Sunday, September 20, 2009

How to Try An Eligibility Case Against the Putative President Barack Obama

In response to my recent article, Simply Saying Something Is So Does Not Make It So” — Judge Land, Rhodes v. Obama, I received some inquiries on whether the computer-imaged Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) can be presented to the Court for it to authenticate. I have also been asked whether one can present that document to the Court and argue that it is not valid because Obama or his agents have altered its serial number by blackening it out. Hence, with such COLB not being valid, there is no evidence existing of any kind as to where Obama was born. These questions deserve a response. So as to provide a service to the public, litigants, and the courts, the public should be informed as to how a case against Obama should proceed in a court of law. Hence, I have written this article.

Our nation is now debating whether our currently sitting Putative President, Barack Obama, is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Depending on who has the burden of proof, this means that there must first be a showing that he is or is not a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment or some Act of Congress and then ultimately a showing that he is or is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Before the Court will entertain any issue about documents and evidence, the plaintiff has to first have a comprehensive complaint filed with the Court that raises all possible factual and legal issues to be argued and proven. The plaintiff then has to properly serve that complaint upon all defendants, in both their individual and official capacities, whatever may be the case. Given that the defendants will most likely, rather than file an Answer, file a motion to dismiss the complaint on various threshold issues (not the merits), the plaintiff will also have to prove to the Court that it has subject matter jurisdiction (e.g., standing) and have to overcome other threshold issues (e.g. immunity) before the Court will allow any argument on documents or discovery in general. An exception to that general rule is if the plaintiff needs documents or other discovery to prove to the Court that it has standing or that the defendant is not, for example, immune (the issues yet to be decided by the Federal District Court of New Jersey in the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al suit).

Unless exempt by court rule from having to do so, a party must by court rule provide discovery of various information and documents (name individuals who have information and what that information is, list and provide documents to be used during trial, state what damages are claimed, and list if there are any insurance agreement that may be used to satisfy any possible judgment) to the other party without awaiting a discovery request. There are strict time limits on providing this preliminary information to the other party. With a defendant initially filing a motion to dismiss the complaint, this automatic discovery obligation may be put on hold until the Court rules on that dismissal motion. If necessary, a party can file a motion to have this automatic discovery obligation stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. If the Court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss and is therefore satisfied that it has jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has prevailed on all other threshold issues, the Court will require that the defendant file an Answer and also allow the automatic discovery and other forms of discovery (depositions, interrogatories, production of documents, physical and mental examinations, and requests for admissions) to proceed.

The Court does not do the work of the litigating parties in this regard. The Court is a neutral party and cannot engage in developing or defending a case on behalf of any litigant. It is up to a party to bring relevant and admissible evidence and controlling and relevant law to the Court. Depending on who has the burden of proof, the party is expected to produce for the Court evidence that a document (the computer-imaged COLB or the underlying original Certificate of Live Birth, if that is the type of birth record that exists) is either false or authentic. That is initially done by utilizing an expert who renders a report containing his/her findings and opinions and the factual basis therefore. The proposed expert must be sufficiently qualified in the subject matter. A party must also use an expert witness to prevail on any other issue which is beyond the common knowledge of and to assist the trier of fact. The expert must render a legally sufficient report to the adversary or else the expert will upon a party’s motion be precluded by the Court from testifying in Court. During the discovery phase, the adversary party will expect the party proposing to produce the expert for trial to provide it with a copy of that expert’s report and all types of other information (documents and non-documentary) regarding that expert's qualifications and the basis for his/her opinions. This is done with interrogatories and a notice to produce documents. The adversary party will also normally take that expert's deposition for the purpose of finding fault and weakness in his/her opinion which will then serve the basis for a motion for summary judgment and/or pre-trial motion to strike his/her report and opinion, for the adversary party has the right to attack by appropriate pre-trial motions the report and opinion as legally insufficient given the rules of evidence and current state of scientific knowledge. If the Court denies the adversary's pre-trial motions to strike the report and opinion, the adversary will still have an opportunity to do so during trial.

Usually after discovery is completed (it can be before) and before the matter actually goes to trial, any party can file with the Court a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the operative facts are not in dispute and that as a matter of law that party deserves to win the case. The Court decides this motion based on admissible evidence and legal arguments contained in legal briefs that the parties present to the Court. Depending on what issue the moving party has asked the Court to decide, the plaintiff or defendant can either win the whole case or just one or more issues it deems ultimately important to winning the whole case. If neither of the parties files any motion for summary judgment (the facts may be or may be perceived to be in dispute) or if it is denied by the Court, the case will move forward to be disposed of by a trial.

