Monday, February 22, 2010

Court Grants Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief in Kerchner Appeal

On January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants' Opening Brief in the appeal of Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that the New Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obama's alleged eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents a non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the Founder’s and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Obama’s father was only a temporary visitor to the United States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen. Not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate, a long-form birth certificate providing the name of the hospital in which he was born and other corroborating data which was generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which some unknown person posted on the internet in 2008, or other contemporaneous and objective documentation. At the bottom of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB), it states: "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented and in such case the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence. There exists a considerable amount of evidence which puts serious doubt on Obama’s allegation that he was born in Hawaii. To date, Obama has presented no additional evidence other than the internet image of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and two unreliable newspaper announcements regarding where he was born. Hence, the prima facie validity of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) must fail and Obama should be compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of where he was born such as a contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept Obama as a “natural born Citizen.”

Circuit Court of Appeals rules provide that an appellant’s opening brief is not to exceed 14,000 words. Because of the extraordinary nature and complexity of the question of whether putative President Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, whether my clients (the plaintiffs) have standing to bring an action against Obama and Congress in which they maintain that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” and that Congress failed to meet its constitutional duty to protect my clients by assuring them that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” and whether plaintiffs’ action presents a nonjusticiable political question which the courts cannot address, I was compelled to file a brief which contained 20,477 words. So that the Court would accept the overlength brief, I filed a motion with the Court for leave to file the overlength brief.

By order dated February 22, 2010, the Honorable Circuit Judge Michael A. Chagares on behalf of the Motion's Panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the overlength brief. This is great news because the case will now continue forward as scheduled. Obama’s and Congress’s opposition brief was initially due on February 22, 2010. The Department of Justice obtained a 14-day extension to file that brief, making the new due date March 8, 2010. After they file their opposition brief, I will then have 14 days within which to file a reply to that brief. All briefs will be posted at this blog and it is my hope that the public will read these briefs so as to stay fully informed on this issue that is critically important not only to my clients but also to our Constitutional Republic.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 22, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

49 comments:

Robert said...

It will be interesting to see how Mr. Obama's legal team stretches, "We have nada!" into 14,000 words.

Incredulous said...

Best of best of luck.
I don't believe he is anything he's purported to be, or why would most all of his historical pictures have been so obviously photoshopped?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2457090/posts?page=1
Every critical picture entailing family, school, timeline, is forged!
I think his entire history is a made-up concoction of tales to keep us buzzing. I doubt his parents are who he said they are, and then also his grandparents and birth place, since there'd be no need to falsely construct photographs to present to the public which build a faked history for their consumption!
I honestly do not actually believe his father is Kenyan, nor that he's even a US Citizen, but since that's the story line they fed to Americans, that's the one they'll have to defend. I honestly think his makers believed the Keyna-Kansas tale would be fetching and irresistible and did not put together the natural born citizen ineligibility issue by virtue of his purported father's Kenyan citizenship.
There's never been any baby pictures, and his school pictures are even faked, as well as ones with his family.

Brianroy said...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124656

"Miki Booth, originally from Hawaii, is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Oklahoma's second district".
Miki made her appearance on C-Span on Friday, 02/06/2010.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/291974-1
at 38 minutes ff.

Miki Booth presented a Certificate of Live Birth from 1949, in which her husband was born at Kapi-olani Hospital, 12 years before Obama's alleged birth -- in Kenya, in Indonesis, in Queen's, and finally at Kapi'olani -- showing that the state of Hawaii issued LONG FORM CERTIFICATE'S OF LIVE BIRTH in 1949.
In 1949, Kapiolani was listed on the Certificate of Live Birth as Kapiolani Mat. & Gyn. Hospital at 1929 Vancouver Drive, which is the previous Kapi-olani address in existence when Barack was allegedly born in 1961, not quite a mile to the East of the current Kapiolani Hospital built in the 1970s. Yet, Obama and his sister Maya conflictingly and at different times, released that Barack was born in Queen's as well as Kapi'olani, despite Queen's being 1.6 miles away.

In a separate story last summer, World Net Daily broke the story of Obama's forged / out of sequence Birth Certification Numbers abbreviated by 2 numbers from what an original would be...and using TWO BIRTH CERTIFICATES from Kapi'olani Hospital in 1961, declaring tow back-to-back births born after Obama's alleged birth, but both having lower numbers of issue to prove Obama's Birth Certificate is fraudulent.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347

The Nordykes birth at Kapi-olani were given 151 – 61 – 10637 and 151 - 61 - 10638 both being born on August 05, 1961. Obama's forgery claims Barack was born with the number 151 - 1961 - 10641 being born on August 04, 1961.

