Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection

Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access      
                                             Objection


                                       By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                             April 10, 2012
                                       Updated April 14, 2012

Today, April 10, 2012, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran had their Barack Obama primary ballot objection heard by Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619. The case started about 9:30 a.m. and lasted to about 1:00 p.m. I represented the Objectors. Mr. Obama was represented by Alexandra Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi of Newark, New Jersey.

We argued that Mr. Obama has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that he has not presented any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing who he is and that he was born in the United States. We also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.

Obama’s attorney made a motion to dismiss the Objection in its entirety. She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot. We argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. We argued that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot. Judge Masin denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.

After calling to the witness stand Mr. Moran and Mr. Purpura, who gave testimony as to why they brought the ballot challenge, and introducing documents showing there is a question as to Mr. Obama’s identity, I called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr. Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version. Obama’s lawyer objected to my proffered testimony. I then offered that I would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth. Judge Masin also asked Obama’s attorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. She also argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot. Judge Masin then took the issue under advisement. Having produced absolutely no evidence of his eligibility for the Office of President, Judge Masin will decide whether as a matter of law Obama has a legal duty to produce such evidence before he may be placed on the New Jersey ballot in light of the pending objection filed against him. If he decides that he does, then the Objection will be successful. If he decides that Obama has no such legal obligation, the Objection would fail on the first issue.

The second issue that Judge Masin addressed was whether the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” includes the requirement that the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents. Judge Masin relied heavily upon the fact that no court in the nation has yet ruled that Mr. Obama had to have two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth. I explained that most cases regarding Mr. Obama have been ruled in his favor on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” He relied heavily upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its use of the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. We also discussed the Indiana Ankeny decision and the Georgia ballot access cases. I explained how Wong did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” but only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment which does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I explained that Wong distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” explaining how Justice Gray used Horace Binney’s distinction between both classes of citizens. I argued that it is error to rely upon Wong as though it held Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.”

I argued that the Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law to define the term, but rather natural law and the law of nations which under Article III became part of the “Laws of the United States.” I explained that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), which definition was recognized as American “common-law” in Minor v. Happersett (1875). I also explained that Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s definition (a child born in a country to citizen parents) and did not change it.

I explained that Congress through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 abrogated the English common law as the law to define U.S. citizenship and that through those acts it told us that a child born in the United States to alien parents was an alien and not a “citizen of the United States.” I went through the historical evidence, including but not limited to Emer de Vattel and St. George Tucker, which shows that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents and not as the English common law defined a “natural born subject.” I explained how Madison wrote to Washington that at the constitutional convention, the delegates did not adopt the English common law for the new republic. I explained that the English common law continued to have effect in the states, even being included in their constitutions and statutes, but not on the federal level where both the Constitution and Acts of Congress did not do the same as the states did. I explained that there is a constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” and that the two terms cannot be conflated and confounded as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who told us that each clause of the Constitution must be given its own meaning. Judge Masin also reserved decision on the question of whether a “natural born Citizen” must be born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Judge Masin will be contacting counsel today or tomorrow morning either by telephone or email as to his decision, stating “yes” or “no” on both issues. He will then provide his written decision to the Secretary of State no later than Wednesday, April 11, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel will be able to object to Judge Masin’s initial decision. The Secretary of State will make the final decision. After her decision, the parties can then appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division and then to the New Jersey Supreme Court. After that, the parties can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Update: 

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states: “No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

New Jersey state statutes (N.J.S.A. 19:23-7 and N.J.S.A. 19:23-15) state that a person must be eligible to run for the office he or she seeks. They make no exception for someone running for the Office of President.  N.J.S.A. 19:25-3 provides that a presidential candidate does not have to file his or her consent to be nominated for that office.  But the statute does not say that such candidate does not have to show under the previous cited statutes that he or she is eligible for the office sought. 

Additionally, the New Jersey Secretary of State instructions on her web site to presidential candidates running in the New Jersey primary tell them they must be “natural born Citizens.”

New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 19:29-1(b) provides that voters can contest the New Jersey election of any candidate who is not eligible for the office he or she seeks.

Upon my request that she so stipulate, Obama’s lawyer agreed during the trial that there was absoulutely no evidence before the court as to who Obama is or where he was born, including excluding from evidence the internet image of Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live Birth he released on April 27, 2011. The ALJ confirmed that to be the case.

Yet, in his decision, the ALJ said that because he does not have to consent to his nomination it did not matter who Obama is or where he may be born because he has no legal obligation to show that he is constitutionally eligible to run in the New Jersey primary for the Office of President.

Not only did he say that Obama has no legal duty to provide the State of New Jersey with any evidence that he is constitutionally eligible to be placed on the New Jersey primary ballot for election to the Office of President, the ALJ also said: “Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” Initial Decision, p. 7. Dr. Conspiracy, in light of the fact that there was absolutely no evidence before the ALJ as to where Obama was born, must be so embarrassed by the finding of the court that at his blog he tries to tell us that it is not true that the ALJ found Obama to be born in Hawaii. But on the contrary, from the quoted language, we can conclude that the ALJ found that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore based on that fact alone and with no reference to the citizenship of his parents, found that he is a “natural born Citizen.” But he made the finding that he was born in Hawaii without providing any explanation as to what evidence he relied upon to make such a finding. His Initial Decision is silent as to what evidence he relied upon to find that Obama was born in Hawaii. Also, the ALJ relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to rule that Obama, born to an alien father, is a “natural born Citizen.”

On April 12, 2012, Secretary of State, Kimberly M. Guadagno, issued her Final Decision in Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran v. Barack Obama New Jersey Primary Ballot Objection. A copy of her decision may be read here, http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/89431332-Final-Decision-of-SOS-in-Purpura-Moran-Ballot-Objection-4-12-12.   She concludes without any explanation: “After full consideration of the record and a review of the exceptions filed, I hereby adopt the ALJ’s Initial Decision in its entirety.”

The next step is an appeal directly to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 10, 2011
Update April 9, 2012
Updagted April 12, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

119 comments:

SaipanAnnie said...

Bravo, Mr. Apuzzo! May God bless you.

Joe said...

Good News Mario, he is taking the night to think it over instead of emailing you right now!

jayjay said...

Some good headway there about the stipulation given to not allow your proffered BC "bogosity" testimony.

At least it's a matter of record in court now that the WHBC fmay not be used as "proof" and that Zero has provided nothing else.

It's hard to see how anyone would now say "doesn't matter; we just love the lying, cheating bastard and don'e mind his criminal document fraud". But we've seen some crazy stuff from almost every court so let's hope this one has more gravy on its potatoes...

Good work, gents.

Thomas said...

Why did you not reveal the electronic document forgery to the judge? Why stipulate obama could not use it as evidence when it so clearly shows forgery and fraud?

Thank you.

girly said...

Mr. Apuzzo, I posted this on a previous blog of yours below, but I am posting this again here for fear that you may not read my previous comment since it's an older blog.

A couple of years ago I came across a website which contained letters from our Founding Fathers during the Revolution. This might help your case.

One particular letter was written by Benjamin Franklin to a Mr. Dumas from France thanking him for the copies of Vattel's Law of Nations and how Congress was using it to write the laws of a new nation (my words). Here's an excerpt:

..."I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Expose de ce qui s'est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies," bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us...."

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1

Unknown said...

While I can repair some things on my old Volvo I do need an expert mechanic now and then. At one point in my life I thought an attorney would be like an auto mechanic. Yes, some are not honest--but they know what is wrong with the car nonetheless and could repair it properly the first time. But in recent years I have had to take a new look at judges and attorneys and even law professors at good law schools. Are these men and women really ignorant? While it is hard to believe a law professor would be, still it looks a lot like that. Still it hard to believe. Is this some wide spread attitude towards the Constitution showing itself?
I know you are correct. I have been studying this material for several years. It is really quite obvious. I could not teach a law school course if I were a law professor unless I was telling the students the truth! I know some legal decisions are tough and maybe there is complication and ambiguity--but this qualification is not in that category.
And then there is all the fraud with documents. Given recent Obama legal pronouncements I wonder who did his studies and tests and so on at Harvard. Did he just show up per-programmed by professors who had been told by the dean to pass him? He is in my opinion not even a particularly good actor. And getting worse. Thanks for your work and may God guide the judge in his decision!

girly said...

A couple of years ago there was an article that George Washington had 2 overdue library books from New York Library from 1789. One of the books was Vattel's Law of Nations.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books

Harold Smith said...

Wait...wait a minute here...I'm the real Barack Obama. I demand that the imposter presently occupying the White House cease and desist his impersonation of me.

And I'll be happy to provide a birth certificate proving I'm Barack Obama, and that I was in fact born in the U.S. (as soon as I can whip one up).

#############################

Excuse my reductio ad absurdum, but isn't this where this is headed? If it turns out that Obama doesn't have to competently and sufficiently identify himself, especially when challenged, then his "name" on the ballot is nothing more than some kind of a "place holder", isn't it? And whoever can come up with the most convincing ID can be President?

(BTW being only a few hours away in PA, I would've liked to attend the hearing today to show support for this worthy cause, but I was unfortunately prevented from doing so because of a prior appointment that I couldn't easily change on short notice. Hopefully I'll make the next one).

Dansmith said...

Just thinking...Why not "challenge" Obama on all the requirements to be an Article II President, including, must be 35 years of "age" and been 14 years a "resident" within the u.s.. [obama did leave our Country on several occasions] Force him to prove his age via a "Legal" bc...Dan

paleophlatus said...

@ Unknown,
I too have had occasion to wonder about the ability to rationalize and respond to the force of logic on the part of some lawyers and Judges. Then I came to fully understand the basic premise of the legal presentation of a case, as offered by an attorney friend,
It is an "adversarial confrontation" between opposing parties. Consider opposing attorneys to be adversaries, in every sense of the word. Within the prescribed boundaries of courtroom ethics, anything goes. Besting your opponent using your words and wits is as rewarding as having used swords or pistols. Anything less than this approach would not be conducive to reaching the truth of any matter.
How does this apply in a trial? Essentially, attorneys must be able to counter all arguments made by their opponent, and mount offensive arguments in retaliation. The attorney best able to present his defense or prosecute his case is considered to have won, after the jury returns it's verdict. Expect no point to be conceded, nor won, without a significant resistance from the opposition.
Using Mr Apuzzo's case, the judge assumes NOTHING, unless it is satisfactorily backed up by evidence. Hence, the seeming 'overstatement' of one's presentation. Leave no stone unturned. Anticipation of the resistance by the opposition is akin to the proverb of never asking a question you don't know the answer to.
Or so it seems to appear to me.

Ray said...

Thank you for your work.

The mind boggles at M. Masin.

It's not a disagreement over interpretation of a point of law, but even I, non lawyer, can see that the law is being completely disregarded.

Your perseverance is appreciated.

Ray said...

Unlike Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 which requires legislation to have affect, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5 does not.

Art. II, § 1, cl. 5 is law without need of any enacting statute and is self-executing, it's authority binding upon all.

Obedience was sworn to by Oath.

Oaths are to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State, not statute issued pursuant thereto either.

The "judge" has violated his Oath.

thalightguy said...

Let me get this straight, the Judge confirmed nothing has been presented as to place of birth but his decision was since Obama was born in Hawaii he is eligible?

If this is how our Judiciary system acts the Rebublic is doomed.

Tychicus said...

Sir,
God bless you for your excellent presentation and efforts for the cause.
One thing I was wondering about.
At 7min 11 sec, the judge said that their was an Illinois case where the Obama Campaign actually presented an actual birth certificate in court.
http://youtu.be/_grIjyq5y-w
I have never heard of a case where any actual bona fide copy had ever been presented.
Is this true?
What are the facts?
Courage and Godspeed,
-Tychicus

Puzo1 said...

palephlatus,

You said: "Using Mr Apuzzo's case, the judge assumes NOTHING, unless it is satisfactorily backed up by evidence."

Please know that both Obama's attorney and Judge Masin stipulated and agreed that there was absolutely no evidence before the court or for the New Jersey Secretary of State showing that Obama was born in Hawaii. This includes no evidence of any internet image of Obama's alleged Certificate of Live Birth.

Yet what boggles the mind is that without stating in his decision how he made such a finding, Judge Masin ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Tychicus said...

Sir,
Concering the image, it has been submitted as evidence before. However, the Court ruled it out as evidence.
Courage and Godspeed,
-Tychicus

Declared before the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii the following:
SANDRA RAMSEY LINES
Forensic Document Examiner [http://www.asqde.org/SRLines/SandraRLines.htm]
"In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness."
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/executedsandralinesdeclaration_1.pdf

Tychicus said...

Amazing!
Another case decided on Ghost Evidence!
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/10/constitution/obama-eligibility-nj-alj-ducks-issues/

Jeff Masin said, "As far as I’m concerned, Obama was born in Hawaii."

But what evidence has been submitted to establish this fact?
This is as bad as Georgia!
Even worse because Obama's lawyer declared that no BC would be admitted, neither did she intend to admit any to the court. The fact that no bc had ever been admitted previous or currently for Obama was also established.
So, on what basis can this decision be made?
Incredible!
Prayers for success in your Appeal.
Courage and Godspeed,
-Tychicus

"One man with courage makes a majority." Andrew Jackson

Puzo1 said...

The Exceptions that I filed with the New Jersey Secretary of State to ALJ Masin's Initial Decision can be read here:

http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88885325-Purpura-Moran-Exceptions-to-Initial-Decision-4-10-12

The New Jersey Secretary of State now has to make a final decision. She can adopt, modify, or reject Judge Masin's Initial Decision. Under New Jersey statute, she has to file her determination by today, April 11, 2012.

To summarize, I have made 4 objections:

1. To declare that Obama is a "natural born Citizen," ALJ Masin found that Obama was born in Hawaii. But there is absolutely no evidence before the court that he was so born. Obama's lawyer stipulated and the court agreed that there is no evidence before the court showing where Obama was born, including no evidence of the alleged Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released on the internet on April 27, 2011.

2. The ALJ erred in finding that because Obama does not have to consent to be nominated for President, he has not legal obligation to produce any evidence that he is eligible for the Office of President. The ALJ found that Obama does not have to file a certificate with the Secretary of State in which he certifies that he is eligible for the Office of President. The fact that under N.J.S.A. 19:25-3 Obama does not have to consent to his being nominated to be elected President does not obliterate his constitutional and statutory obligation to show that he is eligible for the Office of President and his statutory obligation under N.J.S.A. 19:23-7 and N.J.S.A. 19:23-15 which both require him to file a certificate in which he certifies that he is eligible to be President.

