text:
THE FULLMOST MEASURE OF SOVEREIGNTY - By default, all candidates are ineligible, not eligible, to hold the office of President until they are proven otherwise. Natural-born citizens are those citizens born under what America’s founders commonly and mutually held as the natural laws of God which, thereby, afford the individual with natal citizenry protected under both the jurisdiction of the constitutional laws of the nation, and by birth to two citizen parents, without relinquishment of that status by expatriation, renunciation or foreign adoption.
NEW YORK, NY – A report released today by TheBlaze.com further affirms that Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as the U.S. president and, therefore, became an illegal president in 2008, because he relinquished his natural-born citizenship status when he became a citizen of Indonesia and that he, most likely, was adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.
Upon completion of an investigation in Indonesia, the report by TheBlaze's Charles Johnson only clarifies public perception that Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the office of U.S. President will remain permanently damaged in the absence of confirmative evidence proving otherwise. It was deemed so in this manner so that a candidate’s eligibility could be upheld by the people’s understanding that their welfare was securely held within inviolable sovereignty.
Candidates who fail to meet the measureable standards of eligibility defined by age and duration of residence as well as the full-most possible precepts of the natural-born citizenship requirement, are inferior and deficient by varying degrees up to and including disqualification, unless they are able to refute their lack of legitimacy with irrefutable evidence.
Editor’s note (from TheBlaze): Writer Charles C. Johnson will join TheBlaze Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker to talk about this story on today’s BlazeCast.
As part of our series on President Obama’s education and past, we interviewed Barack Obama’s first ever principal, Father Bart Janssen. Our freelance correspondent, Charles C. Johnson, went all the way to Indonesia to find out more about Obama’s past.
Enrollment documents viewed by TheBlaze confirm that a young Barack Obama was listed as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim on school registration in the 1960s. And while the document has been reported on before, albeit lightly, TheBlaze has compiled the most complete view thus far of the document and the circumstances surrounding it – including an interview with the president’s first-ever principal while he was in Indonesia.
TheBlaze repeatedly photographed the document in the office of the current headmaster of Santo Fransiskus Assisis, a Catholic school that Obama attended from January 1968 to December 1970 in Jakarta. The record shows that Obama (or his parents) – at least for the period of his life – claimed to be an Indonesian citizen, that he took the last name Soetoro (the last name of his step-father, Lolo), that his religion was listed as Islam, and that he was born in Honolulu.
While Obama’s time at Santo Fransiskus is important (and we’ll explore it in more detail shortly), it’s just as crucial to fastforward to when Obama left the school.
According to records at Santo Fransiskus Assisis, Obama left after 1970 because his family moved. That move was due to Lolo leaving Dinas Topografi, a mapmaking survey company that contracted with the Indonesian army—which is listed in the document we viewed—to join Union Oil where he became a well-connected government liaison officer.
In a taped interview in Indonesian and subsequent email with Akhmad Solikhin, Besuki’s current principal, he told my Indonesian translator and me that, other than Obama, there has only been one non-Indonesian at the school—a Dutch student. That’s not surprising considering Besuki School, founded in 1934, was formerly Carpentier Alting Stichting Nassau School — a school run and controlled by the Dutch for the Dutch colonialists and the Indonesian elite. In 1962 — before Obama attended in 1970 — it was taken over by the Indonesian government. Besuki was then and is now a prestigious place where potential students sit on waitlists. In fact, in 2007 Besuki began using a mandatory admissions test to try and cut down on the number of Indonesian children trying to get in.
Why is this all important? Because given that history, it doesn’t seem likely that the school would have wasted one of their prized seats on a student not claiming to be Indonesian, especially when it was the sort of place that educated the children of government officials and the well-to-do.
Could Obama Have Gone to a Public Indonesian School Without Claiming to Be a Citizen?
Thanks to the political instability in Indonesia that took place between 1965-1967, public records for the 1960s are spotty, at best, for all levels of government. Only the Catholic school Obama attended – St. Fransiskus — had any records to speak of regarding claims of citizenship.
Nevertheless, my Indonesian-born translator and I were able to speak with several government officials about the policy governing adoptions and foreign nationals attending public school. Was it possible that Obama could have gotten into Indonesian public schools without claiming to be an Indonesian citizen?
We searched for any such permission document Obama may have submitted to the department of education by Lolo Soetoro or Ann Dunham, but came up empty. We also could not find records at Besuki School, despite requests.
So how did Obama get in?
It has been a source of speculation for some time that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. It is always a possibility, and it could explain at least the citizenship claim on the school form. However, it’s important to not that even if Obama was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen, he would not have lost his American citizenship under existing constitutional law (see the Supreme Court case Perkins v. Elg). Indonesia then and now does not allow dual citizenship, but under American law he would not have lost his American citizenship until he reached the age of majority and chose himself to give it up.
Defenders of the president (and detractors of the adoption theory) point to a 1958 Indonesian law that says a child cannot be adopted if they are over five years old and that Barry and his mother arrived in August 1967—after he had turned six. But Lolo and Ann Dunham married on March 15, 1965, when Obama was three and half and Lolo left for Indonesia in June 1966 while Obama was still four, according to Washington Post editor David Maraniss’s book, “Barack Obama: The Story.” Soetoro, then, could easily have filled out adoption forms, possibly in advance of the Indonesian school year that begins in July, in preparation of his wife and stepson’s arrival. We know that Obama’s mother suddenly reversed her previous position that her husband’s departure to Indonesia would cause undue mental hardship (Maraniss, p. 201) so presumably she had settled on living in Indonesia with her husband and child. Under Indonesian law, when a man married a woman with children, the woman’s children become Indonesian nationals, as well.
Additionally, the way Maraniss describes the relationship between Obama and his stepfather is like it were an adoption. “Like his mother, Barry took the Soetoro name. He called Ann mamah and Lolo papah and did not flinch when Lolo introduced him as his son.” (Maraniss, p. 230) So complete was the view that Barack Obama was Barry Soetoro that Israel Darmawan, Obama’s first grade teacher at Fransiskus Assisis, did not recognize who he was, according to one account.
While the current headmaster of Fransiskus Assisis did not know whose handwriting was on the form, she said it was safe to assume that the information on it was provided by Obama’s mother — his stepfather visited only rarely during the three years Obama attended school. That raises another theory: Could Ann Soetoro, who was said to have been very interested in her son’s education so much so that she tutored him in the morning, have lied or stretched the truth regarding her son’s status to help him get into Besuki school, the best school she could? If so, it wouldn’t be the last time that she did everything she could to have her son get the best possible education.
“His grandfather [Stanley] had told strangers that the boy was a descendant of ali ‘i, native Hawaiian royalty. In Obama’s later memoir, he recalled boasting at Punahou that his father was an African prince. Some classmates remembered it differently, that first he claimed his father was an Indonesian prince.” (p. 268).