Assuming the Court preliminarily (pre-trial) accepts an expert’s report as legally sufficient, the expert will be allowed to testify in Court as to the opinions and their factual foundation as contained in his report. The adversary party has the opportunity to cross examine the expert to test the truth and basis of his/her opinions. Following the expert's testimony, the adversary party can always make trial motions to have the expert's testimony stricken as inadmissible under the applicable evidence standard. If the offering party is able to withstand all trial attacks by the adversary, the expert's testimony will be accepted by the Court and will be ultimately weighed and assessed by the trier of fact.

The trier of fact can be either the trial judge or a jury, depending on whether the law allows a jury trial for the type of case that is before the Court and whether or not at least one party has timely requested a jury trial when it is allowed. If the jury is the trier of fact, the judge will instruct the jury at the end of the case presentations by both the plaintiff and defendant to accept the expert's opinion as evidence. If the judge is the trier of fact, he/she will simply accept that evidence. While the judge will instruct the jury that it must accept the expert's testimony as evidence, the judge will also instruct the jury (or will simply do so itself if the judge is the trier of fact) that only the jury will ultimately determine whether the expert was credible (believable) or not and whether to accept or reject his/her underlying opinion. It is during secret jury deliberations that the jury determines the expert's credibility and whether to accept or reject his/her opinion. If the judge is the trier of fact, he/she would do his/own analysis, study, weighing, and contemplation regarding the expert's credibility and whether or not to accept his/her opinion. The expert's opinion, along with all other admissible factual evidence and legal arguments presented by the parties to the judge and/or jury, will allow the plaintiff to ultimately either win or lose the case.

Hence, we can see that we cannot get the Court to so easily consider the computer-imaged COLB (assuming that this computer image even exists in the real world, I guess one could bring a lap top to the Court, bring up the image [real or Photoshopped forgery?], and show it to the Court) or any other Birth Certificate and expect it to take some action on it that is favorable to the plaintiff. Given what I have outlined above, we can just imagine what kind of response we would get from a competent judge. We have to bring competent and admissible evidence to the Court that the COLB or any other birth certificate is not valid in and of itself or if so valid then not valid for the purpose for which Obama has offered it or is now offering it (again depending on who has the burden of proof).

Regarding the blacked-out serial number contained on the first computer-released COLB, after receiving objections regarding that blacked-out number, Obama did cause to be internet published nine (9) digital photographs (not scanned images) of the same or different version of his COLB which did not have the sequence number blacked out. We do not know whether those digital photographs were of the same "COLB" that was initially published by Obama or of another COLB. The below quote from "Dr. Polarik" which appeared on FreeRepublic.com (h/t TheObamaFile.com) explains the sequence of events:

"It is a statement of fact, and admission therewith, that the OBama Campaign, aka Obama for America, did create a minimum of three (3) false identification document copies and distributed said copies to the Daily Kos, Factcheck, and Politifact; and, additionally, posted the original false identification document on Obama’s own website, 'My.BarackObama.com' and also on a separate website known as, 'Fight The Smears.' Furthermore, two months after the creation and distribution of these false identification documents, Obama for America, in collusion with Factcheck,org [sic], a subsidiary of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, owned by the Annenberg Foundation and funded by billionaire George Soros, created and posted nine (9) photographs of what they further alleged was the same, false identification document that they had earler [sic] alleged was a scanned facsimile of Obama’s original birth certificate — thus compounding their earlier offenses with further violations of the same statutes."

As I have explained above, "Dr. Polarik" or some other expert would have to render an expert's report that is preliminarily legally acceptable as to form and factual basis by a Court and then testify in that Court as to his/her opinions and the factual basis for those opinions. Of course, Obama would have his own expert do the same. The trier of fact will ultimately decide which expert to believe, basing its decision on that expert's testimony and all other competent and admissible evidence that both parties present to the Court.