However, while the 1963 Certificate of Live Birth as issued by the US ARMY Tripler General Hospital in Hawaii
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103633
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103503
appears to be consistent with what Miki Booth's husband of 1949 and the Nordyke twins of 1961 over at Kapi'olani were issued, the Obama forgery is a "piece of junk" in the words of Miki Booth on 02/06/2010 at the Nashville TEA Party.

For further corroboration, Miki Booth produced her son's 1981 Kapi'olani Hospital Certificate of Live Birth,
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124656
which shows that in 1981, Kapi'olani had not changed or altered their issuance by any extreme, and show that the Obama Campaign "Certification of Live Birth" is NOT a UNITED STATES birth...as claimed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, but the generic certification offered by those representing Obama in 2008, the allegedly forged document absent "physicians, hospital and hospital address, witnesses to the birth, and birth weight" for the child, all these missing features clearly insinuate that the certification Obama's Campaign presented is for the foreign born.

The term "african" is also suspect for the race of the child, as there are caucasian and various ethnic disparities other than black (the modern term) or negro (the 1961 term) we would have expected to read as the race of the child, if such were an authentic 2007 or 2008 copy from that on file at the Department of Health in Hawaii.

For more Obama Birth Certificate forgery information, readers can also refer to Pamela Geller's commendable collection of articles at:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/obamas_birth_certifcate_forgery/

Again, the proof is that Obama is Foreign Born in the absence of any release of proof per Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, see 653 (1948); and NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS 533 US 53 see 54,62; (2001).

Incredulous said...

Who or What could actually do such amateurish construction of the fiction that is Obama, from the bad COLB forgery using "African", to the litany of poorly-done photoshops to build a faked past (family, education)? AND neglect American constitutional requirements of the office? Obviously they fooled enough of the people, but when you actually see how "stupid" they were in concocting is fabricated life and documents, it's mind-boggling.

jayjay said...

Some of us may not fully grasp just why it is that the Kerchner et al action is being appealed and to help any not familiar with the original decision by Federal District Court judge Simandle you might check this legal analysis:

A Federal Judge takes 4 strikes!!!

and after that it helps to realize that Obama's whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

If you'd like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data - more than we've seen from Obama.

In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like "Our Boy" and really strikes a chord.

Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC - but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

Three Little Words

Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

dixhistory said...

Mario I try and check your page at least every other day.

I wish some of our well known civi org. like Daughters or Sons of the American Revolution would get behind your and Charles effort.

I mean this was what their ancestors fought for, our US Constitution.

As I see it Charles and you are the modern day MinuteMen Patirot.

Teo Bear said...

Godspeed Mario,

Oldironsides said...

There have been a lot of questions raised over Obama's eligibility and his birth certificate but there is one fact that is indisputable. Why has Obama spent so much money in legal fees to keep these documents from his past a secret? I have seen the records on WND.com from the Federal Elections Commission showing the monthly payments to the law firm Perkins Coie that have amounted to over a million dollars so far, so why doesn't anyone demand an explanation for it?

Benaiah said...

A German Soldier Voting For Obama's Healthcare Reconciliation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPCkOA01oLw&feature=popul

Chris said...

Mario and Charles, you are both Heroes. You both continue to tirelessly sacrifice your personal lives and finances for this cause, and I know for a fact that neither of you sleep much, lol. Your efforts to inform us empowers us to inform others and we are so thankful to you for taking on this overwhelming and complex case. Please know how deeply grateful we are and please hang in there. Please also thank your families for their sacrifice!

James said...

Mario can you comment on this?
----
I believe I may discovered the legal way to get access to Obama's vital records in the Hawaii DOH.
-----
Everyone has been trying to get access to certified copies of Obama's vital records. Efforts have been halted by Hawaii DOH's continued citation of Statute 338-18 which governs the disclosure of vital records of individuals: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
However, Hawaii DOH does allow for Letters of Verification in leiu of certified copies of any and all content of a person's vital records. This is a key element because the requirements of such disclosure is DIFFERENT than that of certified copies.
g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

As I understand this provision, any person who is employed by an organization who intends to write about Obama's alleged birth in Hawaii (WND, Post & Email, Etc.) does have the legal authority to VERIFY any and all content of Obama's vital records.

While you need discovery to get access to Obama's certified vital copies, you do have the ability and authority to request VERIFICATION of any and content of Obama's vital records:

§338-18 Disclosure of records.

(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings;

Since you are in process of suing Obama, Hawaii DOH is required to provide you with verification of all of Obama's records.

You can verify is he was born in Kapaloni or if his birth certificate was ammended.

However, you will need court-ordered discovery in order to obtain the actual certified copies of any information verified by Hawaii DOH about Obama's vital records.

