Tuesday, April 28, 2009

More Delays. USA/Obama Say They Need 124-Days to Answer; Congress 117 Days

See the copy of the court documents electronically filed by the defendants on Monday, April 27, 2009:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14705757/

The lawyer for USA and Obama, Elizabeth A. Pascal, who works in the office of Ralph J. Marra, Acting United States Attorney, is now asking the Court a second time through her motion for more time to answer for the defendants.

Initially, Ms. Pascal only represented the USA and Obama, whose answers or motions were initially due on April 20, 2009. Ms. Pascal requested and obtained an extension to file her responses to May 5, 2009.

Now Ms. Pascal states in her declaration that former Vice President Cheney, the House of Representatives, and Speaker Pelosi have asked that the Department of Justice represent them in the action. She adds that the Justice Department is also deciding which Congressional defendants (meaning Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) it will represent. Pending the Justice Department making that decision, she is moving the Court for an order allowing all the Congressional defendants more time to answer or otherwise move. She includes in her request additional time for the USA and Obama to answer, whose answers are now due on May 5, 2009.

Ms. Pascal made her motion returnable June 1, 2009 and is asking for an order that she be allowed to file an answer or otherwise move within 20 days of the date of the order to be entered by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. This means that if Magistrate Judge Schneider signs the extension order on June 1, 2009, the defendants' answers or motions will be due by June 21, 2009.

Whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for the Office he currently occupies is of utmost national importance. Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer. This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable. As to the Congressional defendants, a twenty-day extension for them to answer is reasonable, making their answer due by May 18, 2009. Given the national importance of the issues, an extension for all defendants to answer by June 21, 2009 is not acceptable.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Activity in Kerchner v Obama Case - Motion to Extend Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond & Declaration of Counsel Filed by Defendants

Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit - Motion to Extend Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond & Declaration of Counsel has been filed by the defendants. The defendants have already had over two months to answer, move, or otherwise respond. As of the current deadline of May 5th they will have had 75 days from the time they were served to respond. In our opinion, that is an adequate amount of time to answer or move or other wise respond. An objection will be filed to this second request by the defendants for a further extension of time. More on that in a subsequent post.

Link to a copy of the court documents for this latest activity: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14705757/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Sunday, April 26, 2009

The Chalice Show - Patriot's Heart Broadcasting - BlogTalkRadio Network - 9:00 P.M. EDT Sunday 26 Apr 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress

I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Patriot's Heart Broadcasting Network, The Chalice Show, talk radio show Sunday evening, 26 April 2009, from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update regarding the recent activity in the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Chalice and the listening audience. There is also a chat room which the listeners can participate in live while the show is on the air. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you Sunday night on the radio show.

To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live Sunday night or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/PatriotsHeartNetwork/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/04/27/The-Chalice-Show

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth


Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship
and Sole Allegiance At Birth
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the "natural born Citizen" clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

For more about what Obama wants to hide about citizenship laws and his citizenship issues see:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

####

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The True Target of the DHS Rightwing Extremism Policy Report

Recently, Department of Homeland Security's issued its "Rightwing Extremism Policy" report: http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf
While this report is designated “Unclassified/For Official Use Only,” it was nevertheless somehow leaked to the public. If one reads the report carefully and as a whole, it can be seen that this report is nothing more than a sophisticated and subtle attempt at discrediting the Obama “natural born Citizen” eligibility movement. Superficially, the report appears to focus on certain elements of what it characterizes as American “rightwing extremist” groups. If the reader carefully considers each element of the report, it can be seen that virtually all of the report’s factors are actually part and parcel of the Obama eligibility movement. In the end, this report is nothing more than a clever, subtle, illegal, indirect attack on the First Amendment right of concerned Americans who continue to demand that Obama prove he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

One of the biggest clues to the report’s underhanded purpose is the fact that missing from the report’s list of rightwing extremist characters are those individuals who are currently battling the Obama eligibility issue (“birthers”). Why are not the birthers part of Ms. Napolitano’s rightwing extremist group and worthy of her blacklist? After all, everyone else that has anything bad to say about our federal government made the list. Based on my reading of many Obama eligibility blog comments, I would think that there are many birthers who would qualify for Janet Napolitano's intimidating blacklist which includes what the report calls "disgruntled military veterans" and others who under any reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment have exercised and continue to exercise their right to speak out and associate on issues concerning abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage, the environment, government spending, gun control, state sovereignty, militias, and the proposed new world order. How convenient to keep the Obama eligibility issue buried and out of the public domain as though it does not exist. I guess that Janet Napolitano, while she sees so many other millions of freedom-loving Americans as a threat to national security and therefore subject to scrutiny, investigation, surveillance, and intimidation, does not perceive any need to expose those who are battling the Obama eligibility issue to the same treatment.