Since the Obama eligibility question has both a factual and Constitutional legal component, with a jury trial, after the jury finds what the facts are, the Court and not the jury will render a legal opinion, with both parties being given the opportunity to present legal briefs to the Court in which each argues why their client should win on the facts and the law. If the trial judge is the trier of fact, the Court will give the parties an opportunity to present to it their respective findings of facts and conclusions of law. The trial judge would then ultimately decide what are the facts and the law and render a decision accordingly. Either party can then appeal the final decision of the trial Court to the Circuit Court of Appeals, provided the appeal is filed within 30 days from the day the trial Court enters judgment. While an appellate court will rarely disturb a jury’s factual findings, it will normally review a trial court’s legal conclusions de novo (from anew). An appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court may also be explored or done after an appeal to the Circuit Court is exhausted. Only after exhausting such a procedural and legal process can our justice system appropriately decide the factual question of Obama’s birth location and the Constitutional legal question of whether he is an Article II "natural born Citizen." But before any of that can be done which would allow the Court to decide whether plaintiff’s case has any underlying merit, the plaintiff has to first prove to the trial Court (the first Court) that it has jurisdiction and, assuming the defense raises such issues, that there do not exist any other threshold issues that give the Court grounds to dismiss the complaint (e.g. justiciability, political question, separation of powers, abstention, and more).

I hope this information brings more understanding and perspective to the procedural, evidence, and legal problems that must be overcome to be able to utilize the computer-imaged COLB and/or the original long-form Certificate of Live Birth or any other alleged Birth Certificate in a Court proceeding and to be able to bring to justice the ultimate question of Obama's Article II eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
9-20-09

32 comments:

A pen said...

While it is reassuring that you, Mario, do understand the route to justice via rules and common law practices it is none the less disturbing to note that a single act in defiance of the constitution might stand unchecked simply because rules and laws of lower courts must be sated. What happens when a bevy of acts with a sinister purpose arrive at the doorsteps of justice only to be forced litigation of unknown duration and perfection while their design unfolds unabated? Was the intent of the framers to subject the satisfaction of the constitution to chance?

roderick said...

I say what's the use of going to law school anymore. The courts want to throw out anything anti-'bama there is no use in one more student furthering himself or herself to that degree if the courts can't follow basic protocol. Nothing has been twittered on the internet. 'bama is president of himself a lowlife squatter in the whitehouse contaminating it from floor to ceiling. "it" will be removed no matter how desperate "it" becomes. There will be no unlimited terms for this hater of the United States of America.

sjc said...

Mario,
The procedural evidentuary chain not withstanding, the contents of the COLB are damnimg as well.

In 1961 Hawaii denoted "race" as white, black or other.

The COLB shows Obama's "race" as AFRICAN, a term not in play in 1961for such documents. Thus adding weight to the forgery claim.

squinlivan said...

Mario,

What ever happened to the "best evidence standard"....the meaning of which to me was "on must" present the best available evidence to a court of law...in this case from either side of the argument....a document with verification...whether the State of Hawaii or the Kenyan government...is that not correct....so why does Judge Land even begin to refer to the COLB or any other of the tripe he addressed in his "opinion" and completely ignore Obama's Admission againt interest...[that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 making him a dula citizen"]

Clearly Judge Land looks for an out not to be involved...rather than to fairly deal with the case before him....

Lets face it what both sides seek here is JUSTICE...and so far JUSTICE is not even vaguely or remotely in site....from my street view anyway....

squinlivan said...

Mario,

In response to "A pen" maybe there is a VERY LIMITED time when the Courts "use" of its own doctrines" subverts the law and protects abuse....there is nothing in the constitution that allows for these "standing" issues to block a litigant from pursuing justice....and the famous railroad cases where litigants acted not from an individual injury perspective but from a protect the whole...where injury could occur if the offending conduct continued....were heard "back in the day" ....I say any case regardless of its merits should always attack these judicially created "doctrines" because tey inhibit a "trial on the merits" to which real justice can at least have a chance of being argued if not achieved????

What say you, Mario?

PatriotX said...

We are nothing short of being abused, by our tyrannical and illegal government. When good citizens grievances, are met with lies, delays and outright contempt what is left? The tree of liberty needs to be watered!

cfkerchner said...

Hi all,

My hope is that the words of Chief Justice Marshall are still alive in our federal courts and mean something. All arguments, laws, and precedence against granting of standing and the court taking jurisdiction in this case should fall aside in the face of constitutional violations and usurpations as grave as are presented in this matter.

"... it is worth keeping in mind the words of Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one." "

We should not let use of Alinsky's Rules for Radical #4 ... make them live up to every single "dot every i and cross the t" minuscule procedural rule in such away as to preclude justice in such a serious matter as guarding the Article II eligibility clause for the Presidency and CINC of our Constitution via getting a full hearing and court investigation on the merits of the charges in the various cases.