Puzo1 said...

McCain has a YouTube ad that either he or someone without his knowledge is using in McCain's bid for the U.S. Senate. You can see the video at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/02/mccain-anti-birther-ad-with-berg-and.html?showComment=1267054327196_AIe9_BGkPHBvUflnGraUU8D5a7wyU2IWV8LBEGbjoPkUGrbCtlx-e9rl38pHIuBZU-f-SZzKlCkTPCxogZw-lsMAJeJ8XC1FzoSKhWQ_fiRfZ46jzcPv4MeJy23I0vAaa9FWL_0akO_7TE7Zdyolg71Gp-QXnNUoxpoD3KOYZB4CmU7Z6znHAG9wYvb5lhRDGSiiXHtT7svM-c_1MxG3nvvSqyjYbw4yN2Sm2EmWp0E3FNAb7kzz7INUPETieElWVF0R4S-ettwC#c6727032935523959626.

The ad starts out: "These are serious economic times. Yet some are consumed by conspiracies." Then it ridicules lawyers Orly Taitz and Philip Berg for questioning Obama's eligibility to be President. The ad then pairs the two attorneys with his rival who is running against him for the U.S. Senate seat, J.D. Hayworth, who has also called for more evidence on Obama's identity. The ad then states: “the only difference between these people is that one is running for the U.S. Senate.”

What is unbelievable is that it is not enough for either McCain or the person who made the ad that McCain did not stand up to Obama on whether he is eligibile to be President but now the ad producer wants to manipulate and mischaracterize the same issue in the hopes of getting himself or McCain re-elected to the U.S. Senate.

I will be anxiously waiting to see what the voters of Arizona tell us regarding McCain's or the other person's characterization of the Obama eligibility issue as a "conspiracy theory."

What I would like to see is the Arizona voters tell us that it is not a conspiracy to question a person's eligibility for the singular and most powerful office in the land but rather part of Congress's constitutional duty to the People of the United States to competently investigate who someone is before they let him or her be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the most powerful nation in the world.

medical said...

George Soros, the Usurper's chief puppet master, is a complete sociopath, just like the Usurper himself. "It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work," George Soros told "The Australian" newspaper when speaking of the world's economic crisis. People all over America continue to lose their jobs, their homes, and their retirement funds and the Hungarian sociopath believes that's a great achievement - his incurable mental illness and sadistic personality are self-evident. Soros is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations. Soros was exiled from Thailand for destroying their currency. On 16SEPT1992, Soros broke the Bank of England. Soros bought shares of Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company, just before Obama guaranteed $2 billion in loans with taxpayer money to the company - why isn't this being discussed or investigated? After reading the foregoing, do you have any doubts whatsoever that Soros plans to profit from manipulating, collapsing, and controlling the U.S. dollar on world currency markets? Soros is also supporting China in it's efforts to become the center of the world's economy. Everyone needs to be aware that China has quietly established a presence in almost every country on Earth that has extensive supplies of strategic raw materials necessary for the production of war material, just as Japan was doing immediately prior to WWII. I firmly believe Soros is the single most influential person behind the arrogant refusal of Congress, the press, and the courts refusing to touch the Obama eligibility issue. His illegal behind the scenes manipulations of financial markets would fill a book, but I believe Soros knows he has finally met his Waterloo in the form of the pending legal action "Kerchner vs. Obama". Removing the Usurper will seriously limit Soros' current "inside" ability to control the economy of the U.S. and may well derail his plans for the Chinese domination of the world. The team of Soros and the Usurper represent the greatest threat ever faced by the U.S.A.

cfkerchner said...

Obama's Marxist Beliefs Deep Rooted but Hidden

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/22/obamas-marxist-beliefs-deep-rooted-but-hidden/


CDR Kerchner
www.protectourliberty.org

Janet - Hancock County said...

In Article II, Section 1 concerning "natural born Citizen", it also says "neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

If Mr. Obama has hidden all his official records and birth certificate, we cannot confirm his AGE or whether he's been within the U.S. 14 years.

jayjay said...

Janet - Hancock County:

Gee ... you don't think Obama would LIE, do you??? :-)

cfkerchner said...