Another clue as to the report’s true purpose is that while on the one hand Ms. Napolitano shows concern for national security by attacking these alleged radical, rightwing extremists, on the other hand she in her heroic efforts to safeguard America characterizes horrific murder and destruction committed by proven terrorists who are ready to die for their cause in the name of religion “man-caused disasters.” In explaining to Der Spiegel why she used the words she did when referring to terrorism, she said:

"In my speech, although I did not use the word 'terrorism,' I referred to 'man-caused' disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/firenapolitano1wnd.html.

I just wonder what DHS threat level code color she would assign to such “man-caused disasters.” I appears from such characterization (or better yet classic textbook euphemism) that to Ms. Napolitano, American “rightwing extremists” are a much greater threat to our nation’s security than real-life, murdering international terrorists (like 9/11 types) whom she says we should not fear.

Now let us see how the text of the report, under the pretext of protecting America from radical rightwing extremists, actually attacks and attempts to discredit those who are pursuing the Obama eligibility issue. The report emphasizes the historical election of the first African American president and the prospect of policy changes to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization. It emphasizes the “[m]any rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration. . .” It states that ‘[m]ost statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president . . .” It maintains that these individuals espouse their “racial and political prejudice” through “expanded propaganda campaigns . . .” It explains that rightwing extremism is made up partly of hate-oriented groups, movements, and adherents which espouse their hatred because of others religion, race, or ethnicity. It places “white supremacist” within this race-hating group. It continues that “[b]ecause debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.” We have seen how Obama supporters have accused birthers of pursing the Constitutional eligibility issue only because an African American president won the election. These “white folks,” who are screaming that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore ineligible to be President, have been accused of singling Obama out because of the color of his skin. Many Obama supporters say that no white President in the history of the United States has been put through such attack. There are many in the birthers group that have also questioned Obama’s ethnicity (African American or Arab) and religion (Christian or Moslem). Hence, we can readily see where the race, ethnicity, and religion components come into the picture.

The report blames rightwing extremists of having “paranoia of foreign regimes.” It talks of these individuals harboring “[f]ear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories” with the government’s complicity in a foreign invasion or acquiescing to a “One World Government.” It adds that these individuals fear America losing international power and stature. We know that some of the birthers argue that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because at his birth his father was not a United States citizen but rather a British citizen and later Kenyan and that Obama was also born a British citizen by descent from his father which citizenship then later also converted to Kenyan. The argument is that even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born with dual nationalities, later acquired Kenyan citizenship, and even maybe Indonesian citizenship and therefore cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because dual nationalities acquired at birth carry with it a conflict in allegiance and loyalty to the United States. These birthers have criticized Obama for proclaiming to the world that he is a “citizen of the world” and as such, he will not adequately protect America from foreign threat or invasion. Such allegiance and loyalty conflict is surely something that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military cannot have. Here, therefore, is the paranoia of foreign regimes, of that which is foreign, and of loss of American freedom to world control.

The report further states that rightwing extremist also comprise those people who reject federal authority and desire state sovereignty and those who reject government authority entirely. It puts in this hate group those harboring racist ideology and belief in anti-government theories. A quick look at web sites that support the position that Obama is ineligible will reveal that many of these sites are filled with comments regarding rejecting federal authority and opting for state sovereignty because the commentators believe that both the federal courts and Congress have refused to address the Obama eligibility issue.