It doesn’t end there. Obama’s Occidental College classmate Amiekohel “Kim” Kimbrew of Los Angeles recalled rumors that Obama was a “Hawaiian prince” to the Chicago Tribune. (“Activism blossomed in college,” Chicago Tribune, March 30, 2007).
We also know from reports in the student newspaper that Occidental, which prides itself on its diversity and international relations focus, was trying to bring more minority students to campus at the time. Might Obama have tried to pass himself off as still more diverse? Could he even have lied to “seem more exotic” to an admissions officer at Occidental or Columbia?
Add all that to the fact that Obama embellished in his book, Dreams from My Father, as Maraniss has noted, and that TheBlaze has also revealed in the past he lied about a “transfer program” he describes between Occidental and Columbia in the same book (no such transfer program exists).
That raises the question: Were Obama’s parents lying when they told Fransiskus Assisis that he was an Indonesian citizen?
It’s hard to say, but the answers to such questions matter.
To find out more about Obama’s time in Indonesia, TheBlaze tracked down Father Bart Janssen. He’s the elderly founder of Santo Fransiskus Assisis who we found in a monastery in Den Bosch, The Netherlands. We asked him, through a Dutch translator, what he remembers of the young Barack Obama.
In the late 1960s, Janssen was sent by the Bishop of Jakarta to set up a church in the region, which at the time was a small village well beyond the city limits of Jakarta (though now sits practically in the middle of Jakarta due to the amazing growth of the city). And while his goal was a church, the school was a way to assimilate into the community.
“There were not Catholic churches or schools in that area at the time – it was quite remote, a little village, if you will. Offering a good education was a typical way to get the local people involved with the church and become part of the community,” Janssen told us.
Obama was signed up for the school in 1968 as part of the second class of students entering the school. He was six years old at the time and attended first, second, and third grade there. Janssen doesn’t remember who registered Obama, but he recalls that Obama’s mother didn’t speak Indonesian at the time, so he thinks that both the stepfather and the mother would have been there together to register their son. He also doesn’t think the details in Obama’s registration document should be considered official declarations of his faith or citizenship because it wasn’t a government form and people played loose with such facts at the time. For example, it was typical to register as Indonesian and Islamic just because you were living there, so the religion indicated may just be what his father put down because it was the normal thing to do.
“That was just the norm,” Janssen explained.
It was, Janssen added however, well known that Obama was American and came to the school from Hawaii. And Janssen said he also had an understanding that Obama was raised Christian, though not Catholic, because his mother and natural father were known to be so. Janssen also said he knew that Obama’s birth father was from Kenya and that his mother was American.
And it wasn’t a requirement to be Indonesian or Catholic to attend the school. Things were loose in terms of citizenship requirements in Indonesia, Janssen recalled. He himself had Dutch citizenship when he first set up the school in 1967 and it wasn’t until 1982 that he changed his citizenship to Indonesian. He switched citizenship back to Dutch in 2005 when he returned to the Netherlands.
Though Indonesian citizenship wasn’t required, courses were taught in Indonesian and Obama learned the language in three months. Father Janssen recalled that when Obama took his Indonesian speaking test for the school, the young student told the class that he wanted to be president some day.
While Father Janssen didn’t teach classes and has no direct recollection about Obama’s performance as a student, he said Obama’s teacher told him that Obama was a good student and received good grades.
“He learned Indonesian in 3 months, after all,” he said.
He added that Obama’s parents rented a house nearby so that their son could attend the school, and also remembers that Obama was quite a bit bigger than most other students there.
Obama wasn’t the only foreign student in the school, but Janssen doesn’t recall how many were Indonesian students and how many came from other countries. He said about half the students were Catholic and the rest were other religions, including many of Islamic faith.
1.The document for the first-ever school Obama attended in Indonesia lists him as an Indonesian citizen (born in Hawaii) and a Muslim.
2.Those claims would have benefited a young Obama as he continued his schooling.
3.The Catholic priest who started the school, however, says it was not odd to lie about such things.
4.We know that Obama and his family have a history of mistruths.
5.But it’s also not far-fetched to consider that Obama’s step-father, Lolo, could have adopted him – thus making him an Indonesian citizen as a young boy.
6.Even if he was adopted and was an Indonesian citizen at one time, though, it would not have affected his status as a U.S. citizen per the Supreme Court.
Still, that leaves many questions. And the truth lies somewhere in those facts. Ultimately, only Obama knows for sure what that truth is. And depending on what happens on Tuesday we may or may not know anytime soon.
An exit after one term from the White House could act as a catalyst for more information more quickly. An Obama win, on the other hand, would likely keep any information – at least from the president himself — sealed for at least four more years.
Voters on Tuesday, then, may be deciding more than just who the next president is – they could help decide how much more we know about the one we have now.
Obama, who is not and never was an Indonesian citizen, as a telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm, and who was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the birth notice in the 1961 Hawaii newspapers sent to them by the DOH of Hawaii all confirm, was re-elected President of the United States last night. He received more than a majority of the popular vote and more than 300 Electoral Votes (when 369 was sufficient to win).
Go put your head back in the sand, you are brain dead!
More than two years have passed since this article was posted, and Obama is still the president of the United States, and there has not even been a call in the US Congress to investigate Obama's alleged Indonesian citizenship (or for that matter the even more nutty claim that he was born in a foreign country). That is because neither are true.
Obama and Beck deserve each other. One was never a NBC and one provided cover for the fraud that occurred. Beck has no credibility and his Blaze is years late to the party. i don't think Beck has ever been able to say the words "natural born citizen". He is afraid of Article II apparently.
Obama is a Natural Born Citizen (I don't know about Beck). Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because (1) he was born in Hawaii, as his birth certificate and the confirmations and the birth notices, etc all show; and (2) every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
Point Number 2 was decided by the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case (which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) and it ruled six to two, one justice not voting, that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen.
No credible evidence has ever been provided demonstrating that Obama is a Natural born citizen or that he was born anywhere, let alone Hawaii. The birth certificate you refer to has been proven by a 10 month investigation to be a .pdf counterfeit image allegedly made from as yet undisclosed document sources. Calling it a birth certificate is a lie. No corroborated evidence has been presented proving Obama's Hawaii birth. To say the image is proof of Hawaiian birth is a lie. Birth notices were automatically demonstrated from birth registrations submitted to the DOH, not from hospital birth records. To say the birth announcements indicate a birth in Hawaii is also a lie. Article II mandate supercedes all case law addressing the matter until the Constitution is lawfully amended directly addressing Presidential eligibility, not transient citizenship. The question is not of citizenship, it is of Presidential eligiblility. To say case law occurring 130 year too late means NBC as defined by the Const. is irrelevant is a lie. A natural born citizen is, at least, one born on U.S. soil under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution to TWO citizen parents. Obama said this himself in support HR 511 Re: the eligibility of John McCain. All definitions which deviate are lies.