McCain was an active part of the usurpation of the Constitution in 2008 and an active part of the cover up since then. I hope this ad totally backfires on McCain and fully opens to discussion in the major media for the first time that both candidates from both parties in 2008 were ineligible under Article II of our Constitution. Neither Obama or McCain were “natural born Citizens” of the USA to constitutional standards as envisioned by the founders of our nation and the framers of the Constitution. McCain was born in a civilian hospital in Panama outside the Canal Zone. He was not born on the military base as SR 511 alleges and his campaign and backers put out ... as there was absolutely no military base hospital or medical facility for maternity care in 1936 when McCain was born. Also, the Foreign Affairs Manual put out by the State Department clearly spells that out other issues for the situation involving McCain. And we all know the reasons why Obama is not a “natural born Citizen”, i.e., that his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born, wherever that turns out to be. Read this essay for more details on the usurpation and the cover up by complicity of both the DNC and RNC, enabled by the Main Stream Media, … and to the detriment of We the People and our liberty.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html

McCain betrayed the true intent and meaning of Article II of the U.S. Constitution in 2008 and kept silent about Obama so as to not draw further attention to his own problems. They both entered into a Faustian Pact on this matter for the sake of their own personal political power aspirations and that of their respective parties. Both McCain and Obama have disgraced the oath they both took as Senators and otherwise to support and defend the Constitution. Instead they both did their best to subvert it for their own political purposes.

CDR Kerchner
www.protectourliberty.org

Incredulous said...

Mr. Apuzzo, does that mean 14 years resident before the age of 35? We don't have ANY public or private school records to verify where the heck he was before age 21, and after 21 he even said he went to Pakistan (some say Russia/Afghanistan too) and Kenya, and nobody knew him at Columbia so perhaps he wasn't even there.

Yes, that's another problem, we cannot establish residency, nor age in all actuality, without a full birth certificate and school records.

roderick said...

I want to touch a little bit on the newspaper notification. It merely states that a child was born of those two parents who lived at such and such address. In other words at no point in the newspaper notification does it give the hospital or even the state or country in which the person was born. Let me put it another way, the newspaper notification is inconclusive as to the person being actually born in Hawaii. The newspaper notification can not be used to get a drivers license.

azgo said...

The voters of Arizona will send Mr. McCain down the road.

I even wondering if he knows (or remembers) that he is named in your lawsuit as a defendant. Here is what he said during a Sun City Grand town hall meeting.

"McCain disagrees with audience member on a president's birthplace"

" McCain disagreed with an audience member who suggested presidential candidates as well as their parents should have to be born in the United States.
McCain also questioned if being born in the United States should still be a requirement for presidential candidates.
“If someone (was born elsewhere) and came here as a 1 year old, and served a productive life, I’m not sure,” McCain said. "
http://www.yourwestvalley.com/news/mccain-12040-disagrees-wexler.html

Our state legislature has introduced a bill to require high school students to complete two full years of U.S. history with one full semester just on the founding fathers of this country. Also two other separate bills require passing the national citizenship test to receive a drivers license and to graduate from high school.

The Az 'eligibility' bill' regarding POTUS passed the House government committee by a vote of 6 to 2.

Do you think Mr. McCain is in touch with the people of Arizona?

azgo said...

The Az government committee vote passed 6 to 1 with 2 no votes.

Arizona rocks!!!

Incredulous said...

Can Obama prove that he's been a resident for 14 years and is 35 years old? No. Since he can't do that, it's not even necessary to get into the heavier natural born citizenship arguments!

William said...

Glenn Beck would most likely use these definitions for qualifying persons also be President of the United States as well as someone from Guam. In order to obtain a FALSA student loan the U.S. Government dept. of education describes these qualifications:

1) The term “U.S. citizen” includes citizens of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

2) A copy of the student’s birth certificate showing that she was born in the United States, which includes Puerto Rico (on or
after Jan. 13, 1941), Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands (on or after
Jan. 17, 1917), American Samoa, Swain’s Island, or the Northern
Mariana Islands, unless the person was born to foreign diplomats residing in the U.S.

medical said...

If the so called "Obamacare bill" passes in ANY form, you can kiss the economic future of this country good bye forever. I sell diagnostic imaging equipment ("x-ray", ultrasound, etc.) to hospitals and doctors and business is at a standstill because of the fear generated by the possible government takeover of the medical profession. Since the election last year, equipment sales have dropped by over 90%. Even used equipment is not in demand. Now, the only way someone will replace equipment is if it fails and cannot be repaired. The government needs to keep it's nose out of private enterprise and out of our lives! If our present healthcare is, as the Democrats allege, "so horrible", why did Canadian Premier Danny Williams elect to come here for his care?! http://patdollard.com/2010/02/canadian-premier-unapologetic-for-coming-to-america-for-superior-health-care/

Incredulous said...