And in closing, a few other words from our founders that are slowly being squeezed out of our nation by the far left, "in God we trust." Let us pray the spirit and mindset of Chief Justice Marshall still lives in enough of our Judges for the Constitution and thus our nation to survive.

Charles

P.S. Please help the cause to educate the public via the print media:
http://www.protectourliberty.org

patlin said...

I have a quick question for Charles or Mario,

I have heard rumors the past couple of days that Gary Kreep, the lawyer from Ca is helping in your case as well as Berg's case.

Now since Mr Kreep, to this day, still claims that the fact that Obama's father was a foreigner does not in any way hinder Obama's eligibility as long as Obama was born on US soil; how can Mr Kreep possibly be of help?

squinlivan said...

Mario,

Leo Donofrio upon a recent NEW discovery believes that he has the State of Hawaii by the short and curlyies.....his headline is below:

Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.
Posted in Uncategorized on September 21, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

It appears that Hawaii has been violating its own laws, and there is no standing issue....and Hawaii even has a statute that provides for a suit to get at the INFORMATION that Ms. Fukino used to determine that Barrack Obama is "a natural born citizen" information that is by hawaii law supposed to be made available to the public when ever the State make a claim about anything th people are entitled to SEE THE DOCUMENTS from which this statement comes from....HOLY COW

Puzo1 said...

Patlin,

I am not aware of Gary Kreep in any way helping me on the Kerchner case. I have never spoken to him or otherwise communicated with him.

I do not agree with Mr. Kreep that the sufficient formula for "natural born Citizen" status is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The formula is missing a necessary condition which is that the child be also born to a mother and father who are U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

patlin said...

Puzo said:

I am not aware of Gary Kreep in any way helping me on the Kerchner case. I have never spoken to him or otherwise communicated with him.

Mario, I went back and listened to last nights Chalice show at patriots heart network and Kreep, himself, said he was working with you.

You may want to contact Chalice and correst the mis-information she allowed to be aired. I was also pretty upset when she cut a caller off for calling Kreep out on his standing as to the definition of NBC.

Puzo1 said...

Patlin,

Mr. Kreep did not say that he was working with me. Rather, he said that he contacted me. There is nothing said by him which substantiates your statement that he said he was helping me. Where did you get that from?

In any event, I wish Mr. Kreep and Orly Taitz success with their action in California.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Vincent Jappi said...

Why call this Communist "President" ? If he is ineligible, then he is just a criminal.

Puzo1 said...

Part I of II

Dr. Conspiracy and his support group are obsessed with my using the term “travel ban” to Pakistan in my second amended complaint/petition. They insist that the Court will dismiss the Kerchner complaint and sanction me for using the term. Here is my response to them which I have posted on Dr. Conspiracy’s web site:

I guess you guys and gals are all working from the same playbook. Do you guys and gals get together over coffee? Do you really think that I am going to lose the case and get sanctioned by the Court because I said there was a travel “ban” for Americans wanting to travel to Pakistan in 1981? Let us take a look at the facts and consider some questions that are raised by Obama’s travel to Pakistan.

Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981after visiting his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. In his April 6, 2008 speech in San Francisco, Obama said: “I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college -- I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." I guess we can surmise from his having such in depth knowledge about the difference between Sunni and Shia (an understanding that according to him not even Hillary Clinton or McCain had) that he spent a lot of his time while in Pakistan studying the subject.

In 1981, Pakistan was on the State Department list for “travel advisory.” \\Secretary\legalfiles\Political\Obama\Pakistan\Travel Advisory Sheets Archive.mht; http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf. "The advisory is vital to ensure travelers are well-prepared," insist the State Department travel advisory. " "We provide advice to citizens so they will be well-prepared," added the State Department advisory. http://www.eturbonews.com/7010/us-state-department-travel-advisory-london-dangerous-place-travel. “Travel warnings, which the State Department has been making public to American travelers since 1978 and which cover everything from civil unrest to health concerns, originate with the U.S. embassy or consulates of a specific country. Then the Bureau of Consular Affairs—and, occasionally, other agencies—weighs in, with the final decision coming from the office of the Undersecretary of State. The State Department subsequently revisits the warnings, usually every six months.” http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/state-department-travel-warnings-explained/1. That the State Department did not technically put a “ban” on travel to Pakistan does not mean that it was not recommended for Americans to go there in 1981.

When Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, the country was going through a civil war and was under martial law. It was experiencing serious social, political, and religious upheaval. A few years earlier, General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq had overthrown the government of Bhutto by way of coup. Zia-ul-Haq even created a separate electoral system for non-Muslims. Courts were created to make sure the country’s laws were not repugnant to Islam. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan and the Afghan Mujahedeen operated in Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. Government-issued visas to foreign visitors were good only for 30 days. The Government had in place Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, which allowed the Government to prevent any person who was in Pakistan from leaving the country even though they had valid travel documents without, in the name of "public interest," even giving a reason for the action. Any person violating that ordinance faced 5 years of imprisonment. Because of these conditions, travel by an American using an U.S. passport was very risky to say the least.

continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

Part II of II

Also, there is currently a U.S. State Department travel warning for Americans wanting to travel to Pakistan. “The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against non-essential travel to Pakistan in light of the threat of terrorist activity. This replaces the Travel Warning dated February 25, 2009, updates information on security incidents and reminds U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns in Pakistan.” http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_930.html. Hence, while there might not have been a de jure “ban" on travel by Americans to Pakistan in 1981, there surely was a de facto one.

Furthermore, if there was no problem traveling to Pakistan in 1981 as you suggest, tell me the following:

1. How many Americans with U.S. passports went there in 1981.

2. What function (job category) did these Americans have before entering the country.

3. What was the purpose of their trip there.

4. How long did they stay there.

5. How many Americans were refused visas to enter the country.

6. Why were they refused those visas.

7. What passport did Obama use to travel into Pakistan.

8. How did the young Obama finance his trip to Indonesia, India, and Pakistan.

9. Why has Obama since mentioning his Pakistani trip just once never spoken about it again even though there have been so many public inquiries about it.

10. Why did the Obama campaign not respond to an invitation to comment on some of the speculation surrounding the visit to Pakistan or to provide further details about the trip.

11. Was Obama one of the many included in the stream of Afro-Americans who--in the words of veteran security analyst, Bahukutumbi Raman, a former Indian counterterrorism chief--visited Pakistan to feel the greatness of the Afghani jihad against communism and their fascination for Abdullah Azzam.

12. For how long did Obama stay in Pakistan.

13. With whom did Obama visit while he was in Pakistan. If he visited politicians while there, how was he able to make such political connections.

14. Why did Obama not mention his Pakistani trip and the in-depth religious knowledge that he gained from it in his autobiographies.

So as you see, playing word games--“travel ban” vs. “travel advisory” really does not get you very far when we consider the realty that existed in Pakistan in 1981 and all the unanswered questions that Obama’s visit there raises.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

Dr. Conspiracy insists that the definition of "natural born Citizen" is found in the English common law and that Vattel was really a nobody during the Founding.

Here is my response to his positon which I also posted on his web site:

The English common law did not provide the definition of "natural born Citizen." The English common law had during the colonial period and continued to have after the Founding a useful purpose in the several States (defining rights concerning inheritance, contracts, torts, property, and more) but a very limited role in constituting the new nation and its national government and no role in defining national citizenship for the generations to be born after the Constitution was adopted. Given the revolution, the needs of the new representative Republic, and historical developments, the Founders simply did not use English common law to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. That law, born of feudalism and tied to a hereditary monarchy, simply did not provide the Founders with the formula that they needed for defining the eligibility requirements for the popularly elected President and Commander in Chief of the new nation.

The 18th century meaning of “natural born Citizen” consisted of jus sanguinis and jus soli joined together in the child at the time of birth or what I call Unity of Citizenship, this being the Vattelian definition contained in The Law of Nations, which the Founding generation widely read and accepted. This treatise covered a wide range of subjects involving relations among nations and citizenship. It described citizens as starting as members of society (citizens) and then evolving into future generations (the children of the citizens or the “natives or indigenes) who were given the duty to perpetuate and protect the new society. Since the Founders found themselves in the exact situation described by Vattel concerning the formation of a new society (needing new members of that society or citizens) and the need for future generations (the natives or indigenes or what they called the “natural born Citizens”) to perpetuate and protect that society, and since the Founders would have viewed citizenship has having a great impact between nations, the Founders would also have relied on this treatise for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” With the new and young nation just starting to make its way in the international arena and the Founders wanting to avoid war and desiring neutrality among nations, this definition of a “natural born Citizen” would have served them best for their purposes and not the English common law definition of a “natural born subject” which made English perpetual subjects out of persons born citizens of other nations without the consent of either that foreign nation or that nation’s citizens.