Only birther "experts"---who have not proved that they are really experts, and who certainly have not proved that they are fair and impartial---say that there is anything wrong with the image of Obama's birth certificate.
The birther "experts" include Paul Irey, who has repeatedly claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College, despite the fact that Columbia University has stated that Obama did attend (and that he graduated). And they include Doug Vogt, who claims to have found the original altar of Abraham. It is such "experts" as these that the birthers rely on for their case.
There are many real experts who say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, including John Woodman, who happens to be a member of the Tea Party and who dislikes Obama and Obama's policies, but shows that the birther "experts" are wrong. They also include Ivan Zatkovich, who was hired by WND to examine the image of Obama's birth certificate, and when he submitted his report that there was nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, WND simply did not publish it.
It is clear that rational conservatives do not believe the "birth certificate was forged" claims. Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review certainly do not.
And the conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm specified facts on Obama's birth certificate. Hawaii did, stating that it compared the image of Obama's birth certificate with the file copy (which is an additional confirmation that there was a file copy BTW) and that Obama was born there and that the facts match.
The secretary of state of Arizona accepted this confirmation and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November, and he was--and he was on the ballot in ALL the states (and he won both the electoral college vote and the popular vote by more than two and a half million votes). This indicates that the conservative secretary of state of Arizona does not believe the claims that the birth certificate is forged (including those of Sheriff Joe) and that he does believe the officials in Hawaii.
How do we know that there is a birth certificate for Obama in the files in Hawaii and that it shows that Obama was born in Hawaii??
The first way is the short form birth certificate. That was created by a clerk copying the information off of the original document in the files. If there were no document, there could be no short form birth certificate. Hawaii has confirmed that it sent a short form birth certificate (COLB) to Obama.
The second way is that Hawaii said that there is, several times, under both Republican and Democrat governors.
The third reason is that the current director of health of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the long form birth certificate being created by photocopying onto security paper the original document that was in the files.
The fourth reason is that the existence of Obama's birth certificate in 1961 is proven by the birth notices sent to the newspapers of Hawaii in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii. Only the DOH could send those notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the papers, and the DOH sent only sent those notices for children whom it had issued birth certificates for.
Would you like me to post the citations of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii?
And now, a question for the few who still think that Obama could have been born in a foreign country.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE OF BIRTH, which in Obama's case was the USA, Hawaii having been a state in 1961. The meaning was defined by the Wong Kim Ark case, which was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and which ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (not from Vattel) and that it refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US Citizen.
Obama said this himself in support HR 511 Re: the eligibility of John McCain..
Answer: Obama did not say a single thing. He did support the eligibility of John McCain who was born on a US naval base. Are you saying that a US naval base is not US soil???
That you still must defend him means that we have won. That you must exert your efforts in a mere campaign to defend the moment of his birth means that we are victorious in undermining his diabolical scheme for reparative justice. Whereas his power is usurped, his policies are even more illegitimate when measured against the laws of nature and decency. We are well in our knowledge that he would rather be unencumbered by such impalements but simply is unable to provide the qualifications to meet that mark.
That there remains such intense controversy among the public as to the eligibility of the usurper, Obama, it is enough to satisfy decent citizens knowing that conflict shall tarnish his name with an eternal indecisiveness of identity. Between the interpretation of terms and the constructional meaning of the words “natural” and “born” and “citizen”, as they apply to this man, it will never be forgotten forever the utter lack of consensus as to his original legitimacy as defined by the laws of nature, let alone bear the power of governmental office of men, provides circumstantial justice against him in the eyes of history. That is good enough for me, because thereon such disagreements lie the fertile seeds of revolution since his fraudulent power as a president will only be held in contempt by half the nation and diametrically garrisoned by the other.
In the absence of confirmative truth, the justified hostility against this man is well enough to call him inferior and undesirable, thereby successfully undermining his image and inflicting damage to his legacy at its foundation, regardless of legal prevalence or relief. That half of the multitude despises him for his delusions and lack of authenticity is well enough to set him in history’s unwantedness, because future generations will not define him by statutes, they will measure him by the metrics of honorability and worthiness. These are the qualities that endure, not that he was vigorously defended by his fawning minions. A man defended by protest is far more reviled by history than the man who need not be defended in the first place.
Shall anyone argue that the legitimacy of no other president in American history has been opposed by so many as Obama’s? That, in itself, is impairment enough to call him inferiorly qualified, argued against or not. That the question even persists among so many is confirmation of deficiency, regardless of legal provisions, for no other man of such lauded praise by a blind, bowing constituency has ever been proven so deficient, regardless of legal incrimination. That arguments still continue after 5 years is a conquest by vintage American citizenry. It is the glory hand taken by advanced citizens as reason warranting reconciliatory action…which will come.
As so stated into the record, whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States, there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military, nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President. Such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'.
Re: "....means that we have won."
Obama is still the president, you know. That means you have lost.
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
This understanding may have been reflected in the first naturalization act of 1790 "An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization," which provided "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Even by the oft protested definition of NBC by citing common law, it is by the citizenship of the father to which the son is ligamened. Obama is a foreign-born usurper, ineligible to hold the blood-ransomed office of the U.S. presidency. Contradictions to this are vile lies.
Re: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936..."
That is right. He as born on an American military base--which is US soil---that is sufficient.
The children of US Ambassadors who are born outside of the USA MAY be natural born citizens. The children of foreign ambassadors born in the USA are NOT natural born citizens of the USA. But the children of everyone born in the USA except for the children of foreign ambassadors is certainly a Natural Born Citizen regardless of the citizenship of his parents---one of them or two of them, or his father or his mother.
Here are just some of the seven state courts and one federal court that ruled that Obama is a Natural Born US Citizen because the US SUPREME COURT ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and that it includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father."
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."
BTW, the US Supreme Court turned down birther appeals of the Farrar ruling, which had said "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." The result of the US Supreme Court turning down the appeals of that case is that the ruling in that case STANDS.
Oh, and one court also ruled the same way on McCain, saying that his birth in the USA (on a US military base) was sufficient to make him a Natural Born US Citizen.
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: "Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,"
Re: "Obama is a foreign-born usurper."
You have to answer how Obama could have gotten from a foreign country to Hawaii without a US travel document such as being entered on his mother's US passport or a US visa, and if he had such a document, how come the Bush Administration did not show it? Was the Bush Administration part of the plot?
The notion of Obama’s mother, late in pregnancy, traveling alone (WND has shown that Obama senior was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961) from Hawaii where there are good hospitals, to Kenya, where there was Yellow Fever and bad hospitals (or to some other country), and doing so without any INS record of her leaving the USA or any record of her arriving in Kenya (or another country)—---is totally absurd. And the fact that there is a birth certificate showing that she gave birth in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu makes it even more absurd.
smrstrauss: May I ask you one simple question? The President stated in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father" ( page 24, paragraph 3), that, "I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school..." Why, then, has he never put the issue to rest by simply showing it. He apparently has the original birth certificate given to his mother when he was born.