The report blames anti-government conspiracy theories for people stockpiling food, ammunition, and weapons. Another look at Obama ineligibility web sites and their comments will reveal that many commentators, because they feel that their political institutions and leaders refuse to address the Obama eligibility issue, fear that there will eventually be a constitutional crisis of great proportions and that they will have to protect their families through self-defense. Indeed, many of these individuals have suggested that people stockpile food, ammunition, and weapon. These same individuals have commented on the government threatening to curb their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The report specifically targets returning members of the military, labeling them “disgruntled military veterans” who are highly vulnerable to radicalization. It states: “The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.” We have seen many military personnel speak out on the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President. We have seen military personnel wanting to join eligibility lawsuits as plaintiffs. We have seen law suits with plaintiffs who are former military personnel. Now, this report tells us that the word of these military people cannot be taken seriously because they are “disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war.” But their radical actions can be dangerous because they are highly vulnerable to radicalization. Hence, the report is telling us that any military members, retired or active, who would dare be involved in any Obama eligibility law suit would fall into these categories of psychologically unstable military personnel.

The report tells us how these rightwing extremists conduct their hateful operations through “chatter on the Internet . . .” We know that the mainstream media (television, radio, and newspapers) has denied the birthers any public forum for expressing themselves. They have therefore resorted to communicating with themselves and others who may be interested and spreading the eligibility word through the internet. Indeed, the internet is where virtually all of the Obama eligibility information may be found.

After carefully reading this unsubstantiated report and considering the political context out of which it emanates, let us ask ourselves how sincere is Obama and his administration about protecting America through this report? Are Obama and his administration really protecting America or are they under the guise of national security just protecting their own political power and positions by despotic retaliation against and discrediting those who would dare question Obama’s eligibility to be President, all violative of these individuals’ First Amendment rights to free speech and association?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. In addition to commenting below on this immediate post, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Saturday, April 18, 2009

The Similarity Between the Tea Party and the Obama Eligibility Movements

Clearly, many politicians and media representatives now in power feel threatened by the Tea Party Movement. They will try everything to discredit it, just like they have attempted to do with the Obama eligibilty issue. They attack it by giving it an appropriate name (it is the tea bagging and birthers, tin-foil hat movement). They attack it by misstating who motivated it and who is funding it (the rich invented and are funding it), who is behind it (sore-loser Republicans, racists, right-wing extremists, rednecks, white-power extremists), and whether it is really sincere (it is only Constitutional pseudo law). The picture that these individuals paint is that they and only they are the real representatives of the little, working-class guy and gal. How dare any other party or group attempt to try to take over their role as the protector of the underdog? Yes, indeed, those in power want the public to believe that they alone can and will help the majority of people better their lives. By making the public believe that, those in power only perpetuate their own power.

Those in power would rather stay in power and protect their own political and media jobs rather than do what is best for America today and in future years. As to the politicians, the American public should send all these opportunists, regardless of political party, packing back home to real jobs. As to the media, the public should relegate those media outlets that have either never learned or forgotten what correct media reporting is to the realm of irrelevancy.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. In addition to commenting below on this immediate post, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Friday, April 17, 2009

MommaE Radio Rebels - BlogTalkRadio Network - 8:30 EDT Friday 17 Apr 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress et al Update & Q&A

I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the MommaE Radio Rebels talk radio show Friday evening, 17 April 2009, from 8:30 to 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update regarding the recent activity in the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host MommaE and the listening audience. There is also a chat room which the listeners can participate in live while the show is on the air. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you Friday night on the radio show.

To listen to the BlogTalkRadio.com show live Friday night or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels/2009/04/18/Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Where Is the Conspiracy?

A commentator recently stated:
"B]ut uh, until there is a link to some primary record of his mom being Kenya [sic] at or around the time of his birth then it's just a whack conspiracy theory."

The conspiracy motivation is also constantly repeated on various pro-Obama blogs, mainsteam media reports, political discourse at all levels, and even in at least one Federal Court decision dismissing a case filed against Obama. A conspiracy theory is fed by "facts" that are in dispute. That is why it is called a theory.

But these facts are not in dispute: under the British Nationality Act 1948(BNA 1948), Obama’s father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama’s father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father.

