Elliott v Cruz SCOTUS Petition

$1,355 of $2,500 goal

Raised by 31 people in 12 months
Carmon Elliott  PITTSBURGH, PA
  
Thanks for your support of the Constitution. I've got Good news. Because of your donations Attorney Mario Apuzzo is now preparing a Writ of Certiori to submit to SCOTUS(The Supreme Court of the United States) for "Elliott v Cruz". Anticipating SCOTUS' choosing to hear "Elliott v Cruz" I need to raise more funds for costly printing of subsequent submissions to SCOTUS. I can Guarantee a full refund of donations made from now on if SCOTUS doesn't hear "Elliott v Cruz".

Although Cruz has suspended his campaign, the issue is still very viable for review by SCOTUS under the "capabilible of repetition" doctrine. As you all know, we've seen a number of Presidential aspirants recently whose "natural born citizenship", Presidential eligibility has been in doubt. SCOTUS has yet to define the Constitution's use of the term natural born citizen in the Presidential eligibility clause, when the Constitution states that, "No person but a natural born citizen shall be eligible for the office of President", although SCOTUS has defined the term in other contexts, hence, "Elliott v Cruz".

Finally, with "Elliott v Cruz", a case has succeeded in getting the issue adjudicated in a Court of law. The lower court decisions have teed "Elliott v Cruz" up perfectly for an appeal to SCOTUS. Although the SCOTUS chooses to hear only a small percentage of cases submitted to it, there's a very good chance that SCOTUS will choose to hear "Elliott v Cruz" because numerous judges and commentators have bemoaned the lack of a SCOTUS decision defining the term natural born citizen in a Presidential eligibility context. Until now, SCOTUS has yet to have an opportunity to hear a relevant case because no previous case was adequately prepared to be adjudicated in a lower Court, while "Elliott v Cruz" was.

Out of a love for our Constitution I've devoted quite a lot of personal time, effort and money. Until my pro se case "Elliott v Cruz"was adjudicated in PA's Commonwealth Court, I had no attorney's help at all. The gofundme account has enabled me to get attorney Mario Apuzzo's help to submit a Writ of Certiori to SCOTUS. In anticipation of SCOTUS choosing to hear "Elliott v Cruz", I need to raise more funds for printing costs required for a SCOTUS submission. 48 copies of my submission in various colors and special format are necessary for SCOTUS' Justices and staff.

If SCOTUS chooses does not to hear "Elliott v Cruz", the good folks at gofundme assure me that I can guarantee a complete refund of donations made from this point on. However, should SCOTUS hear the case, you can be assured that history will thank you and you will always have that patriotic satisfaction. https://www.gofundme.com/h3xff4m4

         Thank you.  Sincerely...>>>Carmon Elliott





+ Read More
Update 6
Posted by Carmon Elliott
8 months ago
   Share
A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari for "Elliott v Cruz" to have been filed to the US Supreme Court at the end of June by Mario Apuzzo (see http://puzo1.blogspot.com/, who donated his services for his wording in the submission. The Petition can be accessed at https://www.scribd.com/document/317863645/Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Certiorari-Elliott-v-Cruz-Filed-6-28-16

Because the "natural born" concern regarding Presidential Candidates has proven capable of repetition, we're confident the Supreme Court will choose to hear "Elliott v Cruz" to finally resolve what the Constitution's eligibility clause means:"No person but a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President",
So, you're about to make history! Your support has made it possible for Now, at long last, the US Supreme Court has before it a case that will allow it to define the Article ll definition of "natural born citizen" in the context of Presidential eligibility. "Elliott v Cruz" is the first and only case that has had the Constitution's Presidential eligibility clause adjudicated in a Court of law.

However, while funds raised thus far have paid costs of the special printing required for Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court, once the Court chooses to hear my case, I need pay for the special printing of my Certiorari to the US Supreme Court of the case: 48 copies of my submission in various colors and special format are necessary for SCOTUS' Justices and staff. For an affordable contribution you can have the unique satisfaction of participating in US history and helping define the US Constitution.

+ Read More
Update 5
Posted by Carmon Elliott
8 months ago
   Share
A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari for "Elliott v Cruz" to has been filed at the US Supreme Court 6/28 by Mario Apuzzo (see http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ . The Petition can be accessed at https://www.scribd.com/document/317863645/Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Certiorari-Elliott-v-Cruz-Filed-6-28-16

Because the "natural born" concern regarding Presidential Candidates has proven capable of repetition, we're confident the Supreme Court will choose to hear "Elliott v Cruz" to finally resolve what the Constitution's eligibility clause means:"No person but a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President",

So, you're about to make history! Your support has made it possible for a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari for "Elliott v Cruz" to have been filed to the US Supreme Court. Now, at long last, the US Supreme Court has before it a case that will allow it to define the Article ll definition of "natural born citizen" in the context of Presidential eligibility. "Elliott v Cruz" is the first and only case that has had the Constitution's Presidential eligibility clause adjudicated in a Court of law.