Can you please explain the USA as "federal corporation" and citizens as "federal employees" as it relates to A2S1C5 of the USC? What does this "corporation" label really mean, and does it impact the NBC issue?
This question was forwarded by someone named "Chex" to me...
----------
Reference: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
--------------
US CODE: Title 26,7701. Definitions: (9) United States The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

US CODE: Title 26,152. Dependent defined:
(3) Citizens or nationals of other countries
(A) In general
The term "dependent" does not include an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States unless such individual is a resident of the United States or a country contiguous to the United States.
US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions:
(15) "United States" means-
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html
US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions:
(15) "United States" means- (A) a Federal corporation
Uniform Commercial Code - Article 9: (h) Location of United States.
"The United States is located in the District of Columbia."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/search/display.html?terms=district%20of%20columbia&url=/ucc/9/article9.htm%23s9-307
US CODE: Title 8,1101. Definitions: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1101.html
(21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22) The term "national of the United States" means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
With all this said above where is the sovereign natural person?
How did we become federal citizens and lose state citizenship to become federal employees
Where is this person? (21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
Chex

Puzo1 said...

I left the following comment on the web site of nbc:

ballentine,

You said: “Gray rejected the notion that public law defined the law of citizenship in this country.” That’s odd. Nbc provided the quote in Wong Kim Ark in which Justice Gray says that “natural born Citizen” is defined by that “principle of public law.” Now you say that Justice Gray did not say that. It sounds like Greg arguing that it was not the English common law that defined national citizenship but just common law. I wish that you guys would get your act together.

Why do you need to cite dissenting opinions (Justice Curtis in Dred Scott) to support Justice Gray’s conclusions? Could he and you not find any other authority to support what his position was that English common law defined national citizenship?

It is not controlling what some “authorities” thought was the correct definition of “public law” when it came to defining national citizenship. But it surely is controlling what our United States Supreme Court and other courts believed it was. See The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (which also took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively; Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel).

Puzo1 said...

I of IV

I left the following comment on the web site of nbc at http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/mario-apuzzo-and-vattel/#comment-11979

Nbc,

You cite United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, 789; 1866 U.S. App. LEXIS 330; 1 Abb. 28; 1 Am. Law T. Rep. U.S. Cts. 22 (1866)
Case No. 16,151Circuit Court, D. Kentucky (1861) for support of your unfounded theory that the Framers used the English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” That case does not support your argument. In United States v. Rhodes, the Court found that while the Civil Rights Act of 1866, given emancipation of slaves which removed the incapacities of slavery, was not necessary to make freed blacks citizens of the United States, Congress under the “necessary and proper” clause of the Thirteenth Amendment had the constitutional power to pass that law. It therefore ruled that the Act was constitutional. In arriving at its conclusion that the Court explained that race or color was not a necessary qualification of citizenship neither in England nor in any other Christian country of Europe. It said that the common law did not make race or color a necessary condition of being a citizen and therefore neither did the Constitution.

In reaching its finding of constitutionality, the Court also said that “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well.”
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-natural-born-citizen/. First, the Court did not use the English common law to define either “citizen” or “natural born Citizen.” In referring to English common law, it did so only to show that color was not a condition of being a “natural born subject” and hence it also should not be a condition of being a citizen of the United States. What is important to note is that in defining a “citizen” and “natural born Citizen,” the Court said that “British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject” and that “Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject.”

Second, the Court did say that the term “natural born citizen” of the United States means all persons born in the allegiance of the United States. What does "in the allegiance of the United States" mean? Given the language of Civil Rights Act of 1866 [14 Stat. 27], it would have undoubtedly meant born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power. In fact, the Court said that Nancy Talbot was a “citizen of the United States” under the Civil Rights Act of 1866because she was born in the United States and “not subject to any foreign power.” That rules out anyone born with double allegiances such as Mr. Obama. We cannot deny the fact which Mr. Obama himself has admitted that when he was born he was also a subject of Great Britain. How can he therefore have been born "not subject to any foreign power?"

Third, Rhodes only addressed the question of whether freed blacks were "citizens of the United States" under the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It did not need to answer the question of whether Nancy Talbot was an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Court ruled that Ms. Talbot was such a "citizen." If we want to extend the Court's holding to find that Ms. Talbot was also a "natural born citizen," we must remember that Ms. Talbot was born in the United States and was not subject to any foreign power. Mr. Obama, being born also a British subject, does not have the same birth circumstances as Ms. Talbot and therefore is not a "natural born Citizen."

Continued ….

Puzo1 said...