3. The ALJ erred in finding that Objectors could not file their Objection to the Obama primary petition at this time because Obama has until April 12, 2012 to still decline the nomination for President and the Secretary of State only has until April 11, 2012 to make her final determination. The ALJ suggested that Objectors can file their Objection afterward the Secretary of State makes her final decision. Since Obama has not declined in any state including New Jersey his nomination, and apart that there is no statutory basis for the ALJ’s position, his suggestion seems to be a waste of time and resources and only designed to frustrate Objectors’ challenge. Second, state statute says that the Objectors must file their objection no later than April 9, 2012. Other than an election contest, there is no other statutory mechanism to file an Objection to a primary petition after all deadlines have passed.

4. The ALJ erred in finding that a "natural born Citizen" is any child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents and that since Obama was born in Hawaii, a finding that as we have seen in No. 1 above is not supported by any evidence, he is a "natural born Citizen."

cfkerchner said...

A key point in my mind yesterday watching the hearing that was brought up by Mario to the attention of the judge in the debate with ALJ Masin in regards to WKA is that both of WKA's parents were legally "domiciled" in the USA. The judge did not even know that by his reaction. I think we should hammer more on the point that Obama's father was never legally domiciled in the USA and thus how can the Obama side use WKA when even the facts on the grounds about the parents of WKA when compared to Obama are completely different. Obama's father was never legally domiciled, in the legal meaning of that word, in the USA. He was a transient visitor to the USA sojourning here on a student visa, had a marriage or affair with a 17 year old teenager in HI which created Obama II, and then Obama Sr. subsequently got kicked out of Harvard and returned to Kenya where he died. The lack of legal domicile point of the father is a factual difference between the set of facts in WKA (one of many) if the other side wishes to argue that WKA makes one a NBC, which the WKA decision never did, of course. Judge Masin in his incorrect statement of what WKA decided ignored the difference in the legal status of the parents in WKA compared to Obama. It simply looks like Judge Masin had preordained his decision, wanted to get the hearing over with, and kick the matter to some other venue. He obviously did not want any discussion of the birth certificate forgery entered into the record.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

girly said...

CDR Kerchner, On your suggestion that Mr. Apuzzo should stress the fact that Obama, Sr., was never legally domiciled in the US, I remembered an article about an investigative journalist, Heather Smathers, who received Univ. of HI files thru an FOIA.

A memo in the files discussed how the colleges were trying to use grounds to force him to leave the US because of his womanizing.

Here's an excerpt:

"A memo from a University of Hawaii foreign student advisor said that Obama senior had 'been running around with several girls since he first arrived here and last summer she cautioned him about his playboy ways. Subject replied that he would "try" to stay away from the girls.'

It also considered his earlier Kenya marriage as a grounds to deny him a visa extension but concluded that 'polygamy was not an excludable or deportation charge'.

He is further described as 'a slippery character', and his relationships with 'several women' are discussed and investigated, while questions about his 'marital problems' are repeatedly raised.

Another immigration memo, from June 1964, records that Harvard officials were trying 'to get rid of him' and 'couldn't seem to figure out how many wives he had'."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381444/Barack-Obamas-father-serial-womaniser-warned-stop-playboy-ways.html

Puzo1 said...

The Initial Decision of ALJ Jeff S. Masin may be read here: http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88910250-Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

The Exceptions that I filed with the New Jersey Secretary of State to ALJ Masin's Initial Decision can be read here:

http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88885325-Purpura-Moran-Exceptions-to-Initial-Decision-4-10-12

The New Jersey Secretary of State now has to make a final decision. She can adopt, modify, or reject Judge Masin's Initial Decision. Under New Jersey statute, she has to file her determination by today, April 11, 2012.

To summarize, I have made 4 objections:

1. To declare that Obama is a "natural born Citizen," ALJ Masin found that Obama was born in Hawaii. But there is absolutely no evidence before the court that he was so born. Obama's lawyer stipulated and the court agreed that there is no evidence before the court showing where Obama was born, including no evidence of the alleged Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released on the internet on April 27, 2011.

2. The ALJ erred in finding that because Obama does not have to consent to be nominated for President, he has not legal obligation to produce any evidence that he is eligible for the Office of President. The ALJ found that Obama does not have to file a certificate with the Secretary of State in which he certifies that he is eligible for the Office of President. The fact that under N.J.S.A. 19:25-3 Obama does not have to consent to his being nominated to be elected President does not obliterate his constitutional and statutory obligation to show that he is eligible for the Office of President and his statutory obligation under N.J.S.A. 19:23-7 and N.J.S.A. 19:23-15 which both require him to file a certificate in which he certifies that he is eligible to be President.

3. The ALJ erred in finding that Objectors could not file their Objection to the Obama primary petition at this time because Obama has until April 12, 2012 to still decline the nomination for President and the Secretary of State only has until April 11, 2012 to make her final determination. The ALJ suggested that Objectors can file their Objection afterward the Secretary of State makes her final decision. Since Obama has not declined in any state including New Jersey his nomination, and apart that there is no statutory basis for the ALJ’s position, his suggestion seems to be a waste of time and resources and only designed to frustrate Objectors’ challenge. Second, state statute says that the Objectors must file their objection no later than April 9, 2012. Other than an election contest, there is no other statutory mechanism to file an Objection to a primary petition after all deadlines have passed.

4. The ALJ erred in finding that a "natural born Citizen" is any child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents and that since Obama was born in Hawaii, a finding that as we have seen in No. 1 above is not supported by any evidence, he is a "natural born Citizen."

Harold Smith said...

So far it looks like a replay of Georgia. The machine is very unimaginative, isn't it? In any case, what I want to know is, why does Obama even need a lawyer? It's bad enough that we get screwed out of the Constitution and the rule of law, yet on top of that, we get screwed as taxpayers having to pay for unnecessary props and decorations?

Bob said...

I think the 'natural born Citizen' clause would get higher billing in the minds of judges, if they were helped to realize that in U. S. v Rhodes (1866) Justice Noah Haynes Swayne used the 'natural-born Citizen' clause to emancipate former slaves. How? He gave them full standing before the Federal courts, and allowed them to testify, thus upholding the Civil Rights Act.

The 14th Amendment that everyone uses now uses AGAINST the 'natural-born Citizen' clause, was actually adopted so that emancipated slaves could never again lose their Civil Rights by legislation adopted by the States.

It is an irony of history that now the 'natural-born Citizenship' clause is being consigned to the trash heap by the Courts, when the 14th Amendment was there to prevent the Courts from denying standing to emancipated slaves.

What are the courts doing today? -- they are routinely denying standing, and also, they are misusing the 14th Amendment.

And all this to prop up a President who claims he is a 'black American' but is not in the bloodlines of the emancipated slaves.

If I were 'black,' I would be outraged! However, I think the use of racial arguments is irrelevant.

The real issue is STANDING -- and that is what everyone has been deprived of.

Ray said...

Per the 14th Amendment, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

People "born in the United States" are born to parents who are either citizens or aliens.

Which citizens "born in the United States" are "natural born citizens", the children of citizens or the children of aliens?

It would be irrational to grant to the children of aliens, and deny to the children of citizens, the privilege of eligibility for the Office of President.

"Natural born citizen" must mean citizens born from citizen parents.

If the citizenship of the parents is not the determining factor between "citizen" and "natural born citizen", I want to know what that factor is. Perhaps it is being born on a certain day of the week.

It is sheer stupidity to claim that US birth is the sole requirement for NBC status.

The meaning of Article II is self-evident.

Unknown said...

Isn't it obvious that these judges, for example the one in Georgia and now in New Jersey, are not doing what they normally do? These are really atrocious decisions that they ought to be ashamed of and would be were they not with respect to the presidency and the politics of all that. Surely when we consider all the silent law professors and top notch trial attorneys . . . men and women who did outstandingly in law school and are now earning top dollar in their professions, these individuals are afraid. I can think of no other explanation. Keep in mind that America has plenty of brilliant attorneys who are quite capable of grasping almost immediately what Mario has researched and presented on his blog. The fact there is this deafening silence must mean a lot of fear which very well might take the form of not having the time, not caring, etc. Excuses one and all. It does matter who the president is. Presently in all likelihood we have an illegal alien as president and a man who has committed quite a large number of felonies. It is impossible for me to believe that that is just fine with these judges of which there have been many now and with these highly regarded trial attorneys and law professors.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel said...

Attorney Apuzzo:

It appears that you are not becoming discouraged. Keep the focus! May the good, gracious and judicious Almighty God reward all your efforts!

I can't help but think that many pray for you.

Tychicus said...

Sir,
Did the New Jersey Secretary of State file a ruling on the case?
Courage and Godspeed,
-Tychicus

Doublee said...

I have not watched all of the proceedings of the New Jersey ballot challenge, so my question is based on an initial impression.

It seems that absent any specific requirements in a state’s statutes that a candidate must provide specific documentation to demonstrate that he is eligible to be president, he need not provide any documentation.

Yet, the constitutional requirements are clear. A president must be a natural born citizen. Are we then to conclude that, absent any specific statutory requirement that a candidate must prove his eligibility, the Constitution can be ignored?

First, it was lack of standing. Now it is the fact that there is no requirement for specific documentation. How then is Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be enforced? Are we to wait until the Congress certifies the election in January when politics will certainly take precedence over the Constitution?

js said...

They have litigated and legislated the concept of due process out of existence. Courts do not have to stand on firm precedent. The ability to ignore long standing case law, to advance a case according to the political leanings of a Judge is a blow against our Constitution. The procedural due process has been corrupted by the very system that is supposed to protect it.

cfkerchner said...

NJ Admin Law Judge Masin issues “The Emperor Has No Clothing On” Decision Regarding Obama’s Need to Prove His True Legal Identity and Constitutional Eligibility

I am calling the NJ Admin Law Judge Masin decision “The Emperor Has No Clothing On” decision. The NJ judge is allowing the Emperor Obama who has an unknown true legal identity to hide behind the legal technicality bushes so the world, and especially in this instant case the NJ electorate, does not get to see the legal identity naked Obama and the truth.

Get a copy of the Initial Decision of NJ Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin here: http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88910250-Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

Get a copy of the Exceptions filed by Attorney Mario Apuzzo with the New Jersey Secretary of State opposing ALJ Masin’s Initial Decision here: http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88885325-Purpura-Moran-Exceptions-to-Initial-Decision-4-10-12

Everyone, especially in NJ should call the NJ Secretary of State at 609-292-6000 or 609-530-6400 and/or email her at “lt.gov@gov.state.nj.us” and demand she reject this decision and demand that Obama produce legal evidence to establish his true legal identity and eligibility to the State of NJ.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Harold Smith said...

Unknown,

I agree there are undoubtedly lots of legal experts all over the U.S. who know that Mario is correct, i.e., that at the very least, Obama is not eligible to be President, but are apparently afraid to speak out. It's exactly the same situation with professional engineers vis-a-vis the mysterious "collapse" of WTC7; or with aviation experts vis-a-vis the mysterious explosion that brought down TWA Flt. 800. The list goes on and on.

Spaulding said...

Mr. Apuzzo, while we learn second hand about judges, seeing them in action brings home the nature of the problem. Judge Masin referred repeatedly to the many mentions of natural born citizen in Wong Kim Ark so I searched the document for references, and nowhere was there the claim that natural born and native-born citizens were equivalent. The judge was determined not to acknowledge that words mean things, and that WKA resulted in Wong Kim's being defined as a citizen, in spite of allegiance professed by his parents, who were prevented from becoming naturalized citizens by Chinese law.

Obama's council was similarly either ignorant, or confident that nothing she said would be tested, citing Perkins v. Elg as support for the Ankeny decision, and claim that natural and naturalized citizens are equivalent. Perkins provided lots of support for the opposite conclusion, confirming with reference after reference that natural citizens, including Steinkuler and Marie Elg, were treated differently because they born citizens, even when their parents later left the US, raising them in Germany and Sweden respectively.

It is appearing, no surprise unfortunately, that Sheriff Arpaio is using his 'Cold Posse' for other purposes than exposing Obama's ineligibility. Obama's judiciary has demonstrated that with no physical evidence, they can and will quash hearsay. It appears that the witnesses offered weakened the otherwise clear case which must be addressed, if ever by the Supreme Court. Perhaps the statement that Obama intended never to present evidence of jus soli compliance, and the judge admitted there was none, served a purpose. The court can chose to ignore precedent for ever, but eventually, the people must impose some rule of law upon the judiciary, or remove those whose reasoning is poor, or in violation of the Constitution.

Joe said...

Mario you did fantastic. We are all keeping our fingers crossed and hoping your work will be hailed.

What I need is a bullet point on why national did not use common law.

and a bullet point on why wong kim ark is no good.

now i heard the arguments, but a list of reasons each have to be addressed one by one. in my opinion this is what is missing even when you try to explain this to judges. they don't have the breadth of the subject you do. Then after those lists are clearly listed, then you can bullet point the false arguments and debunk those.

i find it very helpful for lists and to keep separate the arguments and then at the end debunk the false arguments.

you may have this on your website someplace but i would include it with everything you file. but not long long paragraphs.

thank you so much Mario, and thank your family for us too.

MichaelN said...

Not even the English common law recognizes native birth alone, as sufficient to make a "natural born".

Regardless of what Calvin was adjudged in Calvin's case (Lord Coke)their were TWO essential qualities REQUIRED to make a "natural born" and they were described by Coke as "natural and birth right" and "procreation and birth right".

Coke also made it clear that the natural descent quality took precedence over the native birth right quality, which is proven by his statement that if the father was not a subject, then the child cannot be a subject, even if native born, but a child born NON-native to high-allegiance subject (i.e. an ambassador) and his English wife, was a "natural born".

Lord Coke went to great lengths to insist that it the Law of Nature that applied in making a "natural born".

Ergo: The parents status was paramount in recognizing a "natural born" and it was the Law of Nature that was relied on.

It is to be noted that although a father may be an alien in England, the father must be a "subject" for his child if born in England to be a "natural born".

The US did not accept temporary visitors as subjects/citizens, so to be consistent with the English principles, in the US the father would need to be naturalized and become a citizen/subject for his child to be a "natural born".

The first US naturalization act of 1790 was consistent with this English common law principle, where a child born NON-native to US citizen parents (just like the English ambassador and his English wife) was considered to be a "natural born".

In the following US naturalization act of 1795, the term "natural born" was absent, and it appears that the reason for this was although the US Congress and Senate considered a child born NON-native to US citizen parents, as a "natural born", this term was in appropriate in a statute, because The Law of Nature is not a law that can be enacted.

The status of the parents was THE paramount quality in making a "natural born", both in the Emglish common law AND in US common law.

Kanbun said...

To Commander Kerchner - Thank you for your service and your work on this issue. I see your point about the issue of domicile and Barry's daddy - but - this is clearly a non-starter in any of these cases since the judges are intent on defining NBC as anybody born in the U.S. In that instance, domicile of the father seems completely irrelevant if they insist on saying that anybody that walks across the border and has a baby can be confident that the child is 'natural born' and eligible for POTUS.