The answer is that he probably left the original official copy of his birth certificate in the book. In any case, he lost it. Millions of people lose their original birth certificates; that is why states issue official copies on request. Mitt Romney also showed an official copy (and in fact a short-form birth certificate without the name of the hospital on it) not the one that was sent to his parents.
Smrstrauss: Thank you for that insight. And here I thought perhaps the dog ate it along with his homework.
smrstrauss: "In any case, he lost it." That is simply out-of-hand-rejection of information not in keeping with one's own narrative. I will save you the time of looking for the book. On page 23 in his book "Dreams From My Father" he writes of his father: "In an article published in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin upon his graduation, he appears guarded and responsible, the model student, ambassador for his continent. He mildly scolds the university for herding visiting students into dormitories and forcing them to attend programs designed to promote cultural understanding--a distraction , he says, from the practical training he seeks. Although he hasn't experienced any problems himself, he detects self-segregation and overt discrimination taking place between various ethnic groups and expresses wry amusement at the fact that "Caucasians" in Hawaii are occasionally at the receiving end of prejudice. But if his assessment is relatively clear-eyed, he is careful to end on a happy note. One thing other nations can learn from Hawaii, he says, is the willingness of races to work together toward common development, something he has found whites elsewhere too often unwilling to do. I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It is a short piece, with a picture of him. No mention was made of my mother or me, and I'm left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father's part, in anticipation of his long departure, Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father's imperious manner,or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of a simple story that they were looking for. I wonder ,too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents." As one an tell, he had the article in hand as he wrote his book. And, if he had the article, he had the birth certificate. One can certainly one can make that assumption.
smrstrauss: He found the article and birth certificate while in high school. They were links to his long missing father and thus very important to him. He still had them as he wrote "Dreams From My Father" while in his 30's. Can you honestly question his having them yet today? I can not.
I can question your facts. The book says that he saw the old birth certificate. It does NOT say that he still had it. Yes of course I can question whether he had the birth certificate that was sent to his mother in 1961 when he asked for a copy in 2007. Why? Because MILLIONS of people lose their original birth certificates and because virtually all of the people who ask for copies of their birth certificates do so because they lost the original.
As for "he had the article in hand as he wrote the book." Probably not. He has an excellent memory, and where he doesn't he makes things up. In any case it is NOT proof that he had the article in hand or more importantly that he had the original birth certificate in hand and still more importantly he could still have lost it between the time when he wrote and 2008. STILL more importantly, the short form birth certificate is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with showing one of them---which is what Mitt Romney did.
Equally important is that the original birth certificate is NOT on security paper, so it is even more easy to forge than the short form birth certificate, and if Obama had showed it--if he had not lost it--then birthers would have claimed that IT was forged.
Finally, there is no #@!@!*^%##!ing proof that Obama was born anywhere else than in Hawaii and you still have not answered how Obama could have gotten from a foreign country to Hawaii without a US travel document such as being entered on his mother's US passport or a US visa, and if he had been such a document, how come the Bush Administration did not show it? Was the Bush Administration part of the plot?
smrstrauss: I have never said the President was not born in Hawaii. My only point is that, in my opinion, he found and in all probability still has his original birth certificate. I question why he let this drag on for almost 5 years.
A man with such strong feelings of father-loss and desire to fulfill his father's dreams would not lose the article or the certificate regardless of what millions of others have done.
You can speculate that he still has his original birth certificate. But it is only speculation. You have nothing to go on other than the fact that he had it at one time.
Well, lots of people had their birth certificate at one time.
Between the time when Obama saw the original copy in a book and the time when he got a perfectly legal birth birth certificate from Hawaii he traveled a lot. People tend to lose their birth certificates when they travel.
Moreover, your speculation about people with such a strong feeling of father loss is based on the absurd notion that Obama kept the birth certificate that he found. Well, guess what, it was not his to keep. It belonged to his mother. So, a good possibility other than leaving the BC where it was, was to give it to his mother----who owned it after all---and then she lost it. In any case, it was lost.
It being lost is the most logical explanation. But there is another one. It is that the current birth certificate, the one on security paper, is actually a better document to show than the original, which is not on security paper and hence is easier to forge.
In any case, he was clearly born in Hawaii, which is a fact that you acknowledge. Thank you for that.
Today I learn about birth certificates in the United Kingdom.A birth certificate is a vital way of recording the birth of a new baby. It also helps countries and local councils keep a close check on the population growth. There are two forms to which the term birth certificate can refer to. The first is known as the original document, the second is a certified copy which represents the original record of birth.
The birth certificate gives the individual an official identity from the moment it is born. Since 1827 the registering of births and also deaths and marriages has been common practice in the United Kingdom. Initially there were no fines for not registering the arrival of a new baby boy or girl, that however, changed before long because keeping an eye on the changes in population numbers, gave a better indication of the spending required in the coming years ahead, in terms of education, transport, and any the availability of manpower, should the need arise. Possibly due to Britain's acquisition of countries it called its commonwealth, the racial mix of the British population was very varied. Every birth certificate from the United Kingdom, will include details about the birth, such as the name and gender of the child, the name(s) of the parents, even sometimes the race of the baby is required. Crucially details like date of birth and location of birth add up to make up the identity of the person.
I would VERY MUCH like to know the Federal STATUTORY references for your chart at the page top. Although I am not a lawyer I have done considerable research on citizenship because of my own status as a Citizen by Birth born in the UK. I have yet to find ANYWHERE is statute where it discusses the TWO US CITIZEN PARENT matter.
The Constitution mentions the term Natural Born Citizen only once and never defines the term. The only other time it appears in US statute that I am aware of is the very first citizenship law passed in 1792 as I recall. The next time the citizenship laws were revised the term never appears again.
There are two and only two kinds of citizenship defined in statute: Citizenship by Birth and Naturalized Citizen. I have yet to find a THIRD "Super Citizen by Birth" defined anywhere.
As I said I'd like to know the statutory references so that I can correct my inadequate knowledge.
I dare ya to try and debunk it!
Every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Obama's birth on US soil has been proven by (1) his Hawaii birth certificate; (2) the repeated confirmation of their sending it to Obama and all the facts on it being the same as what they sent by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii; (3) the public Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the papers, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii); (5) the Hawaii teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman NAMED STANLEY from the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital; (6) the INS inspector who checked on Obama's father's residence status and wrote: "They have one child, born in HONOLULU."

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


35 U.S.C. 119(b)(3) authorizes the Office to require the applicant to furnish a certified copy of the foreign priority application, and the Office requires such a copy pursuant to 37 CFR 1.55. The filing of the foreign priority papers under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) makes the record of the file of the United States patent complete. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not normally examine the papers to determine whether the applicant is in fact entitled to the right of priority and does not grant or refuse the right of priority, except when the application is involved in an interference or derivation proceeding, when necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner, or when deemed necessary by the examiner. See MPEP § 216. When the claim to priority and the certified copy of the foreign application are received while the application is pending before the examiner, the examiner should review the certified copy to see that it contains no obvious formal defects and that it corresponds in number, date and country to the application identified in the application data sheet for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, or oath or declaration or application data sheet for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012.