Wong Kim Ark , while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

cfkerchner said...

Wonder why your comment is not released and posted? Read the Rules for this blog. The answer to your question will be found therein in the list of things not allowed in this blog. If you require a more detailed explanation, send a private email to the blog owner.

Blog Rules

Charles

Spaulding said...

Cmdr Kerchner or Mr. Apuzzo, what legal guidlines are there for the timeliness of a response by the district court? Would our system not require that the law respond to a case properly presented? There is some quote about justice in time. If a lower court simply fails to respond, justice has clearly been denied.

Puzo1 said...

Someone commented on Dr. Conspiracy's blog by posting a reference to Act 96 of 1911 which provides in summary:

Section 96.

"An Act

To provide for the issuance of Certificates of Hawaiian Birth.

Be it enacted by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii that:

Section 1. The Secretary of Hawaii may, when satisfied that any such person born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. The Secretary may, with the approval of the Governor, make such regulations respecting the form of application and certificates, the method of proof, kind of evidence, and time, and place, and manner of hearing, and all other matters and circumstances connected with such application …"

Dr. Conspiracy responded:

"Well, as we know in the case of Sun Yat-Sen, all you had to do is get a couple of people to swear under penalty of perjury for you, and you could get a birth certificate. But this was for a Certificate of Hawaiian birth, one issued to an adult years after the fact. Obama’s birth was registered just 4 days after his birth, not a delayed birth (where most birth certificate fraud occurs). There’s no way a birth could have been registered that fast outside of a hospital setting.

If there were any reason under the sun to think the President wasn’t born in Hawaii, then perhaps one might be tempted to ask questions, but there is not."

Apuzzo's Response:

You state:

“'There’s no way a birth could have been registered that fast outside of a hospital setting.'”

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Where is the independent, sufficient, and credible evidence as to the date, time, and place of birth? And please, do not tell me it is in the on-line COLB, or in the Hawaii Health officials oral statements, or in the two newspaper announcements.

Help me understand this issue. I will appreciate a comprehensive response from you since you are well-versed on this subject and if any such evidence existed, you would have it."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Spaulding said...

In Utah 87% of civil cases are disposed of within a year. Of Open cases 24% are older than two years. Given the political component of judicial appointments, assuming a federal judge will touch a volatile issue is wishful thinking. That may explain the confidence Obama's backers had in supporting an ineligible candidate. Our judicial system appears to have delay as a defense. The carefully constructed arguments of Mr. Apuzzo may someday be heard, in five years, after which there will be no remedy, either because we will have a new form of government, or because Obama will no longer be commander in chief. We no longer have an independent judiciary.

Like Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Paraguay, other oligarchies and dictatorships, and probably like Honduras after our Marxists are finished with it, changes in government will only come via the military, which probably accounts for Obama's plans for a domestic police force. I hope not, but with every single legislator lying about our Constitution, claiming not to know what a natural-born citizen is, and the judiciary, puppets of the executive, the evidence is here. Patriots witnessing the peaceful attempt at legal remedies must lose faith in reason, which can mean nothing if no one listens, and there are no rules. Dictators encourage reason among their adversaries while they dominate them with force.

Puzo1 said...

At Dr. Conspiracy's blog, he accuses me of being a racist because I am questioning Obama's constitutional eligibiity to be President. He states:

Dr. Conspiracy: "How is it not racist to require black presidents to “show” that they are eligible, and not to require white presidents to “show” that they are eligible? How is it not racist to say that the black presidents “trample the Constitution” while white presidents do not trample the constitution, when both are doing the same thing?I am deeply offended by this “showing us that he is eligible” language because I know it’s disingenuous. You know perfectly well that you are using the phrase to create animosity towards Obama, and not because you believe any such requirement exists.Which is worse: to be a racist or to cynically use racism as a tool? I think the second."

I responded: "The Founding Fathers wanted to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Based on their study of the law of nature, the law of nations, and the English common law, the Founders understood that the natural act of a child being born on a nation’s soil and being born to a nation’s citizens produces for that growing child allegiance and attachment to those respective nations. Also based on their study of natural law and the law of nations, the Founders understood that the natives or natural born citizens were those born in the country of parents who are its citizens. They understood that one who is born in the United States under such circumstances will have from birth sole and absolute allegiance to the United States. The Founders wanted to preserve the new nation for Posterity and they saw that by requiring future Presidents to be “natural born Citizen” was the best way to accomplish that. They therefore included in Article II, among other things, that one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Obama does not meet this presidential eligibility requirement because when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen, making him subject to a foreign power and thereby lacking the birth status of sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States.