II of IV

Fourth, we must also remember that Rhodes was followed by three important cases of our United States Supreme Court. In The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872), the Court said that “[t]he phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” The Court also said that “ [t]he Chief Justice, in that case [Dred Scott v. Sandford], and a majority of the court with him, held that the words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' were synonymous terms; that the people of the respective States were the parties to the Constitution; that these people consisted of the free inhabitants of those States; that they had provided in their Constitution for the adoption of a uniform rule of naturalization; that they and their descendants and persons naturalized were the only persons who could be citizens of the United States, and that it was not in the power of any State to invest any other person with citizenship so that he could enjoy the privileges of a citizen under the Constitution”). Note that the Court said that only the original citizens and their descendents and naturalized citizens were citizens. This statement leaves no room for the children of aliens born in the United States to be citizens also.

Our Suprement Court in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874), stated: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Clearly, this statement with reference to the citizenship of the parents of the child does not refer to English common law nor to Blackstone but rather to the rule pronounced by Vattel in The Law of Nations.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Gray, ruled that a native Indian, even though born on the territory of the United States but on an Indian reservation, was not a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, even if he later severed his ties with his tribe and “fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. 99.
Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Gray stated:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306."

Continued ….

Puzo1 said...

Part III of IV

"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations."

Id. at 101-02. Justice Gray in his decision clearly stated that (1) the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or (2) the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. We can see that the exception is not only for children of ambassadors but also for children of aliens. Hence, Justice Gray was not relying on the English common law rule which did not contain the exception to “natural born subject” status for children born to aliens.

In interpreting the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Justice Gray also looked to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which declared citizens of the United States “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. Sec. 1992.

Justice Gray then explained that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent. He said that it is the requirement that a nation consent to have someone be its citizen which prevents creating dual allegiance and citizenship. Id. at 103. He added that a nation’s consent to a person being its citizen relates to granting that person citizenship from birth or citizenship by naturalization. Id. at 104-09. If a person was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, he or she could not be a born citizen and would have to naturalize if he or she wanted to be such a citizen.

Continued . . . .

Puzo1 said...

Part IV of IV

Hence, “subject to the jurisdiction” meant that the new born owed absolute allegiance only to the United States and to no other nation and that the United States had full and complete power over the child at the time of birth. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. Justice Gray stated: “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Hence, as we can see, some temporary or local allegiance of the alien mother or father would cause the child not to acquire complete and absolute allegiance to the United States at birth. Since Elk was born subject to a foreign power at the time of his birth and thereby could not be declared a citizen by birth, he had to naturalized in order to become a citizens. This ruling was rendered moot when native Americans were granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. By logic and policy, there is no sound basis why the Elk holding did not equally apply to disqualify a child from being granted birthright citizenship if born in the United States of one or both alien parents given that that parent’s foreign country’s potential claim to citizenship and allegiance over the child would render that child born subject to a foreign power.

constitutionallyspeaking said...

Mario & Charles,

I've been having fun withthe drones at freepers. One in particular named parsy who wrote this:

The words by themselves: “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory”

Then the whole excerpt:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.

Wong is like the “Rodney King Beatdown” of legal cases. They hit the cites and cases and background like cops working over Rodney King. On and on and on, page after page, they lay it out. I have never seen a case that had so much of a foundation laid on the prior law.

to be cont. as this is long...

constitutionallyspeaking said...

OK, here's my rebutle. I think I completely showed where Grey's ruling was erroneous in light of this case law that he cited:

Hmmm, about that Thrasher case

It would seem that Thrasher was born to US citizens living in Cuba who got himself into a wee bit of trouble as Justice Fields points out in CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES CASE(1872):

And upon this point we entertain no doubt. The claimants were residents in the United States prior to the commencement of the rebellion. They so allege in their petition; they were therefore bound to obey all the laws of the country not immediately relating to citizenship during their sojourn in it, and they were equally amenable with citizens for any infraction of those laws. “The rights of sovereignty,” says Wildman in his Institutes on International Law, [Footnote 7]

“extend to all persons and things not privileged that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection.”

By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.

This obligation of temporary allegiance by an alien resident in a friendly country is everywhere recognized by publicists and statesmen. In the case of Thrasher, a citizen of the United States resident in Cuba, who complained of injuries

to be cont...

constitutionallyspeaking said...

Part II of rebutle:

Page 83 U. S. 155

suffered from the government of that island, Mr. Webster, then Secretary of state, made, in 1851, a report to the President in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives in which he said:

“Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.”

And again:

“Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.

Nice try, no dice. Thrasher was a US citizen by his birth to US citizens abroad aka jus sanguinis.

This one case proves our point that jus soli citizenship is not automatically established at birth per International law.

Gee, I wonder who has been saying this all along? Oh, I know, the originalists and I guess Grey too. He conferred citizenship on WKA by his mere swearing an allegiance to the US and promising to return in a certain amount of time to his residence in the US in which he did, thus he became naturalized under the 14th. You do understand from the case that he had to swear his allegiance & promise to return before he was given the paperwork to return didn’t you? At his coming of age, he elected his allegiance. WKA was past the age of tacit consent and could now speak for himself and that is just a mere fact of natural law.