As applicable only to a Presidential Article II "natural born Citizen" (not an Article II grandfathered "Citizen [which of course has long expired]," not an Article I "Citizen" [for Representatives and Senators who are eligible even if naturalized], not a 14th Amendment "citizen" [who is one either born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or naturalized], not a U.S. Code born "citizen" [born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or in U.S. outlying possessions or foreign countries to one or two U.S. citizen parents or being of unknown parentage is found in the U.S. while under the age of 5], and not a Wong Kim Ark 14th Amendment "citizen" [born on U.S. soil to alien parents who are legal U.S. residents]), the individual must be born in the United States to a mother and father who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). This is to assure that a would-be, all powerful President and Commander in Chief of the Military has sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the time of birth, for the sources of citizenship (jus soli and jus sanguinis) are all united at birth to give the child only U.S. citizenship from birth and thereby forever prevent any other nation from claiming that child's citizenship, allegiance, loyalty and demanding military service or political favors. Such unity of U.S. citizenship also prevents a would-be President from feeling conflicted as to his allegiance and loyalty between the United States and some other foreign country, whether done consciously or unconsciously. Finally, such unity of U.S. citizenship allows the American people to fully trust their President with protecting their nation and their and their families' very lives. The American people expect their President to make very tough decisions in a moment of crisis and they cannot risk that their President may be ambivalent about taking the proper course of action because of some allegiance and loyalty conflict acquired from birth and nurtured throughout his or her life.

It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Hence, clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen," regardless of where he may have been born, regardless of what his original long-form Birth Certificate may say, regardless of to which countries he may have travelled, regardless of how many passports he may have acquired and used, regardless of whether or not he registered for the military service, regardless of what any of his school or medical documents say, regardless of what foreign schools he attended, and regardless of whether he was ever adopted by some foreign national. The real operative facts are not in dispute. I fail to see where the conspiracy is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Monday, April 13, 2009

Obama & USA Request and Get Extension of Time to Respond

The attorney for two defendants in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, Barack Obama and the USA, has filed an "Entry of Appearance" and has requested and was granted a 15 day extension to the time allotted to them to respond. This is beyond the 60 days they were provided initially. When the government is the defendant, the government is normally given 60 days to respond. With the filing today, they asked for another 15 days and the court granted it. The response deadline date for the defendants thus has been moved from April 20th, 2009 to May 5th, 2009. For more details on this latest activity see the documents at SCRIBD.com or the court filing documents list in the right frame.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14204665/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Constitutional Radio Talk Show - BlogTalkRadio Network

I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Constitutional Radio talk show Tuesday evening, 14 April 2009, a 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the co-hosts, Marnie Delano (Dame Central) and Dr. Kate, and via phone calls from the listening audience. The call in number for the show will be: 347-202-0443. There is also a chat room which the listeners can participate in live while the show is on the air. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.

To listen to the BlogTalkRadio.com show live or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/My-Two-Cents/2009/04/15/My-Two-Cents-Presents-Constitutional-Radio

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen

See 29 July 2009 major update to this essay at this link:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:

"4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...."

Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.

Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.

Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that: “1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.” These provisions made Obama’s father and Obama citizens of Kenya, respectively. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain nor the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.

Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:

"97. Dual citizenship

1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament."

Hence, while the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.

The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:

"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.

Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality."

Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.

"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality."

British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.

Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning "declaration of renunciation" at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any "declaration of renunciation" of his British citizenship.

What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya's 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.

This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he would need to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

Read Atty Apuzzo's 29 July 2009 major update to this essay at this link:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

####

Friday, April 3, 2009

More On What Is an Article II "Natural Born Citizen"

The error committed by those answering the question of what is an Article II "natural born Citizen" is when they equate such a Citizen with a "natural born subject" under English common law, a born "citizen" under the 14th Amendment, what our courts have declared to be a U.S. "citizen" during the pre- or post-14th Amendment period, and what Congress defines by statute to be a born "citizen" of the United States. Article II "natural born Citizen" is not the same as “natural born subject” or "citizen" as these terms are used in these contexts. Rather, it has a meaning that only applies to the Offices of President and Vice President and which has its origins in natural law and in the law of nations.

