A court hearing is set for August 29 in my lawsuit challenging the "natural born Citizen" status of Vice President Kamala Harris

Before you begin with the Ad Hominem attacks against me, why not first try reading the Complaint I filed in N.Y. Supreme Court? In Sibley v. Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky, solely in her official capacity as Co-Executive Director of the New York Board of Elections and New York’s Chief Election Official, you will find the following factual allegations, applicable law and legal arguments:

• The supreme law of the land found at Article II, §1, of the U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part: No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President;

• Kamala Iyer Harris was born on Oct. 20, 1964, in Oakland, California and as such is a Citizen of the United States. According to publish reports however, neither Kamala Iyer Harris’ mother, Gopalan Shyamala, nor her father, Donald Jasper Harris were Citizens of the United States at the time of Kamala Iyer Harris’ birth. At the time of Kamala Iyer Harris’ birth both her parents were in the United States on temporary student visas, with the express condition that both were “non-immigrant students”;

• 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);

• 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 as her parents were not U.S. Citizens at her birth.

Now I will be the first to admit that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has never been conclusively defined by the U.S. Supreme Court or any federal circuit court. I do believe that Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 definition is correct and well-supported by other 18th Century legal authorities. Moreover, the Framers’ rationale for prohibiting first generation U.S. citizens from becoming President is obvious and born of common sense:

First generation U.S. Citizens are reasonably suspect of having conflicting loyalties between: (i) their prior foreign home nation and its cultural/religious values and (ii) their U.S. Citizenship’s rights/obligations and the cultural/religious values of the United States. Second generation U.S. Citizens are far less likely to have an allegiance to a foreign nation and its cultural/religious values. The distinctive cultural/religious values upon which the United States was formed has created the nearest thing this planet has seen to a Utopia. (. . . and yes there is still a long way to go.) A “natural born Citizen” - that is at least a second generation U.S. Citizen - requirement for the Commander-in-Chief of the Unites States Armed Forces is simply common sense.

In the next breath, I will acknowledge that counter-arguments exist. See, e.g.: On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen by Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, 128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161, March 2015.1 That is why I have filed this suit; to try and get a determination from SCOTUS, the court-of-last-resort, on what “natural born Citizen” means.

On August 12, 2024, the Summons, Complaint and Motion to Expedite were served on the Defendant, New York’s Chief Election Official. On August 14, 2024, I paid the $140 that New York requires to get a judge to look at my motion and hold a hearing. Supreme Court Judge Baker on August 20, 2024, without giving me notice or an opportunity to be heard, entered his Order sua sponte dismissing the Complaint. The next day, August 21, 2024, I responded with my Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal. Two hours later, Supreme Court Judge Baker ‒ realizing his grotesque violation of due process ‒ through his law clerk contacted me and directed me to file a Notice of Hearing for Thursday, August 29, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Watkins Glen, New York.

I will update this blog as Sibley v. Stavisky moves through the court system. Please subscribe if you would like those updates.

Last, I need help covering the court fees and printing costs associated with this expedited litigation run. To help in that regard I have set up a GoFundMe campaign to raises no more than the $2,800 I expect will be needed to march this issue to the United States Supreme Court. If you can support my effort in any amount, I would greatly appreciate it.