Mario has been steadfast and the only one that I've read that has the details of this issue clearly explained and in the right perspective. He has written that NBC is conferred only upon those who upon their first breath of life have sole allegiance only to the United States. The absolute understanding that through the writing by Jay to Washington that the founders' intention was to prevent foreign (European) influence in the Commander-in-Chief makes the issue of sole allegiance so plainly the only thing that matters, I think this connection is the one that seems to be missing or not emphasized enough in these arguments. Can one of these Obot judges or sycophants explain that 1) the founders' intentions for using NBC is other than guaranteeing sole allegiance, and 2) how, other than the acquisition of citizenship naturally from parentage (x2) does someone have sole allegiance at birth? And, given the founders' concern to prevent foreign influence, the last thing they would have been willing to allow was the influence of a Brit (Barry)in our Commander-in-Chief.

Tychicus said...

SoS Decision.
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/letter-to-george-miller-from-nj-sos-office

Another coward is added to the list.
Courage and Godspeed,
-Tychicus

Roadrunner said...

I am in awe!! Wonderful job!! I'm proof reading for a different case and your words are beautiful! Right to the point and straight to the truth!!

Tychicus said...

NJ SoS gives decision:
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/letter-to-george-miller-from-nj-sos-office

Another coward joins the list.
Courage and Godspeed,
-Tychicus

Joe said...

Mario,
We would really like to hear from you by post, blog email or radio. We have put our faith in you. Please let us know if there is still hope for the justice system.....

Puzo1 said...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states: “No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

New Jersey state statutes state that a person must be eligible to run for the office he or she seeks. They make no exception for someone running for the Office of President.

Additionally, the New Jersey Secretary of State instructions on her web site to presidential candidates running in the New Jersey primary tell them they must be “natural born Citizens.”

New Jersey statute provide that voters can contest the New Jersey election of any candidate who is not eligible for the office he or she seeks.

Upon my request that she so stipulate, Obama’s lawyer agreed during the trial that there was absoulutely no evidence before the court as to who Obama is or where he was born, including excluding from evidence the internet image of Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live Birth he released on April 27, 2011. The ALJ confirmed that to be the case.

Yet, in his decision, the ALJ said that it did not matter who Obama is or where he may be born because he has no legal obligation to show that he is constitutionally eligible to run in the New Jersey primary for the Office of President.

Not only did he say that Obama has no legal duty to provide the State of New Jersey with any evidence that he is constitutionally eligible to be placed on the New Jersey primary ballot for election to the Office of President, the ALJ also said: “Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” Initial Decision, p. 7. Dr. Conspiracy, in light of the fact that there was absolutely no evidence before the ALJ as to where Obama was born, must be so embarrassed by the finding of the court that he tries to tell us that it is not true that the ALJ found Obama to be born in Hawaii. But on the contrary, from the quoted language, we can conclude that the ALJ found that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore based on that fact alone and with no reference to the citizenship of his parents, found that he is a “natural born Citizen.” But he made he finding that he was born in Hawaii without providing any explanation as to what evidence he relied upon to make such a finding. His Initial Decision is silent as to what evidence he relied upon to find that Obama was born in Hawaii. Also, the ALJ relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to rule that Obama, born to an alien father, is a “natural born Citizen.”

On April 12, 2012, Secretary of State, Kimberly M. Guadagno, issued her Final Decision in Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran v. Barack Obama New Jersey Primary Ballot Objection. A copy of her decision may be read here, http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/89431332-Final-Decision-of-SOS-in-Purpura-Moran-Ballot-Objection-4-12-12 . She concludes without any explanation: “After full consideration of the record and a review of the exceptions filed, I hereby adopt the ALJ’s Initial Decision in its entirety.”

The next step is an appeal directly to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Divison.

Puzo1 said...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states: “No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

New Jersey state statutes state that a person must be eligible to run for the office he or she seeks. They make no exception for someone running for the Office of President.

Additionally, the New Jersey Secretary of State instructions on her web site to presidential candidates running in the New Jersey primary tell them they must be “natural born Citizens.”

New Jersey statute provide that voters can contest the New Jersey election of any candidate who is not eligible for the office he or she seeks.

Upon my request that she so stipulate, Obama’s lawyer agreed during the trial that there was absoulutely no evidence before the court as to who Obama is or where he was born, including excluding from evidence the internet image of Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live Birth he released on April 27, 2011. The ALJ confirmed that to be the case.

Yet, in his decision, the ALJ said that it did not matter who Obama is or where he may be born because he has no legal obligation to show that he is constitutionally eligible to run in the New Jersey primary for the Office of President.

Not only did he say that Obama has no legal duty to provide the State of New Jersey with any evidence that he is constitutionally eligible to be placed on the New Jersey primary ballot for election to the Office of President, the ALJ also said: “Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” Initial Decision, p. 7. Dr. Conspiracy, in light of the fact that there was absolutely no evidence before the ALJ as to where Obama was born, must be so embarrassed by the finding of the court that he tries to tell us that it is not true that the ALJ found Obama to be born in Hawaii. But on the contrary, from the quoted language, we can conclude that the ALJ found that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore based on that fact alone and with no reference to the citizenship of his parents, found that he is a “natural born Citizen.” But he made he finding that he was born in Hawaii without providing any explanation as to what evidence he relied upon to make such a finding. His Initial Decision is silent as to what evidence he relied upon to find that Obama was born in Hawaii. Also, the ALJ relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to rule that Obama, born to an alien father, is a “natural born Citizen.”

On April 12, 2012, Secretary of State, Kimberly M. Guadagno, issued her Final Decision in Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran v. Barack Obama New Jersey Primary Ballot Objection. A copy of her decision may be read here, http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/89431332-Final-Decision-of-SOS-in-Purpura-Moran-Ballot-Objection-4-12-12 . She concludes without any explanation: “After full consideration of the record and a review of the exceptions filed, I hereby adopt the ALJ’s Initial Decision in its entirety.”

The next step is an appeal directly to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Divison.

James said...

Mario,

I read the judge's decision. He never said Obama was born in Hawaii. Where in the decision did he say this? The judge merely stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii for sole and only purpose to address the Natural Born Citizen argument. The judge in no way made any finding of fact that Obama was born in Hawaii and even claimed that he was. The judge simply made the argument (In support of your argument), that had Obama been born in Hawaii, he would in fact be a Natural Born Citizen, but the judge wasn't actually stating that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Doublee said...

I am not one to propose conspiracy theories, but something has to be going on. (Read: I am very frustrated.)

Is everybody really that afraid to challenge Obama's eligibility? If all this really is a conspiracy, no conspiracy can be this perfect, or can it?

There is usually someone, somewhere who has the guts to break ranks and do the right thing, but somehow I don't see that happening in this case.

Is there a rational answer to my somewhat irrational question?

daddynoz said...

Sir, why did you not place more emphasis on the unique instance where our Supreme Court has reflected on the meaning of A2 NBC in Minor v Happersett? The lower courts continue to cite WKA as definitive when we all know such is ridiculous whereas those born of domiciled alien are "citizens" is hardly reflective of presidential eligibility.

I have yet to hear a jurist reflect on the import of MvH.

Harold Smith said...

Challenging Obama's eligibility to ballot access is in essence a direct challenge to the "deep government", i.e., the criminal elitist class that actually runs the U.S. government.
They can't afford to have even one single state in the Union recognize/acknowledge Obama's ineligibility, lest an unprecenendet constitutional crisis ensue, the sham be exposed, and the whole house of cards come tumbling down. Thus they are undoubtedly prepared to spend millions of taxpayer dollars and go to any extreme, no doubt including bribery, blackmail, threats, etc., to preserve the status quo. The behind-the-scenes pressure they must be exerting, to keep this from going anywhere, must be mind-boggling.

Puzo1 said...

James,

“Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” Initial Decision, p. 7.

ALJ Masin "accepted" that Obama was born in Hawaii to rule that he is a "natural born Citizen." If he was not sure as to where he was born, he would have told us that he was assuming where Obama was born for the sake of argument. He did not tell us that his was only an assumption. Rather, he said that he accepted that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Furthermore, your point is a bit absurd given that the American public has been told for the last 4 years that Obama was born in Hawaii. Are you telling us that we do not know where Obama was born? Are you telling us that there was no evidence before the court for the ALJ to find that Obama was born in Hawaii? What, now a court of law in which that exact issue is challenged, can only assume that he was born in Hawaii? According to the ALJ, birth in the U.S. is a constituent element of being a "natural born Citizen" and he surely cannot assume anything in concluding that someone is or is not a "natural born Citizen" which, along with age and residency, makes that person eligible to be elected President and Commander in Chief of the Military and therefore also eligible to be placed on the New Jersey state ballot used for election to that office.

Harold Smith said...

I wonder if anything can be done in the international arena? Can the issue of Obama's illegitimate Presidency be brought up in the General Assembly of the UN? If so, who would have "standing" to do it? If the UN can involve itself in the internal affairs of Libya, and determine Gadhafi's legitimacy as ruler, for example, and if the UN can debate the internal affairs of Syria and can debate Assad's legitimacy, then why should the legitimacy of Obama's manifestly illegitimate regime be off limits?

Can Iran dispute the legitimacy of the Obama regime as an agent of the U.S. government/UN Security Council in the upcoming negotiations over its "nuclear program"?

If Canada invaded the U.S. tomorrow, and by the use of force successfully installed a puppet ruler, would that ruler still have a seat on the UN Security Council representing the "United States"?

But if Canada successfully overthrew the U.S. government from within, by way of fraud instead of force, and installed an illegitimate puppet ruler, would that regime still have a seat on the UN Security Council masquerading as the "U.S. government"?

Joe said...

Please correct me if I am wrong, when an appeal is made the attorneys can argue mistakes made in the law but not the merits.

This judge "considered" Obama was born in HI even though no evidence before him showed that. Based on that alone, would an honest appeals court have to overturn it? Wasn't it the candidate's burden of proof to prove he is eligible? If it was, then a normal person would think that the candidate would need to show he was born in HI for the Judge to come to that conclusion.

Puzo1 said...

Joe,

The merits of a decision can be attacked on appeal. You might be referring to not being able to appeal credibility which can only be done in very limited circumstances. In any event, credibility is not an issue here since Obama did not testify and the question of his identity and place of birth was handled by a stipulation agreed to by Obama's attorney.

New Jersey ALJ Masin did not "consider[]" that Obama was born in Hawaii even though no evidence of that fact was presented to him. That is what Georgia ALJ Mahihi did in Georgia with a questionable evidentiary record. Rather, ALJ Masin "accepted" that he was born in Hawaii with a stipulation by Obama's lawyer and acknowledgement by the ALJ himself that there was absolutely no evidence before the court of that fact, including no evidence of the electronic internet image of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth he posted on the internet on April 27, 2011.

I agree that Candidate Obama has the burden when he is sufficiently challenged in a ballot challenge as to his eligibility to be elected President. In this New Jersey challenge, he presented absolutely no evidence.

There is no way to tell what the Appellate Division will do.

Joe said...

Thank you so much for answering me. I would conclude then that since the burden of proof was on the candidate and no proof was offered by the defendant, that the Judge legally erred in his decision and should be overturned on appeal.

Also there need be no law to require a candidate to prove they are eligible. The agencies and departments of the state are perfectly capable of setting policies and regulations to comply with the law like they do all the time with other laws that are enacted.

Now if we take the handful of cases where we have clear unjust rulings by a Judge, a complaint to the bar should be filed. I don't think that is possible with an ALJ. Some of these judges and clerks are practicing obstruction of justice in their capacities.

Carlyle said...

Everybody seems awestruck today over the fact that Secret Service agents may have compromised National Security - most particularly in leaving themselves open to blackmail.

Yet, what they did is minuscule in comparison to what The Obama does every day. Regardless of the ground truth, simply the KNOWN FACT that he is extraordinarily intent on hiding several key disclosures of his past, leaves him AND THE NATION unbelievably open to threats.

We need to insist on complete disclosure on these grounds alone. That is been MY major issue all along. I don't know what these facts will reveal - good or bad - or if bad, how bad. All I know is that having such secrets is fatal to National Security.

The failure of 'the system' to address this open sucking grievous chest wound is simply amazing and unexplainable.

Mick said...

Mario,

Is this quackery?

http://www.dailypaul.com/226838/the-united-states-corporation-and-mr-obama-have-a-real-big-problem#comment-2384698

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

Keep fighting up to the Supreme Court of the USA!! Do not give up!!

However, not wanting to be pessimism, even the Supreme Court of the USA might find bogus and highly dishonest excuses to avoid ruling on Obama's issues altogether!! I hope I am wrong!!

Robert said...

Enlarge B.C. box 18a. That second vowel in the "Stanley" in parenthesis looks like an "a" or an "o," but definitely not an "e."

winnybar said...

You lost the case by not proving the white house birth certificate was a forgery.
No legal document supports the claim that Obama has a black or Kenya father and a white or US mother.

A Easy case to win but you keep telling the Obama story which is a fable without a stitch of evidence.

Ray said...

I have discovered an excellent explanation refuting the idea that English common law is the basis of the Federal govt.

The explanation is found in the Appendix to "Correspondence between George Nicholas Esq. of Kentucky, and the Hon. Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, on the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, 1798"

The Appendix is titled, "Observations of Judge Addisons Charge to the Grand Jury On the Liberty-of-the-Press"

Here, heavily paraphrased, is the thrust of the argument:

Could the common law of England become part of the law of the United States by its being part of the law of each of the states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?

Although this would be giving efficacy to the inferior instead of the superior, let it be considered.

The law of each state prior to the adoption of the Constitution consisted of the common law of England, the state constitution, and the acts of the state legislature.

The common law of England then was only one of three pillars on which the law of each state was built. It was also the weakest of the three; because it ceased to have any efficacy as law as soon as it was clearly contradicted by either of the others.

If the common law became a part of the law of the United States, because it was part of the law of the individual state, the other two parts of the law of those states must also become a part of the law of the United States, and for the same reason.

But it may be said that these other two parts of the law of each state were dissimilar in the different states, and therefore could not become a part of the law of the United States; whereas the common law of England, in every state being the same, it might become the common law of the United States.

Is the common law of England in every state the same?

The acts of the British parliament are in force in the different states up to different periods; in some to the reign of one king, in others to that of a different king.

Thus the common law of England would be different in these two states.

But the great difference which has been made in the common law in the different states, has proceeded from the changes which have been made in it, by the acts of all the legislatures of the different states, from the time of their first settlement.

Not only is the common law of England different among the states, each state legislature has altered it in different ways; thus the common law of the various states is in no way uniform.

The common law being materially different in all the sates, how can there be any common law in the United States? How shall it be determined which of the states shall be considered as the standard, so far as to make their common law, the common law of the United States? Shall it be a majority of the states; or shall it be those states which contain a majority of the people of the United States? &c &c

Incorporation of the common law into the Federal govt is impracticable.


Has the common law of England been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution?