However, while funds raised thus far have paid costs of the special printing required for Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court, once the Court chooses to hear my case, I need pay for the special printing of my Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court of the case: 48 copies of my submission in various colors and special format are necessary for SCOTUS' Justices and staff. For an affordable contribution you can have the unique satisfaction of participating in history and helping define the US Constitution.
+ Read More
Update 4
Posted by Carmon Elliott
10 months ago
   Share
Elliott v Cruz SCOTUS Petition has reached 50% of its goal. Thanks to Bruce, Charles and Brent.
+ Read More
Update 3
Posted by Carmon Elliott
10 months ago
   Share
Thanks for your support of the Constitution. I've got Good news. Because of your donations Attorney Mario Apuzzo is preparing a Writ of Certiori to submit to SCOTUS(The Supreme Court of the United States). Anticipating SCOTUS' choosing to hear "Elliott v Cruz" I need to raise more funds for costly printing of subsequent submissions to SCOTUS. I can Guarantee a full refund of donations made from now on if SCOTUS doesn't hear "Elliott v Cruz".

Although Cruz has suspended his campaign, the issue is still very viable for review by SCOTUS under the "capability of repetition" doctrine. As you all know, we've seen a number of Presidential aspirants recently whose natural born citizenship Presidential eligibility has been in doubt. SCOTUS has yet to define the Constitution's use of the term natural born citizen in the Presidential eligibility clause, when the Constitution states that, "No person but a natural born citizen shall be eligible for the office of President."

Finally, with "Elliott v Cruz", a case has succeeded in getting the issue adjudicated in a Court of law. The lower court decisions have teed "Elliott v Cruz" up perfectly for an appeal to SCOTUS. Although the SCOTUS chooses to hear only a small percentage of cases submitted to it, there's a very good chance that SCOTUS will choose to hear "Elliott v Cruz" because numerous judges and commentators have bemoaned the lack of a SCOTUS decision defining the term natural born citizen in a Presidential eligibility context. Until now, SCOTUS has yet to have an opportunity to hear a relevant case because no previous case was adequately prepared to be adjudicated in a lower Court, while "Elliott v Cruz" was.

Out of a love for our Constitution I've devoted quite a lot of personal time, effort and money. Until my pro se case "Elliott v Cruz"was adjudicated in PA's Commonwealth Court, I had no attorney's help at all. The gofundme account has enabled me to get attorney Mario Apuzzo's help to submit a Writ of Certiori to SCOTUS. In anticipation of SCOTUS choosing to hear "Elliott v Cruz", I need to raise more funds for printing costs required for a SCOTUS submission. 48 copies of my submission in various colors and special format are necessary for SCOTUS' Justices and staff.

If SCOTUS chooses does not to hear "Elliott v Cruz", the good folks at gofundme assure me that I can guarantee a complete refund of donations made from this point on. However, should SCOTUS hear the case, you can be assured that history will thank you and you will always have that patriotic satisfaction. https://www.gofundme.com/h3xff4m4
+ Read More
Read a Previous Update
Rick H. Renaud
11 months ago
1
1

Unfortunately your first argument is in error. A person who is born in the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen (14th amendment), not Natural Born. To be natural born, you must be born in the United States and both parents must be citizens at time of your birth. Congress does not have the authority to give Natural Born Status. The can only make Naturalization rules.