The Framers did not discuss the meaning of "natural born Citizen" during the Constitutional debates. Nor does the Constitution define the term. We know that for the future, the Framers did not permit just a "Citizen" to be eligible to be President, for they grandfathered a "Citizen" to be President only if alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Thereafter, the candidate would have to be a “natural born Citizen.”

Given the need to assure the survival of the new Constitutional Republic, "natural born Citizen" was a status that went well beyond what was found in ill-suited English common law regarding its definition of a "natural born subject." It was an uniform national standard that had always been recognized since time immemorial by the law of nature and nations, as confirmed and codified by Vattel in his monumental treatise, The Law of Nations. The Framers looked to this treatise in many ways when forming the new Constitutional Republic. They also looked to it for the definition of the type of citizen the President of the new nation would have to be to give it the best chance of survival. They read Vattel and saw how he distinguished between “citizens,” (“citoyens”) (members of the civil society) and the naturals, or indigenous (“naturels, ou indigenes”) (those born in the country, of parents who are citizens). Hence, the Framers chose “natural born Citizen” and not just “Citizen.” They knew that "natural born Citizen" is a status that no nation can question and which cuts off any nation from making any political or military claims upon that person. Unlike the contradictory and non-consensual results obtained for "natural born subjects" under English common law, it is a status that unites jus soli and jus sanguinis in the child and consequently carries with it the essence of sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States of America, a quality which is in the best interest of the United States and critical for a President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have. It is a status that only the all-powerful Offices of President and potentially that of Vice President (added by the 12th Amendment on June 15, 1804) of the United States require, offices which are filled by the will and consent of the people and which never had existed in the non-representative form of government in monarchical England.

The 14th Amendment does not define what a "natural born Citizen" is. Rather, the amendment only confirms that all persons who are either born in the United States or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are "citizens" of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Explicitly, the amendment does not in any way refer to a “natural born Citizen” or to Article II’s requirements to be President. Logically, the amendment's reference to "citizen" also does not refer to an Article II "natural born Citizen," for the amendment clearly declares that both persons born in the United States or persons who are naturalized are "citizens" of the United States. We know and generally accept that a naturalized citizen, even though the 14th Amendment declares such a person to be a “citizen,” is not eligible to be President. Hence, to be a born “citizen” under the 14th Amendment is a necessary but insufficient condition to be President. There is also no evidence that the Framers of the 14th Amendment in any way meant through the amendment itself to refer to let alone alter the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." Therefore, the term "natural born Citizen" under Article II, which has a life of its own and which has not been in any way altered, must be given Constitutional meaning as the Framers intended at the time they drafted it in 1787.

All case law produced during the pre- and post-14th Amendment period that defines what a born "citizen" is does not definitely answer what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is, for none of the courts that created this case law were asked to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is as applied to any specific individual running for or occupying the Office of President.

Except in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which Congress appropriately amended with the Naturalization Act of 1795 by removing the qualifier "natural born" from the citizenship status that it bestowed through a "naturalization" act on a child born overseas to two U.S. citizens, Congress has never used the term "natural born Citizen" in any of its statutes defining U.S. citizenship. A Congressional "born citizen" is made by the law of Congress. Historically, as the times changed so did Congressional laws and their requirements to be a Congressional "born citizen." The Framers could not have meant to allow the eligibility to be President to depend upon the whims of Congress which so often legislates based on its reaction to political pressures and conveniences of the times and the pressing need for political survival. Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress only the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization which during the Colonial period were discriminatory, in total disarrary, and used by the individual Colonies, who competed with each other, as a means to populate the new territory and attract coveted foreigners who were needed for labor and to increase the value of land.

Constitutional Article II "natural born Citizen" status requires no Constitutional or Congressional confirmation for its meaning. The status does not change with time or the political environment of the moment. It is a status bestowed by nature and the law of nations upon a child who is born in the United States to a mother and father who are also citizens of the United States (by birth or naturalization). Counter intuitively, it is a status that the majority of Americans have. It is the status that our Founding Fathers for the good of the Constitutional Republic meant our President to have. Historically and except for Chester Arthur, who hid his lack of "natural born Citizen" status from the American people when he ran for Vice President in 1880 and became such in 1881 and later that year became President by the assassination of President Garfield, it is the status that all our Article II post-grandfather-clause Presidents have had.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####