The constitution declares, that "this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

The common law of England has not been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution.


Therefore, in no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.


The relevant pages of the original document, as well as a transcript from those images, is available at scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89761472/

Or go to the Library of Congress
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fawbib:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28bbf0081%29%29

Puzo1 said...

Winnybar,

Clearly you are an Obot who sets out here without good reason to discredit my work like all good little Obots.

On whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" which involves the issues of whether Obama was born in the United States and whether he was born to two U.S. citizen parents, I was going to prove with an expert witness that the April 27, 2011 Certificate of Live Birth internet image is a manipulated, having been done either by a software program or human or both, electronic image which cannot be legally used to prove that Obama was born in the United States. Obama's lawyer objected, saying that the internet image was not relevant. I said provided she stipulated that the internet image is not evidence that Obama was born in the United States, I would withdraw my witness. ALJ Mesin asked her if she agreed that she had produced no evidence that Obama was born in the United States and that the internet image was not to be considered as any such evidence in the case. She agreed and added that she had no intention of producing any evidence showing that Obama was born in the United States.

Hence, I did not have to prove the internet image was a forgery, for the internet image as far as the court was concerned does not exist as evidence that Obama was born in the United States. Also, Obama's lawyer produced no other evidence showing that Obama was born in the United States. The ALJ confirmed on the record that there was no evidence before him showing that Obama was born in the United States.

Yet, ALJ Mesin found that Obama, in order to get his name on the primary election ballot in which he seeks to run for the Office of President, has no legal obligation to produce any evidence that he is constitutionally eligible for that office, even though there exists a duly filed objection to that petition on the ground of eligibility for the office the candidate seeks. Additionally, even though there is no evidence in the record that Obama was born in the United States, he "accepted" that Obama was born in Hawaii

The Secretary of State adopted the ALJ decision in full which includes the finding that (1) Obama has no legal obligation to produce any evidence of eligibility to get on the primary ballot even when there is a duly filed eligibility objection to that petition supported by the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions and statutes and the time for Obama to decline his nomination had at the time she rendered her decision already passed and (2) even though there is absolutely no evidence in the record that he was born in Hawaii, it is "accepted" that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Tychicus said...

Sir,
thanks for making the details of the stipulation absolutely clear.
Please keep us updated on your progress.
Prayers.
Courage and Godspeed.

Puzo1 said...

Ray,

Excellent find and presentation. This is what I argued to ALJ Masin both in my Objection, oral arguments, and Exceptions. He did not accept my arguments because as far as he is concerned, there is no basis to my argument that the English common law was only selectively adopted on the state level and not at all on the federal level.

I explained that there is no historical or legal support for Justice Gray's assertion in Wong Kim Ark that the English common law continued to prevail on the national level to define citizenship in the United States after July 4, 1776. Just the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 show that Congress abrogated the English common law on the national level. Under those statutes, children followed the citizenship of the father who also gave his citizenship to his wife. If the parents were not citizens, the child could not be a "citizen of the United States," even if the child was born in the United States, let alone a natural born citizen which required birth in the United States to two citizen parents. Once the parents naturalized, the child also became a "citizen of the United States." Congress simply did not allow for dual allegiance and citizenship. The family unit could only have one allegiance and citizenship. This was not the English common law which allowed a child to be a "natural born subject" by mere birth in the King's dominions and obedience, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. The English common law created split allegiances and citizenship within the family itself, a notion which the Founders and Framers rejected along with the English common law's doctrine of perpetual allegiance and subjectship to the King.

No court has yet been willing to address these arguments. Rather, they simply avoid the issue by citing Wong Kim Ark and misrepresenting the holding of the case, saying that the Court held that Wong was a "natural born Citizen" rather than stating what the Court really did which was to hold that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled alien parents, was born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therfore a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States," but not an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Joe said...

Mario,
When is your appeal due?

I just read your comment above about english common law and it was clear as day.

Sometimes the formal style of a legal brief doesn't lend well to explanations. Use some of what you wrote above into consideration for your brief. It really hones down on the meat of it. And if they do that, there is no getting around it.

Puzo1 said...

John Woodman said at his blog: “But the points already presented should be enough to establish that the Supreme Court clearly found that Wong Kim Ark was not only “a citizen,” he was also ‘natural born.’” This is what ALJ Masin also said in the New Jersey ballot objection case.

I asked Mr. Woodman: “Why do you not give us an exact quote from Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark in which as you say he said that Wong was “natural born.” Please do not answer my question by providing some link. Your previous use of that technique shows clearly that you have nothing to back up your pompous pronouncements.”

John Woodmam responded: "Apparently, the fact that I’ve already written a clear and detailed full article on the subject isn’t “good enough” for you. You demand that I reduce an entire detailed analysis of some 2,300 words that I have previously written on the subject to a single sound bite — and you further imply that if I can’t, or won’t, accede to your demand, then what I’ve said in the course of that 2,300 word analysis is somehow not valid. The demand is bogus. It’s not sincere. You know, and I know, that the Court clearly found that any person in Wong Kim Ark’s exact situation was both “natural born” and “a citizen.”

You know, and I know, that the Court clearly stated that the exact same rule had always applied, in the United States as well as England; that under that rule the children born on the soil of the country, even of alien parents — which precisely and perfectly describes Wong Kim Ark — were always “natural born;” and that that rule had never been changed. The fact that you’re completely unwilling to meet all of the points made in the article referenced head-on, and attempt to answer them, shows that you can’t.
But we knew that already.”

My response: I guess Mr. Woodman cannot point to any part of the Wong Kim Ark decision in which the Court said that Wong was “natural born.”

Puzo1 said...

I just got this email. I want to post it here along with my response to clear some misstatements that have been made on the internet. Here is the email and my response:

Dear Mario Apuzzo, First of all, THANK YOU for your work on the Purpura and Moran case! Secondly ...as I have been trying to spread the news about Allison Hill's confession on facebook (where I have the MAXIMUM number of 5,000 friends ...or at least 4,995 at any given moment) ...I would like to ask your help. Can you, or one of your associates, please tell me where in the video of the court proceedings posted on youtube.com - in minutes and seconds - (where) Allison Hill explicitly concedes that the image posted as representing Obama's birth certificate was a forgery? This would be a great help! Thank You, Again, Mr. Apuzzo! Sincerely, [name deleted by me]

Here is my response:

Mr. [name deleted by me],

I am not personally aware of Ms. Hill ever admitting during the court proceedings that the posted image of the 4-27-11 birth certificate is a forgery. What she did stipulate to is that the image was not to be used as evidence in the court proceeding or by the NJ Secretary of State and that there was no other evidence before the court or the Secretary of State as to Obama's identity or place of birth. She said such evidence was all irrelevant to Obama getting on the NJ primary election ballot. ALJ Masin confirmed with her that that was her position and that there was no evidence before the court as to Obama's identity or place of birth and that such evidence was irrelevant. She agreed with the judge's assessment and the case proceeded on that basis.

The ALJ then ruled that Mr. Obama has no legal obligation to show that he is constitutionally eligible in order to get on the New Jersey primary election ballot and that "accepting" that he was born in Hawaii, he is a "natural born Citizen."

Mario Apuzzo

Unknown said...

I have been thinking about John Woodman's strange position. Here is what I have concluded. For Mr. Woodman natural born citizen means simply born in the land. He has appealed to a higher authority--God? a particular interpretation of natural law? I am not sure. In his mind the Founders erred. In Wong Kim Ark the matter is rectified. Mr. Ark is a citizen simply through birth which pleases Mr. Woodman to no end. Of course he can not send the requested phrase because it does not exist and could not. If natural born and simply born in the land are the same, then Mr. Ark was also a natural born citizen. This is obvious if you concede his point of view.
The problem is this: we are not dealing with vocabulary but with a decision which might have been otherwise by the Founders. The could have added two more requirements: say owning ten horses and a thousand acres of land. They definitely had that freedom; they were not somehow bound by vocabulary. John Woodman wants to take away that freedom. He wants to go back in time and reprimand them for their mistake.

Texoma said...

What Mr. Goodman does not know (or does not wish to admit) is that:

Aliens (aka “alien friends”) in England suspended their home country allegiance and owed a temporary allegiance to the English king. They were expected to take, or at least comply with, the Oath of Allegiance, whereby they promised that, while on English soil, they would "bear faith and true allegiance” to the English king. This temporary allegiance was sufficient for their English-born children to be given subjecthood -- they were deemed to be natural-born subjects by statute. But it was the children of English subjects (persons who were under the “actual obedience” of the King) who were natural-born subjects in fact and not by any law.

In the US, aliens do not suspend their home country allegiance. They are not expected to take, nor at least comply with, any type of Oath of Allegiance until such time as they become citizens (naturalization). While residing in the US, these aliens do not “bear faith and true allegiance” to the US – their faith and true allegiance remains with their home country. This lack of allegiance to the US explains why the naturalization acts from 1790 to 1855 considered the US-born children of alien parents to be aliens.

Following the 1898 US Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, the US-born children of alien parents were considered to be citizens, but not natural born citizens. There is no allegiance on the part of aliens residing in the US which would allow their US-born children to be deemed natural born citizens. It is only the US-born children of American citizens (persons who do bear faith and true allegiance to the US and are under the “actual obedience” of the US) who are natural born citizens – citizens at birth in fact by the laws of nature, and not by any law of man.

MichaelN said...

@ Texoma.

That (what you said) is why Wong Kim Ark only got "citizen", even after all the lengthy discussion about "natural born" ............ he only got "citizen".

English common law provides that there must necessarily be TWO essential qualities to make a "natural born", they are, as Lord Coke put it, "nature and birth right" or "procreation and birth right".

i.e. natural descent and native birth-right.

Furthermore, Coke made the point that a "natural born' can be such without the native birth-right, but can never be "natural born" without the "nature" (i.e. natural descent)

.

js said...

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1

There is no doubt that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution. Twisting words the way Woodman does, omissions, and outright contradictions, show that John Woodman is seeking facts to find support for this theory instead of using them to create it. To pretend that Benjamin Franklin didnt understand the French language is an insult to all intelligent people. The term indigènes used by Vattel has its roots in latin. The term directly translates to natives. To suggest that children born to a father traveling to a foreign nation was a native, goes against the truth. The natural citizens, or the idigenes population, can only be derived from the citizens themselves, much like the indigenous plants from the area are not indigenous if the were transported there and planted by a foreign entity. To claim that bamboo was indigenous to Cleveland because a Chinese national planted it there and it grew is pure ignorance.

I find it amusing how Woodman frames his theory though. He uses the term inigenous to indicate that the children of foreign travelers born in a nation are natural born citizens of that nation. That is a huge contradiction. If those parents leave the nation, return to thier homeland with thier child, the child is recognized as a natural born citizen of its parents homeland. As a matter of fact, while the parents stay in the foreign nation thier child was born in, the child is still considered to be a citizen of a foreign nation by right of birth. You can be a natural born citizen of 2 nations at birth. Its that simple. If it were different, nations would have the right to remove the child born within its borders to foreign travelers from the custody of its parents because that nation has sole jurisdiction over the child, and that, truely is, ignorance.

Then Woodman hacks the Common Law. Leo Donofrio presented a substantial fact finding exposure of exactly what the Common Law was One sovereign, the rest were subjects. The King was Gods representative on Earth as a matter of fact, and ONLY Christians could be Subjects of the King. Eww...thats nasty stuff. But its true, prior to the war of Independence, the Crown considered all non christians enemies of the state, no matter where they were born, or who thier parents were.

So much for John Woodmans theory about NBC. There is no way that they founding fathers "assumed" the British Common law when you consider US Citizenship. The 2 are so far apart that its the proverbial elephant in the middle of the room that nobody, ecspecially John Woodman, wants to talk about.

"Hence, one could be born on English soil, in the King’s castle even, to parents who loved the King, but if the parents weren’t Christian, they could not be natural-born subjects. Instead, they were considered enemies of the King, because they refused to believe that the King was God’s monarch on Earth. This is not “natural law” to anyone who wasn’t Christian.
The English common law’s uniquely Christian definition of natural law governs the English common law concept of natural subjection/natural allegiance. And that is why the English common law definition of “natural-born subject” can never be judicially recognized as synonymous with “natural-born citizen”. Such a construction of Article 2, Section 1, would be directly repugnant to the 1st Amendment" (Leo Donofrio)

mrmynor said...

You people are fools, all of you. The reason why this doesn't make sense to you isn't because it doesn't make logical sense, it is because you are either too obstinate to accept the Judge's findings, or too dimwitted to comprehend his logic, Let me lay it out straight for you, as futile as that effort will likely prove.

The stipulation that the BC was not offered to the NJ SoS as proof of Obama's eligibility has no legal consequence because the means by which names are added to the ballot in NJ does not require the individual's consent for a petition to be filed seeking to add his or her name to the ballot. Because he need not consent, he does not have an affirmative duty to provide proof of eligibility to the SoS before the petition can be granted. The fact that no birth certificate has been provided to the SoS by Obama therefore is not fatal to the petition that the plaintiff in this case is attempting to attack - because it need not be submitted prior to the petition being granted, it cannot be considered the basis of that decision.

The legitimacy of the BC is irrelevant to the case as well for this very same reason - the document being attacked was neither submitted nor considered in relation to the petition placing Obama's name on the ballot. It is not fraud because it has simply been posted to the white house website. It has not been offered by Obama as proof of his citizenship to satisfy any legal requirement that he prove his citizenship to the NJ Secretary of State to get his name on the ballot. As such, whether it is legitimate has no bearing on any issue before the Court to be decided.

Argument 1, that Obama should be removed from the ballot because he has failed to prove his citizenship to the NJ SoS, fails because there is no legal requirement under NJ law that he provide such proof prior to having his name placed on the ballot.

As far as the whole "Natural-Born" argument is concerned, it was handled the exact same way as every other court that has passed on the issue: disposed of by reference to Wong Kim Ark, which unequivocally states that citizenship is gained in two ways, by birth or by naturalization. The Supreme Court outright rejected the notion that the citizenship of one's parents is determinative of one's status as a natural born citizen if born within the territory. Any assertions to the contrary are simply not supported by any binding legal authority in this country.

It doesn't matter that the law of nations was consulted in the drafting of the constitution, because the law of nation is not binding legal authority in this country. The common law tradition, as thoroughly discussed in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, recognizes that birth within the territory of the king makes one a subject of the king. This was precisely the same rule in effect in every one of the colonies at the time that the constitution was drafted.

It doesn't matter what any of you think the Constitution's words mean because none of you are imbued with the authority to decide such matters. That authority is possessed solely by the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and those 9 justices decided the issue over 125 years ago. It is settled law.

The ALJ's ruling, from a legal standpoint, was spot on, y'all are just too ignorant of the law to understand why. If Mr. Apuzzo wanted a better result, he should have brought a better claim.