+ Read More
Jim Buzzell
4 months ago

Why has no one in the national media, national conservative talk show hosts or anyone else investigated, probed or asked questions about Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz’s birth right? 1 RAFAEL EDWARD (TED) CRUZ: Was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1970. 2 Is Rafael Cruz a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America? 3 Is Rafael Cruz a US citizen? 4 You decide: a. Rafael’s father had dual citizenship, as a Canadian/Cuban citizen at the time of Rafael’s birth, which made Rafael a Canadian/Cuban citizen? b. Rafael’s mother was, maybe, an American citizen, would that make him a US citizen? c. Rafael was born in Canada did that make him a Canadian citizen at birth? d. Would Rafael Cruz’s birth in Canada make him a dual citizen of Canada and Cuba? e. If Rafael’s mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth she had a duty to her son, if she wanted him to be a US citizen, to do the following: 1) Register Rafael’s birth with the US Embassy or Consulate on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) 2) Once the CRBA was approved the US State Department would issue form FS-240 establishing Rafael’s US citizenship. f. Was this process ever completed for Rafael? g. Can Rafael produce a CRBA issued in his name and the form FS-240 issued by the US State Department? h. Can Rafael produce the CRBA or FS-240 with the US State Department signature, date and time stamped? i. We know that Rafael does not have US birth certificate. j. We know Rafael does have a Canadian birth certificate. k. So the next question is, how did Rafael enter the United States from Canada? l. Was Rafael listed on his father’s or mother’s Passport? m. What passports did Rafael’s parents travel on between the US and Canada? n. Did Rafael travel on his own Passport or Visa, if so what was the origin of the documents? o. When Rafael turned 18 years of age did he register with Selective Service? p. If Rafael registered with Selective Service what identification did he use to establish his citizenship and does he have a draft card? q. Did Rafael ever have a Green Card issued by the United States? r. Was Rafael ever naturalized through the US Immigration process? s. Since Rafael renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014, and given the fact he probably is not a US citizen he would be a Cuban citizen living in the United States America as an illegal alien? t. Why is Rafael using Ted as his first name? u. Why does he never refer to himself as Rafael? v. Is Rafael trying to hide his true identity? w. Is Rafael trying to hiding through the use of an alias? x. Do people who are hiding use fake names? y. Is Rafael a fake person? z. People who use aliases are usually hiding something, what is Rafael hiding? aa. What is Rafael trying to hide?

+ Read More
Cat Hughes
11 months ago

Stick to the naturalized citizen/"congressional generosity"/ previous Supreme court cases regarding the citizenship of foreign born citizens, so they can get around "someone" without direct threat. Naturalized citizens cannot be president or VP. Cruz is one of 5 ineligible candidates since 2005 that have been on our ballots.

+ Read More
Cat Hughes
11 months ago

Unfortunately, your first line is in error. A natural born citizen is born of two citizen parents and on US soil. I believe you even cited Minor v Happersett in your appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme court that said: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

+ Read More
Marsha Waldau
11 months ago

Sir, First of all, I'm not going to donate because I believe your case will shortly be moot with respect to the Pennsylvania ballot due to time. But I wanted to comment in support of your argument. I do not know if you are represented by counsel or I would have reached out that way to insert my legal argument. Although I am a lawyer, I do not specialize in this area and have no interest in formally working on this issue. I read the opinion by Judge Pelligrini and found that in fails entirely to address the issue upon which this matter rests. Specifically, the effect of the "retention" requirement in the Nationality Act of 1940 which was in effect at the time of Mr. Cruz's birth. The opinion failed to fully flesh out the distinction between "natural rights" versus "legal rights" as understood by the Founders. This natural-legal dichotomy is the only reason for having the adverbial modifier to the term "born" in the Constitution's presidential qualification. Citizenship jus solis, was acknowledged by the Court. This source of is "natural" because it is based upon a concept which is inherent to the sovereignty of the state. I have not researched authority for this particular point, but the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause implies this. The children of foreign ambassadors born in the US are not citizens because they carry foreign sovereignty with them. Likewise, US military bases overseas carry US sovereignty. Citizenship jus solis is the automatic result of this principal. Natural rights are inalienable. The opinion did acknowledge the inalienability of the citizenship of a "natural born" citizen with its reference to Hall v Florida. Again, I have not followed though by researching Hall v Florida. However, I believe that further support for this distinction may be found in the cases holding that "de-naturalization" portions of the Nationality Act of 1940 to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, citizenship jus sanguinus, is a construct of laws. It is a "legal right" instead of a "natural right". It is controlled by laws. And most tellingly, citizenship "at birth" was alienable according to the laws in existence when Cruz was born. Indeed, according to the language of the Nationality Act of 1940, the birthright citizenship jus sanguinus was automatically alienated, or "ceased", if the person fails to take the affirmative action of residing in the US before a specified age. It makes no difference that Cruz met the retention requirement. The issue is that citizenship jus sanguinus is a construct of law. No one denies that Cruz is a citizen or that his citizenship was legally acquired at birth. However, because his citizenship is a construct of law, an alienable right, he is not a "natural born" citizen. Good luck with your efforts.

+ Read More
Charles Kerchner
12 months ago

Please donate if you can. Any amount large or small. If we all give a little together we will accomplish a lot. Synergy at Work! Help get this ballot access challenge to the constitutionally ineligible Lyin' Ted Cruz's to the U.S. Supreme Court.