The certified copy which must be filed is a copy of the original foreign application with a certification by the patent office of the foreign country in which it was filed. Certified copies ordinarily consist of a copy of the specification and drawings of the applications as filed with a certificate of the foreign patent office giving certain information. Certified copies include those retrieved by the Office in accordance with a priority document exchange program. See MPEP § 215.01. A copy of the certified copy filed by applicant, including a copy filed via EFS Web, will not satisfy the requirement in 37 CFR 1.55(g) for a certified copy. See MPEP § 502.02, subsection V. “Application” in this connection is not considered to include formal papers such as a petition. A copy of the foreign patent as issued does not comply since the application as filed is required; however, a copy of the printed specification and drawing of the foreign patent is sufficient if the certification indicates that it corresponds to the application as filed.
37 CFR 1.55 Claim for foreign priority.
(h) Certified copy in another U.S. patent or application. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application will be considered satisfied in a reissue application if the patent for which reissue is sought satisfies the requirement of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application and such patent is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application. The requirement in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section for a certified copy of the foreign application will also be considered satisfied in an application if a prior-filed nonprovisional application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) contains a certified copy of the foreign application and such prior-filed nonprovisional application is identified as containing a certified copy of the foreign application.
Where the benefit of a foreign filing date based on a foreign application is claimed in a later filed application (i.e., continuation, continuation-in-part, division) or in a reissue application, and a certified copy of the foreign application has been filed in a parent or related application, it is not necessary to file an additional certified copy in the later application. See 37 CFR 1.55(h). A reminder of this provision is found in form paragraph 2.20. The applicant when making such claim for priority may simply identify the application containing the certified copy. In such cases, the examiner should acknowledge the claim on form PTOL-326. Note copy in MPEP § 707.
If the applicant fails to call attention to the fact that the certified copy is in the parent or related application and the examiner is aware of the fact that a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) was made in the parent application, the examiner should call applicant’s attention to these facts in an Office action, so that if a patent issues on the later or reissue application, the priority data will appear in the patent. In such cases, the language of form paragraph 2.20 should be used.
Applicant is reminded that in order for a patent issuing on the instant application to obtain priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b), based on priority papers filed in a parent or related Application No.  (to which the present application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c)), or 386(c) or is a reissue application of a patent issued on the related application), a claim for such foreign priority must be timely made in this application. To satisfy the requirement of 37 CFR 1.55 for a certified copy of the foreign application, applicant may simply identify the parent nonprovisional application or patent for which reissue is sought containing the certified copy.
Where the benefit of a foreign filing date, based on a foreign application, is claimed in a later filed application or in a reissue application and a certified copy of the foreign application, as filed, has not been filed in a parent or related application, a claim for priority may be made in the later application. In re Tangsrud, 184 USPQ 746 (Comm’r Pat. 1973). When such a claim is made in the later application and a certified copy of the foreign application is placed therein, the examiner should acknowledge the claim on form PTOL-326. Note copy in MPEP § 707.
For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, any foreign priority claim must be identified in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet. Where applicant has filed a certified copy that does not correspond to the foreign application identified in the foreign priority claim by its application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day month, and year of its filing, the applicant should be notified by using form paragraph 2.22. Applicant must submit an application data sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76(c), (or, for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, a supplemental application data sheet or a new oath or declaration) that correctly sets forth the priority claim. See MPEP §§ 601.05(a) and (b). If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority and the petition fee.
Where applicant has filed a certified copy of a foreign application but has not made a claim for foreign priority, applicant should be notified using form paragraph 2.22.
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application , however the present application does not properly claim priority to the submitted foreign application. If this copy is being filed to obtain priority to the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), applicant must also file a claim for such priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or 365(b), and 37 CFR 1.55. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the priority claim must be made in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet.
If the application being examined is an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). If the application being examined is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). Any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) not presented within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 is considered to have been waived. If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority and the petition fee.
1. Use this form paragraph only for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after November 29, 2000 and for national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371. DO NOT use for design applications.
2. In bracket 1, insert the application number of the foreign application.
When the claim for foreign priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date of payment of the issue fee but prior to the date of grant of the patent, the foreign priority claim or certified copy will be placed in the file record but there will be no review of the papers and the patent when published will not include the priority claim. A certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 can be filed to have the foreign priority claim or certified copy considered after publication of the patent. In addition, for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or international applications entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority and the petition fee must be filed with the certificate of correction. See MPEP § 216.01.
Where priority is claimed but no certified copy of the foreign application has been filed, use form paragraph 2.25.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in  on . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the  application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
1. In bracket 1, insert the country name.
2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the foreign application.
3. In bracket 3, insert the application number of the foreign application.
Any unusual situation may be referred to the Technology Center (TC) Director.
Certified copies that have been entered into the application file will not be returned to applicant.
Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) agreements provide for the electronic transmission of priority documents to and from participating foreign intellectual property offices. The Office treats a proper priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55 to an application filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office as a request that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from the participating intellectual property office. A separate written request may be used when the applicant wishes the Office to retrieve a foreign application from a foreign intellectual property office that becomes a participating foreign intellectual property office after the foreign priority has been claimed, so long as the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55 has not expired. A separate written request is required in the situation where the foreign application is not originally filed in a participating office, but a certified copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office. Applicants can use Form PTO/SB/38 (Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application(s)) to file such a request.
An improper, incomplete, or inconsistent citation of a foreign priority application and/or its filing date will result in a delay or prevent retrieval under the Priority Document Exchange program. In particular, any foreign priority claim that is incomplete will prevent successful electronic retrieval of the priority application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to cite the foreign application using an acceptable format (see MPEP § 214.04) and use proper and consistent citation format throughout the U.S. application.
In general, an attempt to retrieve an eligible foreign application to which priority is claimed in a U.S. application will be made by the USPTO when the application is docketed to an examiner. In any case the USPTO will not attempt electronic retrieval until the Office of Patent Application Processing has completed its review of the application. Applicants are encouraged to check the Patent Application and Information Retrieval (PAIR) to determine whether the foreign priority application has been successfully retrieved. A successful request to retrieve an electronic foreign priority application takes approximately 1 week to complete.
The Office will not send a notice setting a time period for filing a certified copy of the priority document. Upon receipt of a Notice of Allowance, applicants should check to see whether the Office has received a copy of the foreign application under the priority document exchange program because successful retrieval of priority documents cannot be guaranteed. To be entitled to priority, the Office must receive a copy of the foreign application from the participating foreign intellectual property office within the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted, or receive a paper certified copy of the foreign application during that time period. If a certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, it must be accompanied by the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i), but the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323. See MPEP § 215.02(a) for information pertaining to meeting the timeliness requirement for filing a certified copy by using PDX.