MichaelN said...

@ mrmynor said .........

"The common law tradition, as thoroughly discussed in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, recognizes that birth within the territory of the king makes one a subject of the king."

WRONG!

One cannot be a "natural born" unless the father is a "subject".

If the father is not a "subject" then the child, even if born "in the territory" cannot be a "subject".

To be consistent with the common law of England, in the US the father must be a "citizen" for his child, if "born in the territory", to be a "natural born".

THAT is WHY, with all the discussion about "natural born" that took place in the WKA court, that WKA only got ruled as a "citizen" and NOT a "natural born".

YOU are the fool.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

mrynor,

(1) As to whether Obama has a legal obligation under New Jersey law to prove that he is eligible for the office he seeks, clearly he does. Here are the controlling New Jersey statutes:

“19:23-7. Signers; certificates of candidates ….The petition shall further state the residence and post-office address of each person so indorsed, and shall certify that the person or persons so indorsed is or are legally qualified under the laws of this State to be nominated, and is or are a member or members of the political party named in the petition.

Accompanying the petition, each person indorsed therein shall file a certificate, stating that he is qualified for the office mentioned in the petition, that he is a member of the political party named therein, that he consents to stand as a candidate for nomination at the ensuing primary election of such political party, and that, if nominated, he consents to accept the nomination, to which shall be annexed the oath of allegiance prescribed in R.S.41:1-1, duly taken and subscribed by him before an officer authorized to take oaths in this State….”

“19:23-15 Acceptance, statement by candidates to accompany petitions. Accompanying the petition and attached thereto each person indorsed therein shall file a certificate, stating that he is qualified for the office mentioned in the petition; that he consents to stand as a candidate for nomination at the ensuing primary election, and that if nominated, he agrees to accept the nomination. Such acceptance shall certify that the candidate is a resident of and a legal voter in the jurisdiction of the office for which the nomination is to be made and there shall be annexed thereto the oath of allegiance prescribed in section 41:1-1 of the Revised Statutes duly taken and subscribed by the person so nominated before an officer authorized to take oaths in this State….”

“19:23-16 Person nominated by petition; filing of certificate. Any person nominated at the primary by having his name written or pasted upon the primary ballot shall file a certificate stating that he is qualified for the office for which he has been nominated, that he is a resident of and a legal voter in the jurisdiction of the office for which the nomination is made and that he consents to stand as a candidate at the ensuing general election to which shall be annexed the oath of allegiance prescribed in section 41:1-1 of the Revised Statutes duly taken and subscribed by the person so nominated before an officer authorized to take oaths in this State.”

“19:25-3 Presidential candidates…. The petition shall be prepared and filed in the form and manner herein required for the indorsement of candidates to be voted for at the primary election for the general election, except that the candidate shall not be permitted to have a designation or slogan following his name, and that it shall not be necessary to have the consent of such candidate for President indorsed on the petition.”

“19:25-4 Certification of names indorsed. The Secretary of State shall certify the names so indorsed to the county clerk of each county not later than the 54th day before such primary election, but if any person so indorsed shall on or before such date decline in writing, filed in the office of the Secretary of State, to have his name printed upon the primary election ballot as a candidate for President, the Secretary of State shall not so certify such name.”

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Hence, both the petition circulator and the candidate have to certify that the candidate is eligible for the office he seeks. The elimination of consent only relates to a presidential candidate not having to endorse his consent on the petition. The statute clearly does not state that elimination of consent somehow excuses the circulator and candidate from having to certify eligibility. To say that it does is just inventing words and intent that are clearly not in the text. Finally, the ALJ gave great weight to consent not being needed and finding that the objection was premature because Obama could decline the nomination. Under N.J.S.A. 19:25-4, Obama only had until April 12, 2012 to decline the indorsement. The SOS made her final decision on April 12, 2012 and Obama had not declined the nomination. Hence, when the SOS made her decision, she knew that Obama had not declined the nomination.

Both the ALJ and SOS have not properly interpreted and applied the applicable statutes. Additionally, the SOS knew that Obama did not decline the nomination, but still excused him from proving his eligibility. So there is no legal basis for the ALJ and SOS to excuse Obama from having to prove when duly challenged that he is eligible for the Office of President before being permitted on the New Jersey primary election ballot.

(2) As to the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” any child born in 1790 in the United States to alien parents (one or two) was considered under the Naturalization Act of 1790 an alien and therefore a foreigner. The child could become a "citizen of the United States" (not a "natural born Citizen") if his or her parents naturalized before the child's age of majority. If the parents did not naturalize, the child would have to naturalize on his or her own when an adult. Hence, Obama, even if born in the U.S., since he was born to a British citizen father who was not a U.S. citizen, in 1790 would have been an alien and foreigner and surely not a "natural born Citizen." The same 1790 law provision was repeated in the Acts of 1795, 1802, and 1855. These laws, except for the short-lived 1790 Act, also considered a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents to be a “citizen of the United States” (the 1790 Act said “natural born citizen,” but only retroactively). These acts of Congress abrogated any English common law rule that might have been carried forward from any colony into a new state. These congressional acts, passed by legislators many of whom were Founders and Framers, are solid evidence that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the United States to citizen parents.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the definition of a “natural born Citizen” as was confirmed by Minor v. Happersett (1875) which defined one as a child born in a country of parents who are citizens of that country. The same definition was confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong did was allow a child born in the U.S. to one or two domiciled alien parents, who had always been an alien as I showed above, to be a “citizen of the United States,” but not a “natural born Citizen,” which was only preserved for the children born in the U.S. to citizen parents.

George Washington, not being a "natural born Citizen," was a "Citizen of the United States" and allowed to be President by the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. That clause said that a “Citizen of the United States” was eligible to be president provided he had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution. But after the adoption of the Constitution, only a “natural born Citizen” could be President.” Obama, if born in Hawaii, would be at most a “citizen of the United States,” but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He, unlike George Washington who benefited from the grandfather clause, is not eligible to be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Carlyle said...

Now I see Jeb Bush is pushing Rubio for VP. We have got to figure out a way to defuse this situation. It is an 'atom bomb' waiting to destroy us.

If he is selected it will leave us exactly two options: 1) cry out against him and risk 4 more years of Obamanation, or 2) be ridiculed as racists and political opportunists of the first order.

Our only hope of resolving this huge constitutional issue is to be totally even handed and thorough.

Puzo1 said...

I of II,

John Woodman said he was retiring from the “natural born Citizen” debate. But he is back in action. Here is our latest bout at his blog:

Mr. Woodman,

You conclude: "Hmmm. it would appear that there is absolutely no historical evidence at all for any link between Vattel’s idea of what citizens were, and the Constitutional phrase, 'natural born citizen.'” I see that you persist in making outlandish and desperate claims.

(1) First, you argue that the Founders and Framers relied upon “our our English heritage and the common law” to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The historical record is replete with evidence that the Founders and Framers looked to natural law and the law of nations and not to the English common law and Coke and Blackstone for justification for the American Revolution. Without getting into a discussion on Cicero, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, David Ramsay, St. George Tucker, Chief Justice John Marshall, the early Congresses in 1790, 1795, and 1803, among the many, I will just cite and quote a small part of my brief which was submitted to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in the case of Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge.

“Consider that

‘[f]or James Otis, who was
as well read as any American in both the English common law and the European theories of natural law, the conflict became especially acute. His frantic attempts to reconcile the two laws—Coke
with Vattel—formed the crisis of his life and helped to tear his mind to pieces. Because he knew English history and the common law too well, because he clung too stubbornly to the veracity of seventeenth-century notions of jurisprudence and parliamentary supremacy, he was eventually compelled to sacrifice Vattel for Coke, to deny natural reason for the sake of historical truth, and to miss the Revolution.'

Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, at 9 (1998) (citing Bernard Bailyn, ed. Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750-1776 (Cambridge, 1965--), I, 100-03, 106-07, 121-123, 409-17, 546-52, and noting that Bailyn’s introductory essay to the Pamphlets, entitled “The Transforming Radicalism of the American Revolution,” has been elaborated and republished separately as “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution” (Cambridge, Mass., 1967)).”

Of course, we know that the Founders and Framers for sure chose natural reason, for they held “these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776). And we also know that they had a Revolution to “dissolve the Political bands which have connected them with another” [Great Britain] and to fight for those rights. Id. para. 1. So evidently they chose Vattel rather than Coke or Blackstone. Indeed, “It is therefore to be expected that, when terms of municipal law are found in the Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone’s Commentaries; and when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them.” James Brown Scott, The United States of America: A Study in International Organization 439 (1920). It was, for sure, as Gordon S. Wood suggests, the writing and thinking of Vattel that was the primary motivation for them to have that Revolution and create the constitutional republic. On the other hand, you fail to present any contemporaneous historical evidence that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” under the English common law.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

(2) Next you argue that there is no evidence which shows a link between Vattel and the “natural born Citizen” clause. May I suggest your read and understand The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., dissenting and concurring for other reasons); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830); Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (Daniels, J., concurring); Ludlam, Executrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Also, Chief Justice John Marshall cites and quotes Vattel for his definition of a “native or indigenes” which we know from later Supreme Court and lower court cases means “natural born Citizen.” Scott, Ludlam, Ex parte Reynold, and Ward explicitly refer to Vattel and translate his “Les naturels, ou indigene” into “natural-born Citizen.” Finally, both Minor and Wong confirm Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen.” On the other hand, you fail to present any legal evidence that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” (not a “citizen of the United States”) under the English common law.

All this completely debunks your arguments.

I suggest to you that instead of trying to prove a legal point by showing us the results of your manipulated google searches, try reading and understanding the actual historical record and U.S. Supreme Court cases.

SaipanAnnie said...

mrmynor said...

You people are fools, all of you.

Well, Bari, I see my message on your John Wood Man post here at Mr. Apuzzo's blog fell on your ears of stone. Must be you think you have no need to listen to any person. Like father like son, as they say, your father Malcolm would not listen to any person either. I know this from your own words that time on Fathers Day when you were asked what it was about your father that you do not wish to repeat with your life. He did not listen, you said then. He did not listen.

But just because Malcolm and you each think you are so smart that you need no one's advice does not mean that we do not listen. We with great certainty do listen, and it is no matter what fake identity you make up and hide behind, always we know it is you, Bari, as we listen we hear you loud and clearly in your mean and huffy words.


It is not fraud because it has simply been posted to the white house website.

Bari do you really believe it is not fraud to tell America on tv that the fake forged birth certificate you hold up is proof you were born in Hawaii like you always said you were? And to post it on the web site of The White House is not fraud. either?

Tell us then, here at Mr. Apuzzo's blog, just what you call your actions. Barking at a carnival like you said about Mr. Trump who by the way only wanted truth about you.

Well Bari, this is the time it is most wise for you to listen.

Better watch out, Bari. As they say on reality tv what you say here at Mr. Apuzzo's blog will be used in a court of law against you.

Larry said...

Someone has informed me that there is no record of Obama's mother and grandmother ever having Hawaiian Territorial ID cards , required for all residents of Hawaii prior to Statehood in 1959. Hope this tidbit helps.

MichaelN said...

"Though the king can make treaties, yet he cannot make a treaty contrary to the constitution of his country.

Where did their constitution originate?

It is founded on a number of maxims, which, by long time, are rendered sacred and inviolable.

Where are there such maxims in the American Constitution?

In that country, which we formerly called our mother country, they have had, for many centuries, certain fundamental maxims, which have secured their persons and properties, and prevented a dismemberment of their country.

The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people.

We are placed in a still better condition -- in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before.

We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis.

We can establish what government we please.

But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security.

You will find no such thing in the English government.

The common law of England is NOT THE COMMON LAW OF THESE STATES.

I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire."

- Mr. GEORGE MASON
THURSDAY, June 19, 1788

One of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Art Telles said...

1 of 2

Mr. Arpuzzo, maybe it's time...

... to begin the national education process about the ONLY location in all of the founding documents where "natural born Citizen" is mentioned, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

How about billboards across America that ask the simple question,

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
... what is it?
... what does it mean?
www.someURLhere[.]come

Maybe a “prairie fire” can be lit that will get the thoughtful attention of the national "thought leader" BIG Talkers on Radio and TV and BIG Writers in Print and BIG Bloggers Online.

Maybe the vigorous nudge on the supine shoulder with a truthful shout of, speaking politically, “to arms, to arms, the Republic is in danger," will get the thoughtful attention of the “thought leaders” who are in deep sleep to

- WAKE UP…
- Look UP…
- Sit UP…
- Stand UP…
- Speak UP…

and just TALK TALK TALK... about

the ORIGINAL intent of
the ORIGINAL words of
the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic,

the U.S. Constitution,
and specifically about the eternal relevance of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

Let the educatin' begin...

- Rush Limbaugh,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Governor Sarah Palin,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Senator Marco Rubio,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Senator Rick Santorum,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Speaker Newt Gingrich,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Congressman Ron Paul,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, mean to you?
- Governor Bobby Jindal,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Mark Levin,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Glenn Beck,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Sean Hannity,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Ben Shapiro,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Rich Lowry,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Jonah Goldberg,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?

- et al., you know who you are,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?

And, of course...

- Joe Farah,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Sheriff Joe Arpaio,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?
- Mario Arpuzzo, Esq.,
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 means to you?

- et al. you know who you are, friends of Joe and Joe and Mario
what does Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 mean to you?

A simple question for the long term educatin' of "we the people" who simply want to DEFEND the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section, 1, Clause 5.

Art

Art Telles said...

2 of 2

Mr. Arpuzzo, maybe it's time...

This is what Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 means to me.

The complete answer to the Clause 5 question should NOT include the name of putative President BHObama, but the Clause 5 answer can include clarification in context about these two points.

(1) How an Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” would NOT want to seal ALL personal records because there would NOT be anything to hide.

(2) How ANY Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” could NOT be a foreign exchange student.

One way to clarify point #2 is by adducing the 1795 Naturalization Act and the single word “Citizen” which replaced the 1790 Naturalization Act and the three words “natural born Citizen.”

To me, this means confirmation.

It confirms to us in 2012 of the 21st century that to President Washington in 1787 of the 18th century, who had veto power if he did not agree with emending the three words “natural born Citizen” to the single word “Citizen,” the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL “birther” document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, referred ONLY to the child born on the soil of the United States with two “Citizen” parents.

The conclusion is obvious.

With two “Citizen” parents, the child born on the soil of the United States WOULD be a “natural born Citizen” with full Constitutional authority to be “… eligible to the Office of President… .”

So, BIG Talkers... BIG Writers... let the educatin' of "we the people" begin 'cause the Republic is watin' for ya, you betcha.

Yes, it is.

Art

juniper55 said...

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT????

Liberty Legal Foundation v Democratic National Cmte, US District Court, W. Tennessee

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/tennessee/tnwdce/2:2012cv02143/61189/18/

A judge finally agrees that NBC is an issue!!