+ Read More
Rich Schaum
12 months ago

Elliott, Please consider the following that I state is the truth and nothing but it. It is improbable to have a BAR Member (Cruz) convicted of being a foreign impostor, in his own BAR Members court system by a Judge that is also a BAR member that does not honor the "Constitution FOR the United States", Law Of The Land. Please consider the oath they took was to enforce and uphold the "Constitution OF the United States", Law Of The Sea/Maritime Law which does not exist In Law or At Law. When in front of the Judge you may ask him or her to properly identify themselves asking for a copy of the oath they took. You then ask the Judge to read it aloud. When he gets to the part OF the United States you stop him as that oath is a fraud not existing In Law or At Law. The Constitution that represent the People (you and all of us) reads the Constitution FOR the United States. The judge must take a New Oath giving his allegiance to the Constitution FOR the United States so we can proceed. Or the Judge is also a Foreign Impostor and enemy of the People. Your enforcement is letting the people know of this and they selecting a county Sheriff sworn in under the New oath FOR the United States. Yes, I fly the Civil Flag not the War Flag

+ Read More

$1,355 of $2,500 goal

Raised by 31 people in 12 months
Created April 1, 2016
Carmon Elliott  
BE
$100
Bruce Elliott
10 months ago

Go for it Carmon!

BT
$50
Brent Terry
10 months ago
$150
Anonymous
10 months ago
BE
$150
Bruce Elliott
11 months ago
1
1

Congratulations on the ruling, Carmon. Best of luck going forward!

$40
Anonymous
11 months ago
1
1
$20
Anonymous
11 months ago
1
1
$25
Anonymous
11 months ago
1
1
CA
$15
Captain America
11 months ago
1
1

Well done for pursuing a final decision that is long overdue

$25
Anonymous
11 months ago
1
1
$10
Anonymous
11 months ago
1
1
Rick H. Renaud
11 months ago
1
1

Unfortunately your first argument is in error. A person who is born in the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen (14th amendment), not Natural Born. To be natural born, you must be born in the United States and both parents must be citizens at time of your birth. Congress does not have the authority to give Natural Born Status. The can only make Naturalization rules.

+ Read More
Jim Buzzell
4 months ago

Why has no one in the national media, national conservative talk show hosts or anyone else investigated, probed or asked questions about Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz’s birth right? 1 RAFAEL EDWARD (TED) CRUZ: Was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1970. 2 Is Rafael Cruz a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America? 3 Is Rafael Cruz a US citizen? 4 You decide: a. Rafael’s father had dual citizenship, as a Canadian/Cuban citizen at the time of Rafael’s birth, which made Rafael a Canadian/Cuban citizen? b. Rafael’s mother was, maybe, an American citizen, would that make him a US citizen? c. Rafael was born in Canada did that make him a Canadian citizen at birth? d. Would Rafael Cruz’s birth in Canada make him a dual citizen of Canada and Cuba? e. If Rafael’s mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth she had a duty to her son, if she wanted him to be a US citizen, to do the following: 1) Register Rafael’s birth with the US Embassy or Consulate on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) 2) Once the CRBA was approved the US State Department would issue form FS-240 establishing Rafael’s US citizenship. f. Was this process ever completed for Rafael? g. Can Rafael produce a CRBA issued in his name and the form FS-240 issued by the US State Department? h. Can Rafael produce the CRBA or FS-240 with the US State Department signature, date and time stamped? i. We know that Rafael does not have US birth certificate. j. We know Rafael does have a Canadian birth certificate. k. So the next question is, how did Rafael enter the United States from Canada? l. Was Rafael listed on his father’s or mother’s Passport? m. What passports did Rafael’s parents travel on between the US and Canada? n. Did Rafael travel on his own Passport or Visa, if so what was the origin of the documents? o. When Rafael turned 18 years of age did he register with Selective Service? p. If Rafael registered with Selective Service what identification did he use to establish his citizenship and does he have a draft card? q. Did Rafael ever have a Green Card issued by the United States? r. Was Rafael ever naturalized through the US Immigration process? s. Since Rafael renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014, and given the fact he probably is not a US citizen he would be a Cuban citizen living in the United States America as an illegal alien? t. Why is Rafael using Ted as his first name? u. Why does he never refer to himself as Rafael? v. Is Rafael trying to hide his true identity? w. Is Rafael trying to hiding through the use of an alias? x. Do people who are hiding use fake names? y. Is Rafael a fake person? z. People who use aliases are usually hiding something, what is Rafael hiding? aa. What is Rafael trying to hide?

