Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

Post Reply
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30400
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#1

Post by bob »

David M. Neal v. Harris, Warren Cty. [Ohio] Ct. Common Pleas No. 20CV093603 (filed Sept. 23, 2020). (Case lookup here.)

Also suing Biden, Perez [DNC chair], ODP, Warren Cty. ODP.

Neal's redacted complaint and memo. Nb:
Grant injunctive relief in the form of a writ of mandamus requiring the Democratic National Committee and Vice-Presidential candidate Kamala Harris immediately explain exactly how they think, by law, a 14th amendment citizen known as an anchor baby, born to two foreign parents whose allegiance is to the countries they come from, in this case, Jamaica and India, is a natural born citizen. Since her place of birth and birth date are known then all that is necessary to remedy this problem is to have the dates of her parents naturalization. If both parents were not naturalized at the time of her birth then she is not eligible for the office. If not satisfactorily explained according the historical meaning of the term, born to American citizen parents, which was re-established in the US Senate as recently as April of 2008 then we wish to have her name removed from the Democratic ballot at least in the state of Ohio.
I did not know "explain to me to my satisfaction" is a cause of action. (Apuzzo missed out!)

It is cute Neal redacted his name, but left the case number.

No action on it so far.

H/t: Lansdowne!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 10346
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#2

Post by pipistrelle »

Another choice bit:
7.3 Plaintiff submits that if King George III`s grandson and his pregnant wife had slithered into America in say 1800, just a few years after the Revolutionary War, and she gave birth to a child, would that child be eligible to be President of the United States?


User avatar
realist
Posts: 35488
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#3

Post by realist »

I posted this in the "unserious" thread so just cross-posting it here since we have a dedicated thread.
Grumpy Old Guy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:25 am

Lansdowne wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:22 am
bob wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:56 am
[twitter thing by John Binghams Ghost]
First I've heard of an Ohio suit.
This one by the same person whose name is given as XXXXX X XXXXX
http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/har ... andum.html

Otherwise known as David M. Neal, who never mentions Wong Kim Ark.
A convenient omission to be sure.
But he does mention she's a native born citizen. :rotflmao:

5.3.1 Kamala’s father, Donald Harris, is a retired Stanford University economics professor whose biography affirms that he arrived in the U.S. in 1961 as an “Issa Scholar” from Jamaica. It adds that he was born in Jamaica and naturalized in the U.S. but the date is unknown. Neither parent reportedly was present in the U.S. as a legal resident for the requisite five years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement before her parents can apply for naturalization, making Kamala Harris a 14th amendment native born citizen of foreign parents.


He actually makes the case for Kamala being natural born in his "pleadings." :-D He just doesn't realize it due to "birther." Though yeah, he does conveniently leave out WKA. :roll:

Unfortunately, there's also that standing thing they continue to not get.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10070
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#4

Post by Northland10 »

I went to the birther scorecar to see if it had Neal v Brunner from 2008 and, of course, it did. However, the only information that I did not already find out it was listed an SOS report but that link is now broken and I cannot find another version of it on the Ohio SOS website.


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10070
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#5

Post by Northland10 »

6.2.1 In Zimmer v. Acheson which was decided in the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (1951) demonstrates that statutory citizenship, as in the 14th amendment, is in fact a form of “naturalized” citizenship. Persons in whom citizenship is vested by such statutes are naturalized citizens and not natural-born citizens. Zimmer v. Acheson, 10 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 209, 211;
He's not too bright.

First, the 14th Amendment is not a statute but part of the Constitution.

Second, he must have some serious reading issues.
Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F.2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951) wrote:“There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.”
Even if we were to treat the 14th as a statute, Zimmer v. Acheson still would make her native and since there are only 2 versions. As for the claim about a statute not making a native born (using the courts language), this had to do with a person born in Germany of a naturalized father and a native born mother. He never made returned to solidify his claim as a citizen (naturalized or otherwise) so they rejected his claim of citizenship.

NBC did a quick write-up on this as well.
https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ... /28/43569/


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 3331
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#6

Post by Grumpy Old Guy »

But but, Laity has ruled that Native-Born is not the same as Natural-Born. :rotflmao:


User avatar
bob
Posts: 30400
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#7

Post by bob »


Another overconfidient birther. :roll:


Service by Twitter? :think:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35488
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#8

Post by realist »

Northland10 wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:48 pm I went to the birther scorecar to see if it had Neal v Brunner from 2008 and, of course, it did. However, the only information that I did not already find out it was listed an SOS report but that link is now broken and I cannot find another version of it on the Ohio SOS website.
Might could find it through the court's website. I don't have time right now to try but here's the case # etc.
Screenshot_2020-10-12 Birther Scorecard String Cite Birthers Win O - Lose - 220 Pending - 6 Total - 226 Updated January 10,[...].png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#9

Post by Dr. Caligari »

realist wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:19 pm
Unfortunately, there's also that standing thing they continue to not get.
Many states allow any registered voter to challenge the eligibility of a candidate. That's how Orly lost on the merits in Indiana and Georgia, while losing on standing grounds everywhere else.


J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law
Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 3331
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#10

Post by Grumpy Old Guy »

If at first you don’t succeed, fail, fail again. (Official Birther Motto)


User avatar
bob
Posts: 30400
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#11

Post by bob »

Dr. Caligari wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:58 pmMany states allow any registered voter to challenge the eligibility of a candidate. That's how Orly lost on the merits in Indiana and Georgia, while losing on standing grounds everywhere else.
Taitz lost on the merits in Georgia before the administrative judge. Various plaintiffs appealed, and the court tossed those suits, ruling the administrative judge's ruling was void because it lacked jurisdiction to even hear the matter.