Ray said...

Obama's attorney, Ms. Hill, employed a variation of a tactic Obama's team used in 2008/2009. Specifically, claiming that voters don't vote for candidates, but instead vote for delegates.

There is an important different between then and now which makes this arugment a red herring, an attempt to obfuscate, and to drag the issue into the weeds.

That difference is that in a Primary Election the delegates are party delegates, not Electoral College delegates as they would be in a General Election.

Party delegates are an internal mechanism of a party, not a function of the Constitution or Statute.

A Party may use whatever internal rules they wish to establish a mechanism of nominating a candidate.

N.J.S.A. 19:23-7 makes clear that in a Primary voters do vote for a candidate.

The NJ statue clearly denominates the name on the petition as "candidate"; "[petioners] indorse the person... named in their petition as candidate... for nomination"

By NJ law, the person named on the petition is the candidate.

The NJ statue clearly denominates the name on the ballot as "candidate"; "the name of the person... therein mentioned [on the petition] be printed upon the official primary ballots of their political party as the candidate... for such nomination"

By NJ law, the person named on the ballot is the candidate.

Party rules are an internal matter, the nominating mechanism can change at any time as we have seen recently with states/parties switching to and fro between winner-take-all and proportional awarding of delegates, or changing the number of delegates a state has (witness the RNC reducing Florda's delegates by 50%).

Ms. Hill's tactic might have some credibility in a General Election, but not in a Primary. There is nothing that requires a Party to use a delegate system, they could use a direct popularity vote if they so choose. The method of determining their candidate is their's to devise. However, the name on the Primary ballot is the name of the candidate, as is plainly stated in the NJ statute.

They may think themselves quite clever, but their tactic, their stupid little ploy, doesn't apply.

FollowTheConstitution said...

"But the statute does not say that such candidate does not have to show under the previous cited statutes that he or she is eligible for the office sought."

It would seem to be that the NJ statutes would not need to state such candidate has to show he is eligible because the Secretary of State would AUTOMATICALLY be REQUIRED to verify any candidate is eligible since the constitution already requires they must be. As the SoS and having been required to take an oath to the constitution, the SoS has a sworn DUTY to verify any candidate is eligible based on the constitution's MANDATE. Failure for the SoS to do so would be a direct breach of their oath and office by not taking it upon themselves to verify the constitutional requirement is meet, based solely on their oath they took to uphold and defend that constitution.

So it does not matter if NJ has any statute or not. Their very oath alone requires they uphold the constitution and which would require that office holder to have to verify any candidate is eligible.

So if they don't uphold their oath to the constitution then I would think the Plaintiffs in this case need to file a major civil suit against the SoS for breach of her oath to uphold the constitution and for their failure to provide HONEST services to the public!

mrmynor said...

@juniper55 - BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously guy, you may as well not even bother reading legal documents, because you CLEARLY lack sufficient knowledge of the law to be able to understand them. The order that you linked to is anything but favorable for the birther movement. Allow me to explain:

First of all, the judge hearing the motion ruled against the birthers, who very much wanted this case moved back to state court in Tennessee, and apparently to Shelby County where it was originally filed. My guess is that the plaintiffs thought one of the Shelby county judges would give them a favorable ruling, so they fabricated a defendant that they claim maintains an office in Shelby county but which apparently has yet to respond to any filings (per footnote 1).

The Judge did not recognize the alleged issue of whether Obama is a natural born citizen as having any legitimacy. He did not rule on the meaning of the phrase, nor did he consider the merits of any of the Plaintiff's arguments. He simply repeated the fact that plaintiff's complaint alleges that President Obama is not a "natural born citizen" under the definition of the phrase as used in the Constitution, and then found that the question was fundamentally one of federal law (in other words, the case will be determined base on the meaning of the phrase found in the U.S. (FEDERAL) Constitution). He doesn't recognize that there is a legitimate controversy here, he simply recognizes that the plaintiffs are claiming that there is a controversy here.

What happens next is that in 21 days the Plaintiff's will have to submit a brief responding to the Defendant's Motion to dismiss, which is referenced both in footnote 1 and in the final paragraph of the order. If they fail to submit a brief, the case will be dismissed with prejudice, which in all probability is the same thing that will happen regardless of whether they submit a brief because the court will consider the merits of their argument in disposing of the motion to dismiss.

Even if the court finds that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the case (which would be a marked departure from the rest of the cases challenging Obama's qualifications), the fact of the matter is that the opinion that the plaintiff's cite to as defining "Natural Born Citizen" as that phrase is used in Article 2 does nothing of the sort. In fact, that case specifically declines to decide the issue of whether that definition of Natural-born Citizen encompasses the children of resident aliens born on U.S. soil, contrary to what the Plaintiff's suggest. Because there is no binding legal authority for the proposition the complaint is based on, the odds of them surviving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted are slim to none.

By all means, though, y'all keep throwing away time and money failing the "good" fight pro se so we can keep the bright young attorneys working for the DNC busy and well paid.

Puzo1 said...

mrmynor,

May I suggest that you change your name, for you either do not understand what Minor said or you intentionally represent its meaning.

The question left open by Minor was not whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a "natural born Citizen." It is disingenuous to suggest that our U.S. Supreme Court did not know if such a child was a "natural born Citizen." The historical record, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, and U.S. Supreme Court law show that such a child prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment had never been a "citizen," let alone a "natural born Citizen."

The question that Minor left open was whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” under the new Fourteenth Amendment. Minor did not resolve the Fourteenth Amendment question because given that Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen," it did not have to.

Wong Kim Ark in 1898 did resolve the open question. Relying on the English common law and abandoning the child’s parent’s citizenship and replacing it with the child’s parent’s domicile, it declared such a child a "citizen" from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a "natural born Citizen" under Article II.

As Wong explained for children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, having the status of a "citizen" from the moment of birth does not mean one is not a naturalized citizen. On the contrary, Wong said that such a child, even though a "citizen" from the moment of birth, was naturalized at birth. Hence, simply being declared a "citizen" from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment or some Congressional Act does not make one an Article II "natural born Citizen."

All this means that the original American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents, has to this day never been changed and still prevails today.

mrmynor said...

Mr. Apuzzo - First of all, my handle is in no way a reference to the Minor opinion. It is a music reference to the song "Harry Hood" played by the band Phish. I am thrilled to see that it went over your head.

Secondly, sir, do not purport to lecture me on the finer points of the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor. Were you even remotely correct in the interpretation you espouse, your efforts or those of your peers to this point would have been met with something other than abject failure. That is not the case. There is a reason why the vast majority of the plaintiffs in these sham birther cases have had to represent themselves pro se – it is because those of us in the profession who actually paid attention on the first day of law school when the foundational legal maxim stare decisis was explained recognize that the pseudo-legal arguments the birther movement has been pushing for the last 3 years are utterly ineffectual because they fly directly in the face of existing constitutional jurisprudence.

I’m sure that you can talk all day long about the naturalization laws that were in effect prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment. We can hearken back to the debates our founding fathers had over the proper language to use in framing the Constitution. I’m a big fan of history myself, I find it fascinating. For example, back in the 19th century when all of these statutes you are citing to were in effect, Chester A. Arthur , the son of an Irish immigrant, served as President. I mean, how could that even happen? Didn’t they know he couldn’t serve as president? The meaning of natural born citizen was SOOO clear back then.

It’s all riveting stuff, but in terms of legal value, when the points that you are raising directly contradict Supreme Court precedent, these things have all the force and effect of a fart in the midst of a category 5 hurricane. I realize full well that you fancy yourself as being a brilliant legal mind, but do you honestly think that the arguments that you are making now were not advanced before the Court when these cases were argued? Of course they were, there is nothing novel to your theory, the problem is simply that there is no merit to it either, otherwise the Courts would have ruled differently the rest of our profession would be laughing you out the courthouse doors.

Minor specifically states that there are two and only two means by which the citizenry of this country may expand – either by birth, or by naturalization. To wit:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.162, 167 (1874).

Implicit in that passage is the proposition that natural-born means born within the territory. If an individual is a citizen, and their citizenship does not derive from an act of Congress (i.e., a naturalized citizen) then they are a natural or native born citizen. Both Wong Kim Ark and Minor make abundantly clear that these are the only two routes to citizenship. You attempt to suggest that there is a valid legal distinction between a “born citizen” and a “natural born citizen,” but you have absolutely no support for that assertion because throughout both of these cases the terms are used interchangeably by the Courts. You are claiming a distinction that in essence boils down to a semantic argument, not a legal one.

mrmynor said...

As far as my “disingenuous” suggestion that the Minor Court specifically declined to address the question of whether children born within the jurisdiction are natural born citizens, why don’t we just look at the text of that opinion:

“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.
I’m not sure what “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts” means to you, but for those of us who understand logic, reason, and the English language, that sure looks like a recognition of the fact that two different schools of thought exist on the matter, but that getting to the bottom of that debate was not necessary for the resolution of the controversy before the Court. In other words, THE COURT IS SPECIFICALLY DECLINING TO DETERMINE WHICH OF TWO COMPETEING AUTHORITIES IS MORE PERSUASIVE WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CHILDREN BORN WITHIN THE JURISDICTION ARE CITIZENS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE LEGAL QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT.

Puzo1 said...

Mrmynor,

First of all, your handle fits well with the case of Minor v. Happersett. I am thrilled to see that it went over your head.

Try making a legal argument, supported by historical evidence and case law, rather than just spewing your personal opinion and rhetoric.

Puzo1 said...

Mrmynor,

Minor’s text distinguishes between a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” and rightfully so. Our nation has since the Founding always distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Constitution clearly distinguishes between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and an Article I “Citizen.”

We know that Minor could not have doubted whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “natural born Citizen,” for the Court knew very well that such a child could not be a "natural born Citizen." The Court in the very same paragraph told us that a "natural born Citizen" was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Minor's "doubts" were about whether a child born in the country to alien parents belonged to potentially a new class of “citizen,” one created by the newly passed Fourteenth Amendment, the question being was such a child born to alien parents “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States” and therefore a “citizen” under that new amendment. Minor had good reason to state that “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a “citizen” given the prior history regarding who were to be “citizens” of the United States and past and current Congressional Naturalization Acts. So, while Minor never had any doubts whether a child born in the United States to citizen parents was a "natural born Citizen," it did correctly state that “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a “citizen.” So, without a Fourteenth Amendment, the Court said “there have been doubts” whether that child was even a “citizen.” That child who created such doubts about his or her citizenship surely could not have been a “natural born Citizen” which status was never in doubt. But that child could be a new type of born “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

cfkerchner said...

Mrmynor,

If you are so sure of your legal ability and knowledge of history and SCOTUS' stare decisis regarding the legal term of art "natural born Citizen", why not use your real name in the debate here? Atty Mario Apuzzo is using his. What have you to hide if your position is so certain and proven? Reveal your identity and have a known to all attorney to known attorney debate with Atty Apuzzo using your real name. It is very easy and convenient for you to take a position and assert professional expertise and launch ad hominem attacks in cyber space when you don't have to live up to, or own up to, your own words and barbs. It is harder to do it in the real world with your words associated with your real name and the professional you say you are and have those words you spew associated with your real name. So, tell us your real name, and real professional and legal expertise in this matter, and you and Mario can go at it knowing fully who the other person is? Why do you hide behind anonymity proffering your position if you are so sure you are right? Put you name and reputation on it.

Ray said...

Obama's attorney, Hill, conflates "delegate" and "candidate" so do the flacks.

They insist that "During the primary elections, the voters do not vote for a candidate, but rather they vote for the delegates who are candidates for the office of the party delegate..." and therefore, Obama does not need to certify that he is qualified for office.

Casting Ballots is not the same as electing delegates, each is covered by different statutes.

The casting of Ballots for Candidates for nomination is the act of the Voter.

19:23-7 Petitioners request that the name of the person therein mentioned [on the Petition] be printed upon the official primary ballots of their political party as the candidate for nomination

The election of delegates is the act of a Party.

19:24-2 "Notwithstanding any provision of this Title, national and State party rules shall govern the selection of delegates and alternates to national party conventions"

The claim that "voters vote for delegates" is incorrect.

Primary Voters cast Ballots for Candidates for nomination - the persons seeking office; delegates to the national Convention are elected pursuant to Party rules. Delegates are an internal Party mechanism.


Some links showing how NJ law been implemented:

Here is the "Official List of Candidates for President For February 2008 Primary Election"

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-results/2008-official-presidential-primary-candidates-121807.pdf

Note that the persons officially listed as Candidates are the persons seeking office.

Here is a "2008 Official Presidential Primary Election Sample Ballot"

http://www.co.hunterdon.nj.us/election/2008presidental/9thDistrictSample.pdf

Note that the persons listed on the official sample Ballot are the Candidates listed on the Official List of Candidates for President For February 2008 Primary Election

Note the Instructions for Voting, "PRESS THE BUTTON TO THE RIGHT OF THE CANDIDATE OF YOUR CHOICE; A GREEN ARROW WILL APPEAR SIGNIFYING YOUR SELECTION." Please note "CANDIDATE OF YOUR CHOICE"

As the above shows, it is the persons seeking office that are listed on the Ballot as Candidates. Voters cast Ballots for their choice of Candidate for nomination. This further demonstrates that Voters to not cast Ballots for delegates, Ballots are cast for Candidates for nominiation.


The requirement of 19:23-7, "Accompanying the petition, each person indorsed therein shall file a certificate, stating that he is qualified for the office mentioned in the petition" quite clearly applies to the Candidate, which is Mr. Obama.

I've been explaining this to the opposition, but they insist voters vote for delegates. Here is that thread:

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/educating-the-confused-the-puz-and-wong-kim-ark/#comment-32979

js said...

