Jedi Pauly: The False Flag Obot
By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 14, 2011
Every once in a while, a “Jedi Pauly” (we do not know what his/her true name is; I will assume for sake of argument that the person is a male) makes himself alive. Every time he does he just cannot resist taking a shot at the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case. Now he is back with more of his pseudo law and his appeal to the revolutionary mantra of no taxation without representation. He has recently posted an article to The Post & Email entitled, “How ‘We The People’ Can Put An End To Taxation Without Representation,” accessed at http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/11/the-real-revolution/.
Pauly starts his article by telling us there are “three political classes in the United States.” This is a preposterous statement, given that we have no political classes in the United States. The United States is a constitutional republic. The people enjoy a representative government which under the constitution is supposed to have limited powers. Any citizen, regardless of social, racial, cultural, ethnic, economic, religious, or physical condition or station, who is 18 years of age or older, can vote for his or her representative government (unless disqualified due to a criminal conviction). But yet, Pauly tells us that we have three political classes. The only reason that I can see for Pauly to put forth such an argument is to stir up division among Americans, claiming one class has some superior right over another class. He would just love for the “birthers” to run with such theories.
Being a covert Obot, Pauly loves to take shots at the Kerchner case and the undersigned, Mario Apuzzo, Esq., the attorney who filed that case and presented it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Pauly, as he has repeatedly attempted in the past, makes every effort to discredit both the Kerchner case and Apuzzo. There is no basis in Pauly’s argument that the court in Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010), denied Commander Kerchner standing because we did not allege that Kerchner was a “natural born Citizen.” He says that the Federal Court denied the Kerchner case standing because we alleged that Commander Kerchner is a “citizen of the United States” rather than saying that he is a “natural born Citizens.” I have seen many kooky arguments in my day but this one tops the cake. The only difference that exists between any of our citizens, whether “natural born Citizens” or naturalized citizens “at birth” or after birth, is in being eligible to be President and Vice President. Other than eligibility for these two high offices, our law simply does not favor or give any special privilege or right to one type of citizen over another. The privileges and immunities granted to citizens under Article IV and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are granted to all citizens and the due process protections given by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment are extended not only to all citizens but also to all persons.
Also, simply saying that one is a “citizen of the United States” does not rule out that that person is also a “natural born Citizen.” Just like saying that one is a “citizen of the United States,” which under the Fourteenth Amendment includes naturalized citizens, does not rule out that one is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” saying that someone is a “citizen of the United States” which also includes those citizens who are not “natural born Citizens,” does not rule out that one could be a “natural born Citizen.” To further make this point, Article I provides that a Representative and Senator must be a “Citizen of the United States” for a minimum of 7 and 9 years, respectively, to be eligible for office. We can all agree that it would be absurd to contend that a “natural born Citizen” cannot be a Senator or Representative because Article I calls for a “Citizen of the United States.” Article II’s grandfather clause also says that one could be a “Citizen of the United States” and be eligible to be President if born before the adoption of the Constitution, but that for one born thereafter, one has to be a “natural born Citizen.” From these provisions, we know that the Founders and Framers grouped all citizens, both “natural born” and naturalized, into “Citizens of the United States” and that they also told us that all “natural born Citizens” are “Citizens of the United States” but that not all “Citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizens.” Hence, Pauly’s argument that the Kerchner court denied Commander Kerchner standing because he alleged that he is a “citizen of the United States” rather than also alleging that he is a “natural born Citizen” is totally baseless.
Additionally, Pauly, like the courts that decided the Kerchner case, wants us to think that the only standing argument made in the Kerchner case was that of Commander Kerchner maybe being recalled to active military duty and having to report to a usurper acting as the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This argument is simply a total misstatement of the case, evades the real standing argument in the Kerchner case, and is designed to mislead the public on what was the real standing argument in the Kerchner case. In the Kerchner case, I raised legitimate claims of injury to the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment right to life, liberty, safety, security, and tranquility, caused by having an usurper, who does not meet the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, sitting in the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military and wielding the great and singular civil and military powers of those offices. In fact, no court in the Kerchner case even addressed the Fifth Amendment due process argument. The courts in Kerchner therefore evaded addressing this standing argument. But Pauly does not want the public to know that.
