at the time of Kamala’s birth.
On page 4 of the complaint, Sibley wrote (paragraph numbers omitted):
The phrase “natural born Citizen” is an 18th Century legal term-of-art with a definite meaning well known to the Framers of the Constitution. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the phrase “natural born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (The Law of Nations, Emerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, § 212). Notably, in 1788 there were two requirements to be a “natural born Citizen”: born (i) in the United States and (ii) of two parents, both of whom must have been United States citizens at the time of the birth.
Accordingly, upon the law and facts, Kamala Iyer Harris is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
“Iyer” was Harris’s original middle name, shortly thereafter changed to “Devi.”
According to all available evidence, Shyamala Gopalan Harris never became a U.S. citizen; Kamala’s father, Donald Jasper Harris, naturalized in 1981, approximately 17 years after her birth.
I understood when I filed the Petition that the subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain my Petition was a close call. Hence, I included that as the first issue in the Petition for the Justices to decide.
As of Wednesday, Sibley told us, “the supreme court has not even filed my Rule 22 Application let alone answer my telephone messages inquiring about the delay in filing. So yes, it seems the Supreme Court is ignoring me as the only way to avoid the problem my lawsuit is causing.”
According to plaintiff, Ms. Harris is ineligible to serve as President because she is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. Supreme Court, Schuyler County (Baker, J.), dismissed the complaint because plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the Election Law.
This Court should affirm. As Supreme Court held, the exclusive remedy for removing a candidate from a ballot is a special proceeding commenced pursuant to the Election Law. Plaintiff did not commence such a proceeding. Nor did he file an objection with the State Board of Elections, as required before commencing a special proceeding. Thus, plaintiff lacks standing to challenge Ms. Harris’s placement on the ballot under the Election Law. Plaintiff also lacks standing to assert a federal constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he has not alleged any concrete and particularized injury arising from Ms. Harris’s candidacy. Supreme Court therefore correctly dismissed the complaint.
Friday’s hearing will be held during the 9:30 a.m. session, with Sibley’s case being the eighth in a list of 15, and livestreamed here.
More:
https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/10/17/harris-eligibility-lawsuit-hearing-friday/