+ Read More
Cat Hughes
11 months ago

Stick to the naturalized citizen/"congressional generosity"/ previous Supreme court cases regarding the citizenship of foreign born citizens, so they can get around "someone" without direct threat. Naturalized citizens cannot be president or VP. Cruz is one of 5 ineligible candidates since 2005 that have been on our ballots.

+ Read More
Cat Hughes
11 months ago

Unfortunately, your first line is in error. A natural born citizen is born of two citizen parents and on US soil. I believe you even cited Minor v Happersett in your appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme court that said: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

+ Read More
Marsha Waldau
11 months ago

Sir, First of all, I'm not going to donate because I believe your case will shortly be moot with respect to the Pennsylvania ballot due to time. But I wanted to comment in support of your argument. I do not know if you are represented by counsel or I would have reached out that way to insert my legal argument. Although I am a lawyer, I do not specialize in this area and have no interest in formally working on this issue. I read the opinion by Judge Pelligrini and found that in fails entirely to address the issue upon which this matter rests. Specifically, the effect of the "retention" requirement in the Nationality Act of 1940 which was in effect at the time of Mr. Cruz's birth. The opinion failed to fully flesh out the distinction between "natural rights" versus "legal rights" as understood by the Founders. This natural-legal dichotomy is the only reason for having the adverbial modifier to the term "born" in the Constitution's presidential qualification. Citizenship jus solis, was acknowledged by the Court. This source of is "natural" because it is based upon a concept which is inherent to the sovereignty of the state. I have not researched authority for this particular point, but the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause implies this. The children of foreign ambassadors born in the US are not citizens because they carry foreign sovereignty with them. Likewise, US military bases overseas carry US sovereignty. Citizenship jus solis is the automatic result of this principal. Natural rights are inalienable. The opinion did acknowledge the inalienability of the citizenship of a "natural born" citizen with its reference to Hall v Florida. Again, I have not followed though by researching Hall v Florida. However, I believe that further support for this distinction may be found in the cases holding that "de-naturalization" portions of the Nationality Act of 1940 to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, citizenship jus sanguinus, is a construct of laws. It is a "legal right" instead of a "natural right". It is controlled by laws. And most tellingly, citizenship "at birth" was alienable according to the laws in existence when Cruz was born. Indeed, according to the language of the Nationality Act of 1940, the birthright citizenship jus sanguinus was automatically alienated, or "ceased", if the person fails to take the affirmative action of residing in the US before a specified age. It makes no difference that Cruz met the retention requirement. The issue is that citizenship jus sanguinus is a construct of law. No one denies that Cruz is a citizen or that his citizenship was legally acquired at birth. However, because his citizenship is a construct of law, an alienable right, he is not a "natural born" citizen. Good luck with your efforts.

+ Read More
Charles Kerchner
12 months ago

Please donate if you can. Any amount large or small. If we all give a little together we will accomplish a lot. Synergy at Work! Help get this ballot access challenge to the constitutionally ineligible Lyin' Ted Cruz's to the U.S. Supreme Court.

+ Read More
Rich Schaum
12 months ago

Elliott, Please consider the following that I state is the truth and nothing but it. It is improbable to have a BAR Member (Cruz) convicted of being a foreign impostor, in his own BAR Members court system by a Judge that is also a BAR member that does not honor the "Constitution FOR the United States", Law Of The Land. Please consider the oath they took was to enforce and uphold the "Constitution OF the United States", Law Of The Sea/Maritime Law which does not exist In Law or At Law. When in front of the Judge you may ask him or her to properly identify themselves asking for a copy of the oath they took. You then ask the Judge to read it aloud. When he gets to the part OF the United States you stop him as that oath is a fraud not existing In Law or At Law. The Constitution that represent the People (you and all of us) reads the Constitution FOR the United States. The judge must take a New Oath giving his allegiance to the Constitution FOR the United States so we can proceed. Or the Judge is also a Foreign Impostor and enemy of the People. Your enforcement is letting the people know of this and they selecting a county Sheriff sworn in under the New oath FOR the United States. Yes, I fly the Civil Flag not the War Flag

+ Read More
or
Or, use your email…
Use My Email Address
By continuing, you agree with the GoFundMe
terms and privacy policy
There's an issue with this Campaign Organizer's account. Our team has contacted them with the solution! Please ask them to sign in to GoFundMe and check their account. Return to Campaign

Are you ready for the next step?
Even a $5 donation can help!
Donate Now Not now

Pledge now, give later.

Pledge Now
You won't be charged for this pledge. We'll let Carmon know that you have pledged support.
Thank you!
Connect on Facebook to keep track of how many donations your share brings.
We will never post on Facebook without your permission.