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.162, 167 (1874).
This doesn’t address Citizenship -vs- Natural Born Citizenship. The case also addressed that issue, but you didn’t cite the specific language because it contradicts your conclusion mrmynor. That is intellectually dishonest to say the least. To assume language in the above statement that is "NOT" contained in it, gives you a bit of a logic failure. You get an F.
You also failed to put in your "wannabe" diatribe the fact that the Constitution itself recognized that there are "Citizens" and "Natural Born Citizens", in the exclusionary clause. To assume that anyone born in the States were Natural Born Citizens would preclude the necessity to put the exclusion into the Constitution from the start because the terms would be synonymous. It also excludes any and all case law that preceded the 14 Amendment that shows without question that the Founding Fathers believed that children born in the US to alien parents were also alien.
Prior to the 14th Amendment, those born in this nation to fathers who held foreign Citizenship were deemed aliens. The 14th Amendment created a naturalization of those children, making them citizens at birth. The specific language omits any mention of Natural Born Citizenship, thus, injecting the assumption that the 14th amendment altered that meaning is erroneous.
Simply put, with all the good will and wanna be knowledge you are chewing on, you are totally wrong.
Britain’s crown was its Sovereign Power. Its subjects were deemed by the sole power of the King. They didn’t recognize sovereign Citizens. In the USA, we, the people, are the Sovereign power, not the Government. We are not subjects under the rule of a tyrant. We never removed the Citizenship rights of foreign children born on our soil. If a foreign nation recognized such citizenship, that child is subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign nation of its parent/s, unlike the British who, at that time, made the child a sole subject of the crown. The 14th Amendments exclusion of those who are born "subject to the jurisdiction", namely, those children born of foreign parents, who acquire citizenship of that parent by natural descent, excludes Obama as a 14th amendment Citizen from the start. In accordance with the BNA of 1948, Obama was born a subject of the Crown and not "subject to the Jurisdiction" of the United States. He was, effectively, a natural born Brit, and Britain has the power, or the right, to exercise authority over Obama as its citizen.
The 14th amendment did not "create" natural born citizens; it only naturalized them, at birth, "IF" they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

SaipanAnnie said...

cfkerchner says:

If you are so sure of your legal ability and knowledge of history and SCOTUS' stare decisis regarding the legal term of art "natural born Citizen", why not use your real name in the debate here? Atty Mario Apuzzo is using his. What have you to hide if your position is so certain and proven?

Commander can you truly and really expect "Barack Obama" to be manly enough to reveal him self or I should say admit to his many fake identities here at Mr. Apuzzo's blog?

Let us be for real. When has any one in America seen "Obama" show courage? He is no man of courage in fact he is no real man at all.

Here is a point. When I ask my husband, do you think Bari aka "Barack Obama" could walk alone down one street in America, one street any place, with out being scared? Right away he says no! I ask him, why can he not do this? Because, he says, Bari knows how mad he has made the people of America with his lies and his evil doing against America. How do you know he knows they are mad I ask my husband. He says, just look how scared he looks always he looks around him, his eyes real scared though he wears that big fake grin to hide he is scared.

This being the case, never will Bari aka "Barack" discuss as his true person. Mr. Apuzzo's blog is not a place but still even on the web Bari is too scared to face the people he knows he has greatly harmed which of course is all of America.

Sad to say that Bari is a bully who swings from behind one fake identity after an other. As some one wise said every bully is really inside him a great big scared-cat coward. So no Bari will never say who he is really here at Mr. Apuzzo's blog or any place on the web.

MichaelN said...

mrmynor said ...........
"You attempt to suggest that there is a valid legal distinction between a “born citizen” and a “natural born citizen,” but you have absolutely no support for that assertion......."

WRONG!

Mario did not "attempt to suggest" he SHOWED YOU THE FACT.

YOU are in denial!

The US Citizenship and Immigration Service recognizes TWO types of born citizens, i.e. natural and native .....

"(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-BORN or NATURAL-BORN citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired. "

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

You haven't yet responded to being notified of the fact that in the English common law case cited and relied on by the WKA court, it was held that to be a "natural born", one can only be such due to TWO essential qualities, as Lord Coke stated by "by nature and birth right", and in another description of the TWO ESSENTIAL qualities Coke stated, "by procreation and birth right".

What do YOU suppose he meant?

Lord Coke also made it clear in the English common law case CITED and RELIED ON by the WKA court, that without a 'subject' father, a child born in the realm CANNOT be a 'subject'.

Coke made it abundantly clear that NO MATTER WHERE a child is born, "natural born" status can ONLY BE DETERMINED by the "subject" status of the father.

Ergo: native birth only made a "natural born" if the father was a "subject".

And THAT is WHY Wong Kim Ark ONLY got ruled as a "citizen" and NOT a "natural born", i.e. BECAUSE his father was not a citizen/subject.

You really do need to brush-up on your history and abilities to interpret legal cases, you are spluttering and muttering drivel all over the place, maybe you should just focus on less complicated legal practices, like representing people with parking fines, and leave the constitutional law to those who have the real know-how.

Tell me, how do you suppose the Minor court recognized that Virginia Minor was a "natural born citizen", WITHOUT resort to the 14th Amendment?

Puzo1 said...

Mrmynor,

You quote Minor:

"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.162, 167 (1874).

You rely on this part of the Minor case to argue that either there are born citizens or there are naturalized citizens and since Obama, if born in the United States was not naturalized, he must be a “natural born Citizen.” There are at least three problems with your argument.

First, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen.” The clause “natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, which must be defined as a whole and not by its parts. Our U.S. Supreme Court has always defined the complete clause, “natural born Citizen,” as a child born in the country to citizen parents. The last confirmation of this definition was done by Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). So, one can be a “born citizen,” however that may be defined by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act, but not necessarily a “natural born Citizen.”

Second, you have a misunderstanding as to what naturalization means. You put forth a notion that naturalization only occurs after birth. This is incorrect, for Congress has been naturalizing persons “at birth” since 1790 and continues to do so today. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 et seq. Hence, someone can be a “born citizen” and still be a naturalized citizen by virtue of a Congressional Act. The U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) has made this point clear by explaining that even though a person may be a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” under a Congressional Act, that person is still a naturalized citizen although “at birth.” Justice Black dissenting in Bellei even said: "All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependant on congressional enactment are forms of naturalization."

Third, you probably also maintain that someone can be naturalized by a Congressional Act or treaty but not the Constitution. This is also incorrect because for those who are not otherwise “natural born Citizens,” the born-a-citizen component of the Fourteenth Amendment is nothing more than the constitutionalization of a Congressional naturalization act (the citizenship component of the Civil Rights Act of 1866) which defined who among those persons born in the United States was a "citizen of the United States."

So as you can see, just telling us that Obama is a “born citizen” does not mean that he is a “natural born Citizen.” He still has to show that he satisfies the definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. With Obama’s online birth certificate not being reliable and Obama offering no other evidence of his place of birth, we cannot conclusively say that he was born in the United States. We also know that he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. For one or both of these reasons, Obama is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”

Puzo1 said...

I just wanted to share with the readers of my blog my response back to ballantine. I have an ongoing debate with John Woodman, ballantine, and other Obots at Woodman's den, http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/#comment-1433

************

ballantine,

You offer nothing but spin, turn, manipulation, and of course insults, but nothing substantive. So it is true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

I especially love your hilarious position on Inglis and Shanks, which rejected the English common law as defining citizenship in the new America, that they only addressed citizenship during the Revolution and that after the Revolution the English common law feudal and monarchial definition of subjecthood was supposed to kick back in at some undefined future moment. I guess as of 1875 when the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decided Minor, that English common law definition had yet to kick back in.

Your appeal to authorities who are not is also unavailing.

I also like the fact that you refuse to read and comment on the simple text of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. That text clearly says that the children of aliens became citizens when their parents naturalized if done during their minority. Congress did not say whether those children were born in the United States or out of it because it simply did not matter where they were born. If a child’s father (which meant mother too) was an alien, so was the child. This rule is totally consistent with the rule that prevailed in the new America that children, who did not have the capacity to consent, followed the condition of the parents until their age of majority, at which time they could chose a different allegiance and citizenship. Thomas Jefferson followed the same rule in his 1799 citizenship statutes for Virginia. And where may we find your English common law in any of that?

You will have to do better than this.

Puzo1 said...

Here is more from John Woodman’s pit:

Ballantine said to Mario Apuzzo:

“Oh, and since you mention Jefferson. His citizenship statute from 1783 that remained in place until the civil war:

“Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act intituled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;” and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after mentioned;….’

“All free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth… shall be deemed citizens…” Again, we know you have a reading problem. Is English your first language? You clearly admit you can’t cite any authority to support your naturalization interpretation as there is none.”

*********

Mario Apuzzo responds to ballantine:

It is funny that you know so much about the English common law, but you have a serious difficulty reading and understanding the English language.

Jefferson said in his 1779 citizenship law:

"[A]ll white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth . . . and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth . . . shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after expressed."

So, if you were at the time the law went into effect a "white person" who was born in Virginia, you were a citizen of Virginia. But if you were an infant born in Virginia, you became a citizen only if your father was a citizen. So Jefferson grandfathered white adults to be jus soli citizens. But for infants, they had to be born to citizen parents. Note that Jefferson did not require in his law that the infants had to be white, for by requiring that they followed the condition of their fathers it was not necessary for him to say so explicitly. Other than the racial element which was later removed from the Virginia citizenship laws, sure sounds like Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which grandfathered “citizens of the United States” (by jus soli or naturalization) to be eligible to be President and then after the adoption of the Constitution, provided that they had to be “natural born Citizens” (only by jus soli and jus sanguinis combined) in order to be so eligible. Sure also sounds like the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, which provided that a child born in the United States or out of it to alien parents was himself or herself an alien.

What is so hard to understand about that, Mr. Ballantine?

While I am at it, where is your English common law in the early Congress’s (many of whom were Founders and Framers) and Jefferson's citizenship laws?

js said...

English Common Law excludes non Christians from becoming a subject? Not one single word comes up about that. If the US adopted English Common Law, then it’s obvious that we really missed a big part of it.
Instead...common law as defined by the Federal Government...actually refers to the common laws adopted by the individual States and not the US Constitution. Seeing how each State is sovereign unto itself, each state has its own Constitution, and independent legislature that maintains separate and distinct laws apart from the Federal Government, there is not restriction against or directing any State to adopt English Common Law. That’s not an enumerated power.

Any number of States could adopt English Common Law; however, it is the duty of the Federal Government to stop them. That would literally install the Head of State as a representative of God, and that is protected against in the enumerated laws. It would be an offense against the Constitution if the States established themselves as religious institutions. They cannot cleave to the English Common Law, as they existed at the time of the foundation of this nation. The assumption that America adopted English Common law, therefore, is absurd.

js said...

You walk into a den of wolves Mario

If you notice, the arguments there all omit one thing or another....they all have failed to include language through omission...or have added language that doesn’t exist...

Now you see why they don’t come here, they cannot stand up to the light of day...when the truth and not just the parts that they want to use...all count

They don’t have a leg to stand on...so they provoke you and goad you...trying to pull you out...to get you to make a simple mistake so they can brag about...their stupidity...

All in all...I’ve done that...you can’t teach someone with a reprobate mind...it can’t be done

Puzo1 said...

I have moved this comment to this appropriate thread: Mario Apuzzo


CountvonLuckner has left a new comment on your post "A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have G...":

Hang in there, Mario...it is Hamburger Hill terrain all the way up due to the controversiality of this whole can of worms. While ALJ Masin gave the facade during the hearing of being "fair and impartial" and even openly admitted that there had been presented before him no evidence whatsoever either affirming nor refuting Obama's contested ART II, sect 1, cl 5, status as a "natural born" and, reasonably enough, that the cyber image of his alleged "long form" shows box car loads of evidence of having been cooked, the fact indeed was that it merely amounted to a digital image and whether totally fake or not, was not acceptable as evidence of anything, one way or another.

Yet in his decision, he apparently completely ignores NJS 19:23-5 I believe it was that states that a candidate for any office must be "eligible" which constructively mandates that he be able to show eligibility...I find this not at all surprising given that Masin is an "administrative law" judge and he even gratuitously admitted that his was NOT a "law court" but an "administrative" one. An administrative "law" court is a chancery court and the ALJ can pretty much "interpret" or completely ignore the statutory law anyway they see fit. I believe quite frankly that if the issue of Obama's "natural birth" were to be heard before an honest CommonLaw jury of twelve persons of sound and disposing minds and memories, free, as such juries by LAW are, to vote their consciences and exercise jury veto or nullification, Obama would very shortly be facing grand jury indictiment.

Any event, you gave it your best in an "administrative" courtroom which is anything but a level playing field...had it been before an honest jury, you would have prevailed. Regardless, that's over now...onward to the higher, and hopefully more honest and competent, courts.

Posted by CountvonLuckner to Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers at April 25, 2012 6:49 AM

mrmynor said...

@countvonluckner - HA! Yet another dipsh*t crackpot comes out of the woodworks. Too bad for you that your opinion is irrelevant because it isn't even remotely based in reality given the manne in which our legal system functions. Allow me to explain: first, the notion that a jury of 12 hearing this ballot challenge could ultimately culminate in a grand jury indictment is RETARDED. Grand jury and the traditional jury of 12 are two TOTALLY different decision making bodies that operate in totally different environments and serve two totally different purposes. Secondly, a jury simply finds facts, the same as an ALJ. If anything it would be a higher bar to convince a jury because you have to convince 12 people that your idiotic conspiracy theory has some basis in reality. A jury of 12 has no authority to interpret the law what so ever - never have, never will. All they can do is take the law as charged by the court, determine the true facts of the matter based on their weighing of the evidence, and apply the law to those facts. If they find obama was the son of a british citizen, something we all know to be the case, it doesn't give them the right to keep him of the ballot because the jury cannot decide the issue of whether two citizen parents are a requisite to becoming a natural born citizen. That question is a matter of law, and as such, it can only be resolved by a judge. Nice try at sounding smart, numbnuts. Keep trying, you'll get there eventually...

juniper55 said...

I re-read pages 8 ff of the LLF v DNC case. Maybe mrmynor won't excuse my ignorance (I'll excuse his for listening to Phish) but I'm sure others will here - don't we WANT the issue of NBC argued in a federal court once and for all? Haven't folks been trying for this for some time?

Come on, what's the DNC going to argue for, that someone SHOULD have two citizen parents??

BTW I am smart enough to know that I am NOT constitutionally eligible. My German immigrant mother was not naturalzed until I was as old as Marco Rubio. (four, mrmynor)

The NANOSECOND Rubio gets put on the ballot his constitutionality to run should be challenged. Strikes me that this case could be referred to - here's a judge that finally said the issue was important.

Bill Cutting said...

@JS

"English Common Law excludes non Christians from becoming a subject?"

Depending on the year, Jews were specifically excluded from being English NBS.

So the question I wouild have for bots is, what English common law did the USG adopt? The one with or with out Jews?

js said...

@Cutting

No.

Common law is actually law by precedent. English common law from the time of Henry VIII on to the revolution pretty well covered "any" non Christian, Jews, Hindu, Muslims or Buddist alike.

"Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, while respecting the rights of all persons to worship God or nature as they like. The English common law is in direct polar opposition to our Constitution, in that infidels were considered enemies of the state. In Calvin’s Case, which is universally recognized as having established the English common law with regard to the jus soli rule, the decision makes it perfectly clear that the English common law presumed infidels would never be converted to Christianity, and it specifically states that they are subjects of devils" (Leo Donofrio "The English Common Law Definition of Natural Law Is Not Part Of The Law Of Nations.")

Puzo1 said...

