To become a Partner : www.billstill.com, then Click "Subscribe”. Several commenters have asked for an update on the DC Madam case. Well, things move slowly in the legal world generally, but there is significant and promising news to report today. Guess who’s blocking the release of the DC Madam’s list now? According to Montgomery Blair Sibley, the lawyer who has possession of the list, the primary holdup to his releasing the 815 names, and addresses of the DC Madam’s clientele is none other than President Obama’s recent Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. [Insert OAN] the 815 names is one of the 3 remaining Republican Presidential candidates. Having been blocked by Judge Garland, on March 28, Sibley filed for a stay of the 9-year-old restraining order with the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, Jr. Roberts denied this petition on April 4, but made no comment. A few days later, Sibley resubmitted the same petition to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who viewed it more favorably. Sibley’s petition is now scheduled for a conference of the Supremes on April 29 and a call for amicus briefs was put out. The deadline for those was yesterday, April 18. Amicus briefs are legal essays containing additional information the court may find interesting prepared by professional societies, public interest groups or interested parties involved in other cases with similar issues. This is a significant step in Sibley’s battle. According to attorney and author Robert B. Standler: “In recent years, [the] U.S. Supreme Court grants only about 1.5% of the Petitions that the Court receives.” Some have commented that this may only be yet another stall tactic – an attempt to run out the Republican Primary clock. The last Republican primary occurs on June 7th. However, Justice Thomas could have ignored Sibley’s petition, just as the Chief Justice did. Justice Thomas did not have to take this step of support. I’m Still reporting from Washington. Good Day

To become a Partner : www.billstill.com, then Click "Subscribe”. For one-time donation, go to: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=billstill3@aol.com&item_number=Youtube¤cy_code=USD I’m not ignoring the big Trump victory last night, making him the presumptive nominee. We’ll get to that story next, but first, of all, the North American Law Center has finally issued its analysis on the Cruz citizenship issue. Two weeks ago, the North American Law Center warned Ted Cruz to step out of the presidential primary race or they would be forced to release damaging information on his citizenship status. He didn’t, so late yesterday, they did. Fortunately, it is not a lengthy analysis, nor is it complex. The only two official documents that Senator Cruz has not sealed – that is hidden from public view – are: 1. His Canadian Birth Certificate Here is the actual document. This shows he in a natural born citizen of Canada, born on Dec. 22, 1970. 2. His Renunciation of Canadian Citizenship Document Here is the actual document issued by the Canadian government. [insert] Note the date: May 14, 2014 – 16 months and 2 weeks AFTER Ted Cruz was sworn in as a U.S. Senator. These two documents alone prove that Ted Cruz does not meet the requirement set down in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution: “No Person except a natural born Citizen … of the United States … shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” It is impossible to be a “natural born Citizen” of two nations simultaneously. Cruz has presented proof positive that he was a natural born Citizen of Canada. So powerful is this simple argument, that 6 weeks ago, TNALC Chief Counsel, Stephen Pidgeon wrote to the Texas Secretary of State, Carlos H. Cascos asking: “Is it your official opinion that U.S. Senator Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was in fact a legal citizen of Canada in November 2012, when he ran for, was elected and certified by the Texas Secretary of State as the new U.S. Senator representing the good people of Texas, as a legal citizen of Canada?” The Cruz Campaign has asserted that Cruz was a “citizen at birth” because his mother was born in the USA and that made Ted a “dual citizen” of both the U.S. and Canada. Well, it doesn’t work that way for 2 reasons: 1. From Jan. 1, 1947 to Feb. 15, 1977, it was against the law in Canada to have “dual citizenship”. Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada had the option to declare the child’s citizenship. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz by virtue of the issuance of his official Canadian birth certificate, signed and sealed 30 days later on Jan. 21st, 1971 by the Director of the Health Department. 2. The term “citizen at birth” is a term used in the 14th Amendment. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ….” Obviously, Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and therefore subject to its jurisdiction. He has produced no naturalization papers or any other document proving that he has become a citizen of the United States. In fact, Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly stated that he was never “naturalized” to the United States. The 14th Amendment Argument The implication of Cruz’s claim is that he is a “Native Born Citizen” of the United States. This confounds the obvious, however, as his birth certificate shows that he was a native-born Canadian. The 14th Amendment defines “Native Born Citizen” this way in its opening words: Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” How can this be any more specific? Ted Cruz admits he was born in Canada, and admits that he was never naturalized. Case closed. Cruz’s only defense has been an opinion letter in the Harvard Law Review, dated March 11, 2015. According to NACL, the letter: “… relies on the 14th Amendment naturalized-citizen-at-birth concept, despite the fact that Ted Cruz was not ‘born in or under the jurisdiction of the United States,’ was never ‘naturalized’ to the United States, and completely ignored the fact that Canada prohibited ‘dual citizenship’ in 1970, as well as the fact that ‘dual citizenship’ alone would [actually] prevent him from ‘natural born U.S.’ status.”