You see what happens when you parse & edit to fit your cause. More often than not, it blows up in your face.

KABOOM!

Puzo1 said...

I of II

On 3-1-10, I posted the following comment on nbc’s website at http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/mario-apuzzo-and-vattel/#comment-12015

"ballantine,

My interpretation and presentation of United States v. Rhodes is correct and you have not and cannot dispute it other than state basic rhetoric. Even the Court’s quote from 1 Kent, Comm. 292, note, only related to defining a “citizen,” “since as before the Revolution” and not a “natural born Citizen” following the adoption of the Constitution.
Do not try to mislead readers by arguing in general terms about how the principles of the English common law were incorporated into the Constitution. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the Framers used English common law to define the new national citizenship.

Again, I have challenged you to produce one United States Supreme Court case that supports Justice Gray’s use of the English common law to define national citizenship and you have yet to provide one. I have gone through each case that you have provided and have shown you that they all do not support any such proposition. Justice Gray cited, among others, Minor v. Happersett, Smith v. Alabama, and United States v. Rhodes, for the proposition that English common law provided the rules of decision on defining national citizenship. I have shown that these cases do not support such a position. Again, the Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, clearly made a distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen.” We simply cannot use definitions of what a “citizen” was prior to the Revolution under English common law to define what a “natural born Citizen” was to be after the adoption of the Constitution. The context of the Revolution changed the meaning of national citizenship and you simply refuse to recognize that historical fact, insisting that the Framers would have continued to use the English common law to define the new national citizenship.
You harp on The Venus being about domicile during war and not citizenship. What you fail to recognize is that we are talking about looking for historical references to help us find the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” Clearly, Justice Marshall, who was an influential Founder, quoting from Vattel when the Chief Justice defined “the natives or indigenes” which is the exact language used by Samuel von Pufendorf in his, The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003) Book II, Chapter 6 (1691) (“Moreover, Citizens are either Originally so; that is, such as are born in the Place, and upon that Account claim their Privileges: Or else Adscititious; that is, such as come from Foreign Parts. Of the first Sort, are either those who at first were present and concerned in the forming the said Society, or their Descendants, whom we call Indigenae, or Natives.”). Chief Justice Marshall was also quoting from Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 211-212 (1758 French edition, 1759 first English translation). Both of these natural law writers defined who the original citizens and their descendents were. Justice Marshall would have been in a position to know how the Founders and Framers defined the first citizens and their descendents and the fact that he relied on natural law and the law of nations as presented by Pufendorf and Vattel is critically important to the question of how the Framers defined a “citizen” and a 'natural born Citizen.'”

Continued. . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Justice Gray wrote the Elk case in which he clearly stated:
“Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning are no more ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or the public ministers of foreign nations.” He later said in Wong Kim Ark that the Elk decision only related to Indians but yet he does not tell us why when explaining in Elk what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ meant, he excluded from citizenship “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or the public ministers of foreign nations.” Clearly, he included the children born in the United States of aliens as a separate and distinct category. Then in Wong Kim Ark he stated that there were only two exceptions to the English common law rule for citizenship by birth in the territory and those were for “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” But he fails to explain why in Elk he included in the exceptions the children born in the country to alien parents and why he was now changing his position. Justice Gray also attempts in his decision to justify his new position by pointing out what President Johnson’s understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was. But Justice Gray rendered his decision in Elk in 1884 which was 18 years after 1866. Why was he not influenced or guided by President Johnson’s veto in 1884 but then in 1898 he was so influence and guided?

Puzo1 said...

I just left a comment for nbc at his web site at http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/mario-apuzzo-and-vattel/#comment-12015.

Nbc accuses me of misrepresenting Justice Gray's decision in Elk v. Milkin, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), and I provide him with the following comment:

"Justice Gray in Elk said:

“Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning are no more ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or the public ministers of foreign nations.”

What is so difficult to understand in what he said. He clearly mentioned three categories to be excepted from citizenship: (1) Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States; (2) the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government;
(3) the children born within the United States of ambassadors or the public ministers of foreign nations. Clearly, he was not just creating an exception to citizenship for Indians and the children of ambassadors or public ministers, but also for the children of aliens who may be born in the United States.

This is the simple and straightforward reading of what he said. Would you show me where I have misrepresented Justice Gray’s reasoning in Elk."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

medical said...