In Indiana, IIRC, Taitz's case also got tossed (following her circus in front of the Indiana Election Commission) for lack of jurisdiction.

Indiana famously gave us the Ankeny on-the-merits ruling, but Taitz had nothing to do with that suit.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10070
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#12

Post by Northland10 »

realist wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:52 pm
Northland10 wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:48 pm I went to the birther scorecar to see if it had Neal v Brunner from 2008 and, of course, it did. However, the only information that I did not already find out it was listed an SOS report but that link is now broken and I cannot find another version of it on the Ohio SOS website.
Might could find it through the court's website. I don't have time right now to try but here's the case # etc.

Screenshot_2020-10-12 Birther Scorecard String Cite Birthers Win O - Lose - 220 Pending - 6 Total - 226 Updated January 10,[...].png
The court website had no documents, only the docket.

On an unrelated note, when I first saw this topic, I thought it said Neal Patrick Harris. David Neal is no Doogie Howser, MD.


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 47064
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#13

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Dr. Caligari wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:58 pm
realist wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:19 pm
Unfortunately, there's also that standing thing they continue to not get.
Many states allow any registered voter to challenge the eligibility of a candidate. That's how Orly lost on the merits in Indiana and Georgia, while losing on standing grounds everywhere else.
Taitz lost on every ground possible in Mississippi.

It just took 3 years to get the decision.


User avatar
Jez
Posts: 2699
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: Out there, Somewhere...
Occupation: Thread Killer

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#14

Post by Jez »

Warren County is just up the road.... I'm thinking field trip, maybe?

ETA: Just checked. 30 minutes drive south of me.


I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.

~Khalil Gibran
User avatar
realist
Posts: 35488
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#15

Post by realist »

Jez wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:37 am Warren County is just up the road.... I'm thinking field trip, maybe?

ETA: Just checked. 30 minutes drive south of me.
Should never get that far, but if it does ... YAY!! BOTG!! :thumbs: Been a long time.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image
gshevlin2
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:23 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#16

Post by gshevlin2 »

bob wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:25 pm David M. Neal v. Harris, Warren Cty. [Ohio] Ct. Common Pleas No. 20CV093603 (filed Sept. 23, 2020). (Case lookup here.)

Also suing Biden, Perez [DNC chair], ODP, Warren Cty. ODP.

Neal's redacted complaint and memo. Nb:
It is cute Neal redacted his name, but left the case number.
He's...not very bright.


User avatar
bob
Posts: 30400
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#17

Post by bob »

Grumpy Old Guy wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:44 pm
bob wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:09 pm
Lansdowne wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:22 pm This one by the same person whose name is given as XXXXX X XXXXX
http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/har ... andum.html
Thanks! How did you find it?

I mean, other than "@DaveNeal2012"? ;)
Sorry I never answered. First line of the pleadings.
I was curious how Neal got on our radar, but I see that he occasionally "advertises" on Twitter about his lawsuit.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
gshevlin2
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:23 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#18

Post by gshevlin2 »

bob wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:25 pm David M. Neal v. Harris, Warren Cty. [Ohio] Ct. Common Pleas No. 20CV093603 (filed Sept. 23, 2020). (Case lookup here.)

Also suing Biden, Perez [DNC chair], ODP, Warren Cty. ODP.

Neal's redacted complaint and memo. Nb:
...according the historical meaning of the term, born to American citizen parents, which was re-established in the US Senate as recently as April of 2008...
If anybody gets to cross-examine this dude in court, or any reasonably competent lawyer writes a response, this part of his pleading will be reduced to matchwood in 90 seconds or less. S. RES. 511 was a non-binding Senate resolution. It does not mean what he thinks it means either. The text "born to American citizen parents" does appear in the resolution, but only in the context of Sen. McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone.


User avatar
bob
Posts: 30400
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#19

Post by bob »

gshevlin2 wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:01 pmIf anybody gets to cross-examine this dude in court, or any reasonably competent lawyer writes a response, this part of his pleading will be reduced to matchwood in 90 seconds or less. S. RES. 511 was a non-binding Senate resolution. It does not mean what he thinks it means either. The text "born to American citizen parents" does appear in the resolution, but only in the context of Sen. McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Yeah, birthers always "forget" the last clause, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936...."

I don't think this impeached president was born on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. :smoking:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30400
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#20

Post by bob »

The online docket indicates that, as of yesterday, all five defendants (Biden, Harris, DNC Chair, state Democratic org, local Democratic org) have been served. :towel:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30400
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#21

Post by bob »


:brickwallsmall:

Neal (the above-quoted ghost) still has a live lawsuit, but nothing's pending; the defendants are all taking their time to answer or move to dismiss (read: move to dismiss). And Neal hasn't moved to expedite.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
bob
Posts: 30400
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#22

Post by bob »


:popcorn:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14142
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#23

Post by Notorial Dissent »

Don't forget standing, an actual cognizable cause(s) of action, clear, and hopefully concise, statement of damages and relief sought, and coherent argument. Something none of the birfer crowd has yet to ever manage.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 10070
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Neal v. Harris (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas)

#24

Post by Northland10 »

Wait... is Bringham's ghost just say that Barr's DOJ is spying on the Trump Campaign? Wow, Soros is good.


North-land: of the family 10.5

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.
Post Reply

Return to “Kamala Devi Harris's Eligibility”