Help me understand something, Dr. Conspiracy, where is the color or race in that argument? Now please, do not go off on some tangent or make some argument how you disagree with my definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is so that you can avoid answering this most simple question. You and your partners in demagoguery have accused me of being a racist which, for your information, is the first time in my life that anyone has ever said that about me. Having so accused me, you must now show me how I am a racist for arguing as stated above that Obama does not and cannot meet the Article II “natural born Citizen” eligibility test. Better yet, I challenge you to do a full-blown blog post so that the whole world can see how I am supposed to be a racist for making my argument.

I have not yet received his response.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

jayjay said...

Mario:

Doc Conspiro is merely a non-vulgar putz trying to make a "name" for himself by attacking others.

It is apparent that HE is the guy who is racist since he's overly-concerned about it ... typical looney lefty!! Anything to cast aspersions on others.

cfkerchner said...

Hi Mario,

It is virtually impossible to engage in serious, honest intellectual debate with hard-core leftists such as Dr. Conspiracy without at some point them throwing out the racist charge. This is a taught debating tactic on their side learned by their studying Alinsky's Rules for Radical and the various very nasty rules they practice outlined in that manual. Their tactic is not to win the debate on the point at hand but instead is to provoke a dramatic reaction and then watch and learn from the reaction of the "enemy", something about the psychic of their enemy. Or to get a reaction that goes beyond the pale and thus can be used to publicly embarrass their enemy. To Dr. Conspiracy you are the enemy. Thus he is deliberately prodding and poking at you to get an emotional reaction and then study it. He hopes at some point he can get a dramatic emotional reaction which he can then use in some way to defeat you, if not in this online venue then somewhere else in the future. Debating him is a waste of time, imo. He is studying your reactions to learn about you. These hard-core leftist look at all this like a psychological lab experiment. They are studying the enemy by poking, prodding and watching the reactions. Then they feed it up to their masters who will put together a "war book" on the key members of "enemy" for use in another forum. Just like the enemies in war study the generals, these far-lefties look at this as a war and they are organized to win it at any cost. Thus the best reaction to this is to give the no reaction. In fact don't even bother debating them, imo. They are psychological deviants and have no morals or respect for the law and will stoop to any level to win to long-term battle, the overthrow of our system of government. To them, the ends justify the means. The end they want is national socialism and any means to get it is OK with them. The Constitution means nothing to them. It's just another annoying law in their way. They only use the Constitution and the law when it helps them via Rule #4, make the enemy dot every i and cross every t when battling them. The end justifies the means to them. That is a quote right out of Alinsky's manual. If you have not read their debating tactics and actions manual already, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, you should at some point. It is not a long book but very eye opening as to what these far lefties are trained to do. You will recognize immediately everything going on with Obama, Axelrod, Ayers, Klonsky, and Dr. Conspiracy. It's straight out of that book. Alinsky and the teachings of Professors Cloward and Piven's Strategies are their stock in trade. Write these far-left wing-nuts and hard-core Alinsky-ites off, ignore them, and move on. After awhile you'll see they only go around in circles with their arguments anyway. Their only goals are to provoke you to study you and your reactions and/or to waste your time. JMHO.

Charles

Bob said...

Mario --

It has ALWAYS puzzled me that to ask Obama to qualify his eligibility to the office of President of the United States is RACIST, if he produces the same paper birth certificate that the Senate required of John Sydney McCain III!

(On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama wrote: “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” (late 1970s).

And to support in general the efforts of Ambassador Alan Keyes in his claim that the nomination and election of Obama was won by misrepresentation, misdirection, and fraud, is also equally RACIST!

I'm sorry, but I get dizzy just trying to keep up!

jayjay said...

Bob:

Guess you just don't have the correct looney lefty lib outlook on life ... only THEY are not "racist" (etc.).

Puzo1 said...

Today, September 30, 2009, A misha has published a letter entitled,
"An Open Letter to Mario Apuzzo," at her blog called, New York Leftist. The letter can be viewed at
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/

Here is my response:

"misha,

I fail to see the point of your letter. I also note that your hate-filled letter has some underlying contradictions which expose the shallowness and insincerity of your position.