The Usurper's true life history remains hidden and Citizens who dare question "the official story" are mocked and force fed large portions of "rainbow pie". The U.S. Constitution, personal accountability, the rule of law, and patriotism mean nothing to the Usurper and his administration. If federal law does not apply to the president, then no Citizen can be compelled to obey it. The numbers of Citizens who are totally fed-up with Washington's very childish games and arrogant deafness is growing exponentially and, at this point, it seems there is only one time-proven remedy available...Everyone with whom I speak is EXTREMELY UPSET at the way the U.S. Government literally runs to the aid of other countries, but it does almost nothing to help our own Citizens who are in dire straits. Hey, Washington, the tea is hot and it's right on the verge of boiling over!

jayjay said...

medical:

Well said, my man (or whatever)!! Well said!

cfkerchner said...

Take the "Nolan Chart" political test to see where you are on the spectrum.

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

CDR Kerchner
www.protectourliberty.org

William said...

Charles,

I took the Nolan Chart rating and it said I was listed as a Libertarian. Not even close to Conservative. I also thought of myself as more Conservative with some Libertarian views.

William said...

Mario,

What do your fellow attorney friends think about you taking on this case? Do they, like you, believe that Obama in not a NBC per the Constitution?

Puzo1 said...

William,

The lawyers and police officers that I have had a chance to personally speak to about the Obama eligibility issue agree that Obama has never sufficiently proven that he was born in Hawaii.

On the meaning of a "natural born Citizen," I cannot say how many lawyers have taken the time to thoroughly study the issue.

flywithmike said...

Thanks Mario for all of your hard work. And thanks for all who are posting on this blog. It was a pleasure speaking to you today. As we both agreed it is a strugle to get through the courts. I am glad you agree that exposure is the next best route to take. My web site is up and running aimed at getting everyone interactive. I believe that if there is enough exposure the right person with authority or media time will break through for us. Web site address: www.wheresobamasbirthcertificate.com After visiting the site please STAMP EVERYTHING!!!!

medical said...

One of my nephews is a Harvard graduate and a former Rhodes Scholar. As a tenured professor at Saint Hugh's College and a member of the university's admissions committee, plus a very highly regarded Harvard alumni, "M" has full access to Harvard's complete physical and electronic student records and he can locate absolutely no transfer records from Columbia, no admission application, no academic records, no photographs, no index records, or any other information about the Usurper in the official files of Harvard. "M" located no "redacted" index information that would indicate the Usurper was ever enrolled or that he received an honorary degree. As you can readily gather from reading the academic background of "M", he is a very intelligent and competent researcher and analyst who relies on facts. "M" says the Usurper definitely never attended Harvard and anything purporting to show otherwise is a fabrication. This information proves the information Doctor James David Manning discovered about the Usurper never attending Columbia is also true. The Usurper's entire life history is a total fabrication and he is a complete fraud. By ignoring the critical issue of the Usurper's false background, Congress and the courts are seriously endangering our nation's security. DO NOT vote for ANY incumbent politicians, they have proven themselves to be useless parasites who are a danger to our nation! Dr. Manning - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFuk1tgaHDU

jackchow1 said...

I read some of the writings by goodcosbyman felow and:
you always looking for potus bc actually Indonesia had it long ago; when every kids go to school in Indonesian school they were required birth certivicate and kartu keluarga (KK in english said family card/ form). They made of colums; one of the columns said kewarga negaraan means citizenship; now the column below it if written WNI means Indonesian citizen; WNA means alien/foreign citizen. savvy; so if you wanted to know just come to his old school but not the haunting ground its on SD Katolik Fransiskus Assisi

jackchow1 said...

The address would be on jalan haji ramli no24 menteng dalam the school it self if on english translate as catholic primary school fransicus assisi. but just show the taxy driver the address and they shall lead you to that.The address would be on jalan haji ramli no24 menteng dalam the school it self if on english translate as catholic primary school fransicus assisi. but just show the taxy driver the address and they shall lead you to that.

jackchow1 said...

here's how to get it:

if you ever wondered how the potus is rush comes to Indonesia as the first country he ever visit on the first visit it's because it is a home coming visit tor him and by the way he shall visit indonesia at 20 march 2010. if you really wanted to know the
potus shall o his home coming visit straight to Indonesia. now every one in USA want to know about him; right. now why he visit Indonesia; one of the main reason is that he had to secure the haunting ground that is on SDN menteng 01. but he lies for that only contain the transfer letter from SD Fransiskus Assisi menteng. the way you could go to Indonesian school is
1. BC Birth certificate
2. KK (KArtu keluarga/ family card/form) that contains citizen ship

jayjay said...

medical:

Thanks for the info - it's no surprise top many of us who KNOW what the guy's all about ... can you spell IslamoCommunist???

Incredulous said...

jackchow, how can we get a copy of his KK?