The USPTO will attempt retrieval of foreign applications to which priority is claimed in a U.S. design application where possible. The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office deposits certain ES industrial design applications for access by the USPTO via the WIPO DAS. Therefore, when the applicant claims foreign priority to an ES industrial design application and provides the WIPO DAS access code, the USPTO will attempt retrieval via the WIPO DAS. The USPTO will automatically attempt retrieval of international applications filed under the PCT where the receiving office is RO/AU, RO/DK, RO/ES, RO/FI, RO/IB, RO/MA or RO/SE and the applicant has provided the required WIPO DAS access code for the international application to which foreign priority is claimed.
The Office website provides additional information concerning the priority document exchange program (www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international- protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx). This information includes the intellectual property offices that participate in the priority document exchange program, as well as the information necessary for each participating foreign intellectual property office to provide the Office with access to the foreign application.
(1) Application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, in an original application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) filed on or after March 16, 2013, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section. The time period in this paragraph does not apply in a design application.
(2) Application under 35 U.S.C. 371. A certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed during the international stage in an international application in which the national stage commenced on or after December 18, 2013, a certified copy of the foreign application must be filed within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, except as provided in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this section.
(3) If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed within the time period specified [in] paragraph (f)(1) of this section in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or within the period specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section in an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, and an exception in paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this section is not applicable, the certified copy of the foreign application must be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
(3) the applicant provides an interim copy of the original foreign application within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, and files a certified copy of the foreign application within the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted (see 37 CFR 1.55(j) and MPEP § 215.02(b)).
Because U.S. patent application publications (as well as U.S. patents) will have a prior art effect as of the earliest priority date (for subject matter disclosed in the priority application) with respect to applications subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, the Office needs to ensure that it has a copy of the priority application by the time of publication. The time period of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application is consistent with the international norm for when the certified copy of the foreign application needs to be filed in an application. See PCT Rule 17.1(a).
If a certified copy of the foreign application is not filed within the time period specified in 37 CFR 1.55(f)(1) or (f)(2), as appropriate, and the exceptions in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), and (j) are not applicable, the certified copy of the foreign application must be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g). This provision for the belated filing of a certified copy of the foreign application obviates the need for a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 to waive or suspend a requirement of the regulations in such a situation. 37 CFR 1.55(f) provides a lower standard (good and sufficient cause versus an extraordinary situation) and lower fee ($200 petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) versus the $400 petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f)) than petitions under 37 CFR 1.183.
See MPEP § 213.06 for additional information regarding filing a certified copy in a national stage application (35 U.S.C. 371).
(4) The applicant files in a separate document a request that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from a participating intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy where, although the foreign application was not filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office, a copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy. The request must identify the participating intellectual property office and the subsequent application by the application number, day, month, and year of its filing in which a copy of the foreign application was filed. The request must be filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application, four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f) (§ 1.491(a)), or four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or the request must be accompanied by a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section.
37 CFR 1.55(i) provides that the requirement in 37 CFR 1.55(f) and (g) for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f) and (g) will be considered satisfied if the Office receives a copy of the priority document through the priority document exchange program during the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted. 37 CFR 1.55(i) specifically provides that this requirement for a timely filed certified copy of the foreign application will be considered satisfied if: (1) The foreign application was filed in a foreign intellectual property office participating with the Office in a bilateral or multilateral priority document exchange agreement (participating foreign intellectual property office); (2) the claim for priority is presented in an application data sheet (§ 1.76(b)(6)), identifying the foreign application for which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and including the information necessary for the participating foreign intellectual property office to provide the Office with access to the foreign application; and (3) the copy of the foreign application is received by the Office from the participating foreign intellectual property office, or a certified copy of the foreign application is filed, within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1)).
37 CFR 1.55(i) also provides that if the foreign application was not filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office, but a copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy, the applicant must also file a request in a separate document that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from the participating intellectual property office. This request must identify the participating intellectual property office and the application number and filing date of the subsequent application in which a copy of the foreign application was filed, and be filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application or four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), within four months from the later of the date of commencement (37 CFR 1.491(a)) or the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 in an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) or (f). Applicants can use Form PTO/SB/38 (Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application(s)) to file such a request.
The Office website provides information concerning the priority document exchange program ( www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international- protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx). See also MPEP § 215.01. This information includes the intellectual property offices that participate in the priority document exchange program, as well as the information necessary for each participating foreign intellectual property office to provide the Office with access to the foreign application. The Office appreciates that an applicant may discover that the Office will not receive a copy of a foreign application through the priority document exchange program until after the expiration of the time frame specified in 37 CFR 1.55(f). In this situation, an applicant who otherwise meets the conditions of 37 CFR 1.55(i) may satisfy the requirement of 37 CFR 1.55(i)(3) by filing a certified copy of the foreign application in the Office within the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted.
Note that the Office cannot obtain a copy of a design application to which priority is claimed, or a foreign application to which priority is claimed in a design application, through the priority document exchange program. In addition, note that the Office can obtain a PCT application to which priority is claimed through the priority document exchange program for PCT applications filed in a limited number of PCT Receiving Offices (currently, RO/DK (Denmark), RO/FI (Finland), RO/IB (International Bureau), and RO/SE (Sweden)).
Applicants continue to bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the priority document is filed during the pendency of the application and before the patent is issued. Accordingly, applicants are encouraged to check as necessary to confirm receipt by the Office of appropriate documents. Priority documents retrieved from a participating foreign intellectual property office will bear the document description: ‘‘Priority documents electronically retrieved by USPTO from a participating IP Office.’’ Furthermore, 37 CFR 1.55(i)(4) provides that, under specified conditions, if the foreign application was not filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office, the applicant can file a request in a separate document that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from a participating intellectual property office that permits the Office to obtain such a copy. Applicants can use Form PTO/SB/38 (Request to Retrieve Electronic Priority Application(s)) to file such a request. If the Office receives a copy of the foreign application from the participating foreign intellectual property office within the pendency of the application and before the patent is granted, the applicant need not file a certified paper copy of the foreign application. As a specific example, Germany is not currently a participating foreign intellectual property office, however a DE application may be retrieved via the priority document exchange program if it is identified in the claim for priority on the application data sheet, a subsequent application filed in the European Patent Office (EPO) or the Japan Patent Office (JPO) contains a certified copy of the DE application, and the applicant timely files a separate request for the Office to obtain from the EPO or JPO a copy of the certified copy of the DE application, wherein the request identifies the DE application and the subsequent EP or JP application by their application number, country, day, month, and year of their filing.