On January 2, 2009, I wrote an article stating that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, citing and explaining the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875). See http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor held:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167-68.
This U.S. Supreme Court’s definition was stated in 1758 by Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite writer on natural law and the law of nations, in his, The Law of Nations, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) where he said the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The virtually unanimous documented view that prevailed during the Founding, as confirmed by the views of the Founders and Framers, text and structure of the Constitution, and federal and state case law, was that the law of nations was considered universal common law that was binding on the people, the President, Congress, and the nation, and “part of the laws of the United States within the symmetric ambit of Article II, Section 3, III, Section 2, and VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.” As to this conclusion, see the exhaustive research paper of Jordan J. Paust, “In Their Own Words: Affirmations of the Founders, Framers, and Early Judiciary Concerning the Binding Nature of the Customary Law of Nations," University of Houston Public Law and Legal Theory Series 2009-A-27, which can be downloaded without charge at The University of Houston Accepted Paper Series Index.
Moreover, Vattel’s and Minor’s definition was also acknowledged by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the seminal case on U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified and established the meaning of a Fourteenth Amendment “born” “citizen” and again confirmed the meaning of an Article II “natural born” citizen, and by doing so informed that there are two birthright citizenships under the Constitution, one under Article II (“natural born”) and the other under the Fourteenth Amendment (“born” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Under Article II of our Constitution, only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President, for only a “natural born” citizen is born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which means being born with sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States and none to any foreign power. The Founders and Framers wanted to assure that the new constitutional republic would be lead both civilly and militarily by a person who from the moment of birth had sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States. It is only by being born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother that no foreign allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship attach to the child at the moment of birth or as Vattel put it, “if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. at Sec. 212. It is therefore inconceivable that the Founders and Framers, who went to great lengths to insulate the new republic from foreign influence and monarchial rule, would have countenanced a person born after the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military who did not meet the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen.”
Pauly does not agree with this reasoning. Pauly argues that if one is born to a citizen father, no matter where born, he/she is a “natural born Citizen.” So, for him, “natural born Citizen” has only one factor, i.e., born to a U.S. citizen father. He does not recognize a child’s mother’s status or the effect that that status and birth on foreign soil has on a child’s natural allegiance to the United States from the moment of birth. His argument which recognizes only the father’s citizenship in creating citizenship in his children and denies the role of the mother in that regard fails for reasons of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. His argument which does not recognize the effect on a child of being born to a non-U.S. citizen mother and on foreign soil also fails because it does not comport with the Founders’ and Framers’ understanding of natural allegiance. They were aware that in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 (1608), Coke called this natural allegiance, “ligeantia naturalis.” For Coke, it was this natural allegiance which made the “natural born subject.” “Ligeantia acquisita” created those who were subjects not by birth but rather by conquest, denization, or naturalization. They would have also known that in Calvin’s Case, Francis Bacon, who argued that Calvin (a postnati) was a “natural-born subject” in England, argued that allegiance was due not by the law of either England or Scotland alone, but by the law of nature, itself a part of the law of England and of all nations. Coke agreed, finding that “ligeance of the subjects of both kingdoms, is due to their sovereign by one law, and that is the law of nature.” Id. at 394. They were also aware that William Blackstone confirmed the existence of this natural allegiance in his hierarchies of allegiance. He considered “natural allegiance” a product of “universal law,” “intrinsic” and “primitive,” due “upon their birth.” See William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357-58, 361-62. From this background, it is understandable why the Founders and Framers demanded that citizenship be determined by natural law and the law of nations and not by the English common law. They demanded that the birth status of allegiance be inherited by nature and not by law. Hence, they chose “natural born” Citizen and not just “born” Citizen, which latter status could theoretically be bestowed by naturalization upon a person by positive law.