You accuse those who now question Obama’s eligibility to be President to be white racists. Yet you state Obama is “someone who was elected fair and square, unlike the 2000 election.” Your reference to the 2000 election is to President Bush, who we know is white. So you are saying that Bush did not fairly win the election. It is clear that you are questioning Bush’s legitimacy to be the then-President just like those who are questioning Obama’s legitimacy to be President today. But does your questioning Bush’s eligibility make you a racist or some other loathsome thing like in your opinion those who are questioning Obama’s eligibility are?

You then criticize Glen Beck for defending himself, saying that he was “lampooned and starts squealing like a stuck pig. Knowing full well that parody is protected by the same Constitution that he hides behind for his hatchet jobs, he has a hired gun send threatening letters to the satirists . . .”

Did I not “lampoon” Obama for not releasing to the American public his real birth certificate and other historical documents that would have allowed the public, media, and political institutions to properly vet him for the Office of President? Have you and other Obama supporters not been “squealing like a stuck pig. Knowing full well that parody is protected by the same Constitution that you hide behind for your hatchet jobs?” Are you one of Obama’s “hired guns” who now has published your letter attacking me for doing nothing more than representing clients in a legal case that questions Obama’s eligibility to be President?

So, like so much concerning those who pass judgment on Obama, you want a double standard. You are perfectly normal in questioning Bush’s presidential eligibility, but those who question Obama’s eligibility are white racists. It is perfectly acceptable for you to defend your constitutional right to complain about Glen Beck, but it is not acceptable for those who would use that same right to question Obama’s eligibility to be President.

I recommend that you honestly re-examine your position in this whole matter and re-evaluate the sincerity of your expressed feelings which we all need to do from time to time in order to stay the proper course.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

jayjay said...

Mario:

The NY poster misha is as you may or may not know one of the couple of dozen or so "regulars" on the woeful Doctor Conspiracy blogfest which are mostly populated by hate-filled pro-Obama screamers that cannot abide criticism and who will never admit that Obama - should he be found guilty in a court of law - should remain as Resident Obama no matter the law; they all know the United States Constitution is just a bunch of racist, right wing, blather that means nothing and that THEY know much the preferable way to run this particular railroad.

They seem to completely miss the fact that they are part of We the People, one of the parties to the contract which is the Constitution and that contract species how the other party (composed of the 3 branches of government) shall behave. Note the use of shall!

So - you're merely wasting your time and electrons by responding to those of that ilk ... they are rightfully known as a bunch of Flying Monkeys. You should use your time more productively - say brushing your teeth or mowing the grass.

Puzo1 said...

I have seen through the years how many times the silent majority has believed that the social, political, and cultural problems that went on about them were below them and not worthy of their time and attention to address. History has shown that it has often been the riotous and screaming minority that makes the silent majority irrelevant and that has transformed those societies for good or for bad. Like those who marched on Washington on 9/12, I believe that it is time well spent addressing the issues that shape public opinion and which will eventually determine the fate of our nation.

Sallyven said...

Very well said, Mr. Apuzzo. Yes, I too believe we should begin answering back. I have often heard it said that the reason the majority has been silent was because we were too busy working hard and raising our families. But meanwhile, the liberal far-left has been the voice most often heard in the media, whether the news or entertainment. And our children have been subjected to this vocal viewpoint for far too long. We must begin to speak up, not just in defense of our values, but at times we must go on the offense. And those times are now, before it's too late to undo the damage that's been done. We must make time, and it will be time well spent.

A pen said...

Mario, correct me if I am wrong but I don't ever recall a riotous mob starting any international conflicts or killing millions of innocents. On the contrary a rather quiet group of Germanic beer buddies did that by claiming none other than social equality as their political mantra.

cfkerchner said...

The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html

The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.

It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."

Link to the treason quote in case context:
http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg


Link to Case Summary:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0

Link to Full Case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264

The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org

kris said...

"Wong Kim Ark , while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

The Founders never put this in writing in the Constitution - nor have Congress ever put this in US Code.

Vattal is not law. Nor is it the precedent you seek - Vattal does not form the Ratio of any like case to support your contention.

But the real issue for you is your client doesn't have standing to sue Congress to do their jobs.

Even if your client did have standing, it would be for your client to prove - not for the court to "investigate".

You no doubt know better. I do not wish to speculate why a reputable attorney would nevertheless pursue such litigation.