The Office treats a proper priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55 to an application filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office as a request that the Office obtain a copy of the foreign application from the participating intellectual property office. A separate written request may be used when the applicant wishes the Office to retrieve a foreign application from a foreign intellectual property office that becomes a participating foreign intellectual property office after the foreign priority has been claimed, so long as the time period set in 37 CFR 1.55(f) has not expired. A separate written request is required in the situation where the foreign application is not originally filed in a participating office, but a certified copy of the foreign application was filed in an application subsequently filed in a participating foreign intellectual property office.
(3) A certified copy of the foreign application is filed within the period specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
37 CFR 1.55(j) permits an applicant to provide an ‘‘interim copy’’ of the original foreign application from the applicant’s own records to provide for the situation in which the applicant cannot obtain a certified copy of the foreign application within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f), although there is no requirement that an applicant be unable to obtain a certified copy of the foreign application within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f) to use 37 CFR 1.55(j). The requirement for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f) will be considered satisfied if the applicant files a copy of the original foreign application clearly labeled as ‘‘Interim Copy,’’ including the specification, and any drawings or claims upon which it is based with the time period specified in 37 CFR 1.55(j). 37 CFR 1.55(j) also provides that the interim copy of the foreign application must be filed together with a separate cover sheet identifying the foreign application by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing, and stating that the copy filed in the Office is a true copy of the original application as filed in the foreign country (or intellectual property authority). 37 CFR 1.55(i) also provides that the interim copy of the foreign application and cover sheet must be filed within the later of sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application or four months from the actual filing date of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), within four months from the later of the date of commencement (37 CFR 1.491(a)) or the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 in an application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, or with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) or (f). 37 CFR 1.55(j) finally provides that a certified copy of the foreign application ultimately must be filed within the period specified in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1). Thus, providing an interim copy of a foreign application under 37 CFR 1.55(j) satisfies the requirement for a certified copy of the foreign application to be filed within the time limit set forth in 37 CFR 1.55(f), but a certified copy of the foreign application must still be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e), (f), or (g) as appropriate.
If not provided as a single paper document, the main parts of the interim copy of the foreign priority application, i.e., Abstract, Drawings, Specification, Claims, and where applicable, Sequence Listing or Computer Program Listings, along with the separate cover sheet required by 37 CFR 1.55(j), may be filed as a single PDF file via EFS-Web. The PDF file will be stored in the Image File Wrapper of the application, and applicants must select the document description “Interim Copy of the Foreign Priority Application” to index this document when filing online.
Application parts that were filed in a foreign patent office only as plain text computer files (e.g. TXT file), such as a Sequence Listing, lengthy Tables(s), or Computer Program Listing appendix, may be filed as a TXT file via EFS-Web (or on compact disc). When filing online via EFS-Web, applicants must select the document description “Interim Copy of the Foreign Priority (text file)” to index a plain text file part of the application. See MPEP § 502.05 for additional information regarding filing documents via EFS-Web.
(g) Requirement for filing priority claim, certified copy of foreign application, and translation in any application.
(1) The claim for priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed within the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, or with a petition accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) which includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application in a design application. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and § 1.323.
(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
35 U.S.C. 119(b)(3) authorizes the Office to require the applicant to furnish a certified copy of priority papers. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.55, applicants are required to submit the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 before the patent is granted. If the claim for priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323. See 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1). Certification by the authority empowered under a bilateral or multilateral treaty to receive applications which give rise to a right of priority under Article 4A(2) of the Paris Convention will be deemed to satisfy the certification requirement. See MPEP § 214.01 for the time period for claiming priority to a foreign application.
(C) when specifically required by the examiner.
The claim for foreign priority and the certified copy of the foreign application specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or PCT Rule 17 must, in any event, be filed before the patent is granted. If the claim for foreign priority or the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date of payment of the issue fee but prior to the date of grant of the patent, the priority claim or certified copy will be placed in the file record but there will be no review of the papers and the patent when published will not include the priority claim. A certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 can be filed to have the priority claim or certified copy considered after publication of the patent. In addition, for original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), where the priority claim was not timely filed, a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority under 37 CFR 1.55(e) and the petition fee must also be filed with the certificate of correction. Furthermore, where the priority claim was timely filed but was not included on the patent because the certified copy was not submitted, a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(f) and the petition fee or, in the case of a design application, a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) and the petition fee must also be filed with the certificate of correction unless the exception in 37 CFR 1.55(h) is applicable. See MPEP § 216.01.
In view of the shortened periods for prosecution leading to allowances, it is recommended that priority papers be filed as early as possible. Although 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1) permits the filing of priority papers up to and including the date for payment of the issue fee, it is advisable that such papers be filed promptly after filing the application. Frequently, priority papers are found to be deficient in material respects, such as for example, the failure to include the correct certified copy, and applicants should ensure that there is sufficient time to remedy any defects. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, where the priority claim is presented in the oath or declaration, a new oath or declaration may be necessary where the original oath or declaration omits the reference to the foreign filing date for which the benefit is claimed. The early filing of priority papers would thus be advantageous to applicants in that it would afford time to explain any inconsistencies that exist or to supply any additional documents that may be necessary. It is important to note that for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet (37 CFR 1.76(b)(6)).
It is suggested that a notation of the application number of the corresponding U.S. application be placed on the priority papers when such papers are not submitted via a priority document exchange program. Such notation should be placed directly on the priority papers themselves even where a cover letter is attached bearing the U.S. application data. Experience indicates that cover letters and priority papers occasionally become separated, and without the suggested notations on the priority papers, correlating them with the corresponding U.S. application becomes exceedingly difficult, frequently resulting in severe problems for both the Office and applicant. Adherence to the foregoing suggestion for making a notation on the priority document of the U.S. application data will result in a substantial lessening of the problem.


Workers who have customarily been viewed as independent contractors may be employees under wage orders, entitled to certain minimum wages, benefits, and basic work conditions reserved for employees, according to the California Supreme Court.
In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Lee, et al., the court considered whether, for purposes of California wage orders, workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors. Two delivery drivers filed a class action complaint against their former employer, Dynamex Operations West, Inc., a nationwide package and delivery company. The class included persons who, in 2005, did delivery work exclusively on the defendant’s behalf. Prior to 2004, the defendant classified all of its California drivers as employees and compensated them according to the state’s wage and hour laws. In 2004, however, the defendant adopted a policy and contractual agreement with all of its drivers that reclassified them as independent contractors instead of employees.
The defendant filed a writ of mandate to the intermediate appellate court, the California Court of Appeal, challenging the trial court’s denial of its motion to decertify the class. The defendant argued that Martinez’s disjunctive definition of “to employ” applied only in a joint employer context, and, therefore, the trial court erred in finding that definition applicable in the defendant’s single employer context. Concluding that the Martinez test applies in the single employer context, the appellate court also rejected the defendant’s contention that the multifactor standard in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations was the only correct standard for distinguishing employees from independent contractors. Similar to Martinez, Borello set forth a disjunctive standard that courts weigh to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Because the wage order definitions of “employer” and “to employ” discussed in Martinez were relevant to determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s certification order.