The Founders and Framers, when it came to prescribing the eligibility requirements for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, offices of great civil and military powers to be given to one person for the purpose of protecting the republic, put their faith in natural law and not the English common law. They knew that natural allegiance was inherited not only from the place of one’s birth (jus soli) but also from one’s parents (jus sanguinis). A child born under the limited circumstances espoused by Pauly (just born to a citizen father) would still inherit allegiance and therefore citizenship under jus soli (from being born in a foreign land) and jus sanguinis (from being born to a foreign mother). Hence, the child would not be born fully and completely under the allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which disqualifies the child from being a “natural born Citizen,” for the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” includes all those who are born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are.
Note that under Pauly’s argument of just being born to a citizen father, Obama could very well qualify as a “natural born Citizen.” He concedes that place of birth does not matter. He also concedes that just one parent’s citizenship is sufficient. Hence, Obama would only have to make the simple equal protection argument and prevail as a “natural born Citizen,” even if not born in the United States. On the other hand, if Pauly argued that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to a U.S. citizen father and mother, he knows that Obama could never meet that definition and would therefore be disqualified as being eligible to be President.
Pauly says that no criminal case could ever be made against Obama. He says that Obama could argue that he reasonably believed he was a “natural born Citizen,” causing no prosecutor to bring any criminal charges against him and no jury to ever convict him. But he totally avoids the issues of Obama creating a fraudulent birth certificate, using a fake social security number, and creating a false selective service registration record. If these latter allegations are true, Obama could easily be impeached for high crimes and subsequently tried and convicted for those same crimes in a criminal prosecution. Again, Pauly comes to the aid of Obama rather than to his downfall which further raises the suspicion of who Pauly really is.
Pauly argues that being a taxpayer (and a natural born Citizen) gives one automatic standing in an eligibility lawsuit against Obama. But he fails to recognize that our courts have repeatedly told us that the status of being a taxpayer without more does not establish standing. Again, Pauly hands Obama an easy victory.
We can also see that Pauly does not really believe what he writes. He tells us that he, unlike so many other people who filed an action against Obama, has figured out all the legal angles of pleading a cause of action that will guarantee the plaintiffs standing. He submits that any one filing a law suit against Obama needs only to allege that living under an ineligible Obama we are slaves who are taxed without representation. He tells us about how all the cases that have been filed against Obama so far have failed and that he is the only one who knows what should be done. But he himself can satisfy all the elements he identifies as necessary for a successful action against Obama. Yet he has not brought any legal action against Obama nor does he tell us that he intends to do so. Very simply, Pauly has not and will not bring any such action because then the whole world would learn who the real Jedi Pauly is. Rather, he needs to remain anonymous and just continue to feed us his pro-Obama tripe.
Not advocating a definition of “natural born Citizen” which gives the United States extra safety and protection from attack from both outside and within and putting forth legal theories which in the end can hand Obama an easy victory raises great doubts about who Pauly really is. I believe that Pauly Jedi is a “false flag” who has been planted within the “birther” movement. He is an Obot posing as a “birther” or constitutionalist. He is sent to us just to feed us crank legal and “scientific” theories that have a superficial appeal, like telling us that a “natural born Citizen” only needs a citizen father and that we have standing to sue Obama because we have to pay taxes to a government led by an ineligible Obama which makes us slaves, theories he hopes we will adopt and which in the end will only discredit our valid Obama eligibility arguments and waste our precious time. I recommend that everyone reading this article and who is pursuing getting at the truth regarding who Obama is also read the interesting explanation of the meaning of “false flag” found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag and other articles on “false flag” found on the internet. Pauly has every right to continue to print his positions, although it would be appreciated if he told us whose side is he really on. In any event, those of us who are honestly working on the Obama eligibility issue should pay him no attention.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 14, 2011
Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.All Rights Reserved