In affirming the Court of Appeal’s reading of the “suffer or permit to work” definition of “to employ” discussed in Martinez, the California Supreme Court observed that the former term should not be interpreted literally to encompass workers “who have traditionally been viewed as genuine independent contractors.” Genuine independent contractors include persons who are “customarily engaged in an independently established business,” including plumbers and electricians, the court observed. Further, the court explained that the “suffer or permit to work” standard refers to, as written, an employer that “has ‘suffered or permitted’ the worker to work in its business.” Definitions aside, according to one Section of Litigation leader, the Dynamex court clearly thought the lower courts appropriately certified a class.
The ease with which the court affirmed class certification underscores the significance of the Dynamex decision.
The Dynamex court also explained the rationale animating the existing standards used to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Citing dictum in NLRB v. Hearst Publications, a U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Dynamex court traced the difficulty in distinguishing employees from independent contractors to the common law. At common law, the problem of classifying a worker as an employee or independent contractor arose in the tort context, to determine whether an employer would be vicariously liable for its worker’s conduct.
Critical to the common-law determination of an employer’s derivative liability was the “control of the details” test, where an employer’s right to “supervise and control the details of the worker’s actions” meant it could be found liable for injury caused another by its worker, the Dynamex court noted. This test gained traction among courts as the primary standard for ascertaining the existence of an employment relationship between a worker and an employer.
Accordingly, the Borello court held that the “control of the details” standard should be considered in tandem with five disjunctive factors to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. Those five factors are (1) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss; (2) the worker’s investment in equipment or material for the commissioned task; (3) whether the service rendered by the worker requires special skills; (4) the degree of permanence of the working relationship; and (5) whether the worker’s offered services are an integral part of the employer’s business. No single Borello factor is dispositive and all factors have equal weight. After weighing those factors, the Borello court concluded that the farmworkers were employees and not independent contractors.
The Dynamex court further observed that federal courts likewise used substantially similar criteria to the Borello factors in construing the existence of an employment relationship. For example, it noted that federal courts interpreting the meaning of the term “employee” in federal statutes often rely heavily on the “control of the details” standard as part of their multifactor analysis, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Darden.
The California Supreme Court also pointed to the parallels between the Borello standard and the “economic reality” test used by federal courts to interpret the “suffer or permit to work” definition of “to employ” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The “economic reality” standard considers the five Borello factors, and to the extent a worker—as a matter of economic reality—is dependent on the employer and the employer “exercises control” over the worker, then the worker would be considered an employee.
Because the legislative history of the FLSA suggested that the drafters wanted the “broadest definition” of the “suffer or permit to work” definition of “to employ” to permit coverage for all workers under the FLSA, the Dynamex court concluded that a broad definition of the “suffer or permit to work” standard should also apply California wage and hour orders consistent with the remedial purposes underlying such orders.
To effectuate that broad reading, the Dynamex court fashioned a new, “ABC standard” to provide a “simple and clear” test. Significantly, the ABC standard presumes that a worker is an employee and places the burden on employers to disprove that a worker is an employee. Under the ABC standard, a worker is an employee—and not an independent contractor—unless the employer establishes the following three, conjunctive factors: (1) “that the worker is free from control and direction over performance of the work, both under the contract and in fact”; (2) that the service for which the worker is commissioned is “outside the usual course of the business for which the work is performed”; and (3) that the worker is “customarily engaged in an independently established” occupation. According to the Dynamex court, unlike the ambiguous “control of the details” standard, or the unpredictable multifactor analysis required under the Borello and “economic reality” tests, the ABC standard provides clarity and predictability.
The court repeatedly notes that the wage orders provide fundamental social welfare protections such as a minimum wage to allow workers to obtain a subsistence standard of living.
“In developing this rigorous standard, the court was heavily influenced by the remedial purposes of the wage orders. The court repeatedly notes that the wage orders provide fundamental social welfare protections such as a minimum wage to allow workers to obtain a subsistence standard of living,” observes Trish M. Higgins, Sacramento, CA, chair of the Wage and Hour Subcommittee of the Section's Employment & Labor Relations Law Committee. “The court also wanted to avoid a multifactor standard—like the economic reality standard or the Borello standard—which makes it difficult for businesses and workers to determine in advance how the worker should be classified,” Higgins added.
The predictability of the ABC standard should prod employers to consider the use of hitherto independent contractors in their businesses or else risks severe consequences, according to Kelly M. Matayoshi, San Francisco, CA, cochair of the Section's Employment & Labor Relations Law Committee. “Dynamex should cause employers to take a close look at regularly used independent contractors to see if they can meet the ABC test and presumption that workers are employees. The consequence of misclassifying an employee is high, and for employers who routinely use a large number of independent contractors to fulfill key parts of their business, damages could be crippling,” Matayoshi urges.
Although Section leaders agree the adoption of the ABC standard provides predictability to employers and workers as to who will be considered an employee or independent contractor, they predict application of the “usual course of business” element of the standard may prove difficult.
“As a plaintiff’s attorney, I am happy that the court has embraced a more employee-friendly standard that resonates with the objectives of the state’s protective legislation,” opines Cheyenne M. Chambers, Charlotte, NC, cochair of the Young Lawyers, Membership, and Diversity Subcommittee of the Section's Appellate Practice Committee. “It will be interesting to see how companies react to this ABC test, particularly the second element—my guess is that some companies will revisit their business models in an attempt to redefine which workplace tasks they consider as part of the their ‘usual course of business,’” Chambers adds.
“Future cases are sure to address the contours of this ‘usual course of business’ standard, particularly in the context of deciding class certification,” agrees Herrington. “For example, where the employer makes and distributes a product and is not in the delivery business like Dynamex, is delivery still within the usual course of business? Defense counsel will have the challenge of articulating how, under this new standard, class certification is improper,” he surmises.
Distinct from the applicability of the “usual course of business” element of the ABC standard, the uncertainty, identified by the Dynamex court in multifactor tests such as Borello and the “economic reality” standards, is inherently flawed, according to Matayoshi. “The disadvantages of the multifactor tests noted by the court include the lack of certainty in how to categorize workers,” Matayoshi observes. “This ambiguity is a double-edged sword for employers, who on one hand enjoy the freedom of creative work situations but bear increasing risk of misclassification without a clear standard. For attorneys advising their clients, the court makes it clearer for attorneys to provide guidance and advice to their clients, while at the same time making provision of creative solutions to employer problems more difficult. Attorneys should proactively reach out to their clients to advise them of this shift so the client can reevaluate and audit their independent contractors,” Matayoshi advises.
Kelso L. Anderson is an associate editor for Litigation News.
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Lee et al., No. S222732, Ct.App. 2/7 B249546 (Ca. Apr. 30, 2018).
United States Division of Labor, Wage & Hour Division, Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors.
S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (1989).
Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 522 (2014).
Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (2010).
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, §11090.
NLRB v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111 (1944).