Here is a fundamental Obot position: "How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen." See http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51134#comments

Here is my response: The problem with your position is that the Founders and Framers called for a “natural born Citizen,” not a “born citizen.” By using the clause “natural born Citizen,” they informed us that birthright citizenship was reserved only for the children of citizens. And natural birthright citizenship was reserved only for children born in the United States to citizen parents. That was a "natural born Citizen." That U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 in applying the Fourteenth Amendment, which speaks only about citizenship and not natural born citizenship, created an additional citizen at birth, one born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents, does not amend the original definition of a "natural born Citizen" which the People adopted as the definition for a would-be President to satisfy. If we want to change that definition, a constitutional amendment is needed.

Additionally, the Constitution gives Congress the power to naturalize, but not the power to make “natural born Citizens.” Congress can through its naturalization powers create citizens at birth. These citizens are naturalized at birth and considered citizens from birth. But being naturalized, they are not "natural born Citizens." So we can see that these persons who Congress can create to be citizens from birth are still naturalized by Congress and not “natural born Citizens” even though they are “citizens” at birth.

Ray said...

The opposition is exploiting the wording of N.J.S.A. 19:24-3 to construe the "Certificate of Qualification" required by 19:23-7 as applying to "delegates" rather than "candidates", hence the certificate requirement is inapplicable to Obama.

19:24-3 pertains to "Candidates for election as delegates or alternates to the national conventions"

Opposition is siezing upon the word "candidate" to sow confusion.

"Candidate for election as delegate" (19:24-3) is not the same as "candidates for nomination for office" (19:23-7), to wit:

19:23-7 pertains to candidates, "[petitioners] indorse the person... named in their petition as candidate for the office... therein named" and "they request that the name of the person... therein mentioned [on the petition] be printed upon the official primary ballots... as the candidate for such nomination"

The candidate is the office seeker.

19:23-7 is titled "Signers; certificates of candidates", not "Signers; certificates of delegates".

19:23-7 does not mention "delegate"

19:23-7 requires candidates for nomination for office file a "Certificate of Qualification", it does not require "candidates for election as delegates" to file.


That NJ law distinguishes between "candidate" and "delegate" is demonstrated by the following:

Here is the Official List of Candidates for President For PRIMARY ELECTION, provided by the New Jersey Department of State

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/2012-results/2012-official-primary-candidates-president-0412.pdf

The persons listed on this List of Candidates are the persons seeking office.

In Sussex County both candidates and delegates are listed. Here are the Official PRIMARY ELECTION CANDIDATE LIST, for each Party, for Sussex County, New Jersey

http://www.sussexcountyclerk.com/ELECTION%20pages/docs/2012/2012-DEM-PRI-cand-list.pdf

http://www.sussexcountyclerk.com/ELECTION%20pages/docs/2012/2012-REP-PRI-cand-list.pdf

Notice the Candidates listed correspond to the list provided by the New Jersey Department of State. Notice also, that Sussex County lists the delegates associated with each candidate, and that they are denominated "delegate".

As required by 19:23-7, the name of the person printed upon the official primary ballot as the candidate is the person seeking nomination for office. Any delegates on a ballot are denominated "delegate"

Contrary to opposition claims, the office seeker is the person required to file the certificate of qualification. It could not be more plain.

I like this:

19:24-2 "Notwithstanding any provision of this Title, national and State party rules shall govern the selection of delegates and alternates to national party conventions"

So what are those Party rules?

According to the New Jersey Democrat Delegate Selection Plan (http://njdems.org/images/NJDSC%20Delegate%20Selection%20Plan%202012.pdf), "A presidential candidate gains access to the New Jersey presidential preference primary ballot by meeting the following age, residence, and petition signature requirements as set forth by the United States Constitution, New Jersey Constitution, and NJSA 19:23-8. The candidate must be 35 years of age, a resident of the country for 14 years, a natural born citizen of the United States, and must collect 1,000 valid petition signatures."

By NJ law, Party rules govern. Party rules require a presidential candidate be a "natural born citizen" - therefore NJ statute requires "natural born citizen" to qualify! So how does a judge get out of that? nevermind team Obama. Ha ha ha!

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

mrmynor said...

Apuzzo, you have referred at several points in time to the use of "natural born citizen" in the context of the naturalization acts predating the 14th amendment, specifically those provisions which state that a child born of two citizen parents outside of the territory of the united states shall be regarded as a natural born citizen. You claim that this supports your theory that "Natural Born Citizen" requires two citizen parents. You also claim in your most recent post that the citizenship by birth discussed in Wong Kim Ark is a separate and distinct form of citizenship by birth that does not qualify as "natural born" for purposes of satisfying the article two eligibility requirement. I'm curious, if natural born citizen is distinct from born citizen under the 14th amendment, then (a) why is that distinction not specified in the text of the 14th amendment, and why haven't naturalization laws continued to include the provision specifying that children born to two citizen parents outside of the territory are to be regarded as "natural born" citizens, rather than mere citizens by birth? Surely that would be necessary to ensure that the children of our service members born oversea are not later barred from holding the office if the 14th amendment didn't alter the definition of "natural born citizen" as that term is used in article 2. Otherwise McCain would have been disqualified from the last election as well. Please explain how you are able to hang your hat on statutory language from before the 14th amendment, but can simply disregard statutory developments subsequent to the enactment of the 14th amendment that don't lend themselves to your narative?

Joe said...

When is the appeal due?

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

An interesting article that should directly interest you too.
Read "Judge wants definition of ‘natural born citizen’" at http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/judge-wants-definition-of-natural-born-citizen/
Here is an extract:
U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

Keep fighting until Obama is uncovered as nothing less than a usurper of the Presidency of the USA simply because he is NOT a natural born citizen and even his long form birth certificate and his selective service card are both forgeries!!!

Puzo1 said...

Mrmynor,

(1) Regarding Congress’s early naturalization acts, you have not correctly understood my argument. The early naturalization acts tell us what a “natural born citizen” is by a process of elimination. Under those acts, a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was an alien (“And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, such also be considered as citizens of the United States”). While the 1790 Act provided that a child born out of the United States to citizen parents was to be “considered as a natural born citizen,” it did so only retroactively. Furthermore, the 1795Act removed “natural born citizen” and replaced it with “citizen of the United States.” Hence, the 1790“natural born citizen” provision acted only as a grandfather provision like the grandfather clause in Article II which applied to children born in the colonies and states before the adoption of the Constitution who were or became “citizens of the United States” but not “natural born Citizens.” Hence, according to the early Congresses as is expressed by it through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, only a child born in the United States to citizen parents could be a “natural born Citizen.” All other children, no matter where born, if they could be U.S. citizens under any Act of Congress, could only be under Congress’s naturalization powers a naturalized citizens, either “at birth” or after birth.

(2) Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, in the area of citizenship, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, Congress is only given the power to naturalize. Hence, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, for those children who were not otherwise “natural born Citizens, could only be a naturalization act. The Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized the Act. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that its citizenship definition pertains to a “citizen of the United States.” You will recall that Article I includes “Citizen of the United States” and Article II includes both “Citizen of the United States” and “natural born Citizen.” Article II states that a “Citizen of the United States,” who is born after the adoption of the Constitution, is no longer eligible to be President. Only a “natural born Citizen” is so eligible. Note that Congress, even to the present day and with the brief exception of the Naturalization Act of 1790, when naturalizing persons, has always called them “citizens of the United States” and never “natural born Citizens.” See 8 U.S.C. Section 1401 et seq. (only uses “citizen of the United States” and never “natural born Citizen”). Hence, with the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment knowing what Article II said, with them knowing that Congress always used “citizen of the United States” to show that one was a “citizen” but not a “natural born Citizen,” and with them only defining what a “citizen of the United States” is, neither the text nor the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment changed the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

(3) Regarding whether John McCain is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States at the time of his birth. Under such circumstances and under the law of nations and American common law “the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)), he is reputed born in the United States. Hence, he was born in the country to citizen parents. He is therefore a “natural born Citizen.” See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 217 (explains the armies of the state rule which allows a child born physically out of a country to be “reputed born in the country”).

So, there is no basis to your position that I have disregarded statutory development after the Fourteenth Amendment.

Puzo1 said...

Ray,

The New Jersey presidential ballot challenge decision, even when Obama conceded on the court record that the April 27, 2011 internet image of his Certificate of Live Birth is not evidence of his identity or place of birth and that he has otherwise not presented to the New Jersey Secretary of State any evidence of his identity, place of birth, and eligibility, and stating that he has no such legal obligation because even Mickey Mouse can run for President in New Jersey, should go down in history as one of the worst administrative law decisions ever made by public officials who are sworn to support the Constitution. Now let us see what the New Jersey Appellate Division does.

mrmynor said...

"even when Obama conceded on the court record that the April 27, 2011 internet image of his Certificate of Live Birth is not evidence of his identity or place of birth and that he has otherwise not presented to the New Jersey Secretary of State any evidence of his identity, place of birth, and eligibility, and stating that he has no such legal obligation because even Mickey Mouse can run for President in New Jersey"

*sigh* Once again, Apuzzo, there you go running off at the mouth, saying things that just aren't true in the real world. Your skewed perception of reality is evidenced by the fact that both in the courtroom and in reading the law, you only see and hear what you want to, and dismiss the rest as unnecessary. The devil is in the details, as an attorney you ought to recognize that. Obama's attorney never said it wasn't evidence of his place of birth, they simply said that they had not submitted it to the NJ SoS as proof of those facts. I certainly hope that you don't try to take such liberties in characterizing the record at oral arguments. Doing so would leave you dead in the water before you even got to argue that the Law of Nations is binding authority.

Would you happen to know yet when you are arguing before the appellate division? Being that I could really use a good laugh, i might consider driving up for it.

Carlyle said...

@ April 25, 2012 5:13 PM juniper55 said...

The NANOSECOND Rubio gets put on the ballot his constitutionality to run should be challenged.

-----------------------------

Good sentiment - but that would be too late. If it gets that far, most of us would not bring it up because of the risk of derailing the GOP win in November.

We must strive to PREVENT him from even being considered.

Puzo1 said...

mrmynor,

The only one getting laughed at on this blog is you. You have not made one sound and winning argument yet, even though you just keep on trying like that famous bunny.

I suggest you look at the video and see how I asked for the stipulation from Obama's lawyer as a condition for withdrawing my witness.

Instead of making a fool of yourself, why do you not try making a legal argument.

I know that you will not be at the oral arguments. Just think, someone might even find out who you really are and then the whole world would know who the jackass is.

Puzo1 said...

I just left this comment for John Woodman at his blog, http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/mario-apuzzo-natural-born-citizenship/#comment-1558

All your discussion about what a “natural born subject” is does not prove that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” the same as the English common law defined a “natural born subject.” Other than your unfounded assertion that the two clauses mean the same simply because they both share the clause “natural born,” you simply fail to provide any historical evidence of a link between the two.

There are also many other problems with your position:

First, when the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution, they had just fought and won a war with Great Britain. It is highly unreasonable to believe that they would have looked to the law of that same monarchial country to define their new hard fought and won republican citizenship.

Second, at that time, the United States became a republic which adopted republican principles of government while Great Britain remained a monarchy with feudal and monarchial principles of government. Citizens have a completely different relationship to a republic than subjects have to a monarchy, with citizens consenting to their government’s existence and to be governed by that representative government but subjects of a King having no choice in the matter.

Third, Thomas Jefferson specifically blotted out “subject” and replaced it with “citizen” in the Declaration of Independece.

Fourth, our American Constitution says “natural born citizen,” not “natural born subject.” A basic rule of constitutional construction is that we have to give specific meaning to the specific clause used by the Framers when at all possible which according to the historical record is more than possible.

Fifth, the “natural born Citizen” clause as applies to republics is a word of art, an idiom, and therefore has a very specific meaning which comes down through the ages. That specific meaning was recognized and confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) and both the majority and dissent in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Your new attempt at defining a “natural born Citizen” by equating “natural born” with a “natural born subject” as did Judge Masin in New Jersey must therefore fail.

Sixth, the historical record shows that the Founders and Framers rejected resort to the English common law as being applicable to the new republic on the national level and as a guide to defining terms in the Constitution that applied to that federal government. As two examples, they vehemently rejected the English common law’s indelibility of allegiance and subjecthood and Madison told us in The Federalist No. 42 that the English common law was “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining piracies and felonies in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10.

Seventh, to whatever limited degree the Founders and Framers may have later through the Bill of Rights accepted the English common law to define a very limited area of rights, you have not provided one shred of evidence from the Founding period that the Founders and Framers relied upon the English common law to define the new national citizenship let alone that they defined a “natural born Citizen” the same as the English defined a “natural born subject.” Note that the framers of the Bill of Rights specifically included the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights to show that there were many other rights and powers retained by the people and the states which were not enumerated in the Constitution. These rights and powers would have come from natural law, revealed or divine law, the law of nations, and municipal law.

js said...

there it goes again...the lightning strikes...same spot...different day

mrmynor is short a few pounds of grey matter...he doesnt have the cognizant ability to apply reality to his thoughts...so he goes about with his pants down around his ankles telling everyone how much class he has...

think bout that mccain deal...mac's dad signed up for the US NAVY...in the Continental United States...a solid patriot...putting his life on the line to protect this country...and the man traveled all over the world...anywhere the Commander in Chief sent him, he would go...

exactly how do you take away the mans child's right to be a natural born citizen...ecspecially when his wife was authorized to accompany him to his duty station...it doesnt matter what country his child was born in...that child was born in panama because his father was under the command of the United States President...under lawful orders to be there...instead of...home...

its the same as an ambassador...sent to a foreign country under the lawful command of the POTUS...

SaipanAnnie said...

mrmynor says:

Would you happen to know yet when you are arguing before the appellate division? Being that I could really use a good laugh, i might consider driving up for it.

Bari, why do you post such mean words to Mr. Apuzzo? If you do not like him you do not need to visit his blog never mind the fact that you dare to post these mean words while riding on Air Force One on your way to visit America's finest. Do you think this is conduct as they say "Becoming" for the President of America?

No it is not even if in your own mixed up head you feel so. And while we are on this subject what do you believe that the Secret Service think of you, to see you in the top position act like a bully in a school yard.

As for driving "up" at least this is one thing you spill out today in half-truth. Half of course seeing that The White House is below New Jersey but only half for you are not allowed to drive your self any place, you would have to come in that Beast-car.

Anyway I for one person dare you doubly to come to the court though it is not as they say within possibility that you have what it takes to face-to-face Mr. Apuzzo, do you.

Do not bother to answer. We all are aware, the response in truth can only be no.

4zoltan said...

Hi Mario,

"I just left this comment for John Woodman at his blog,"

There are responses to your comment. They have provided historical links to NBC=NBS.

SaipanAnnie said...

js says:

that child was born in panama because his father was under the command of the United States President...under lawful orders to be there...instead of...home...

its the same as an ambassador...sent to a foreign country under the lawful command of the POTUS...


May be you left out one word that is Lawful President, when you speak of the father of McCain's commanding President. This is opposed to what we in America have now today with Bari.

In this way yes Bari is as he loves to boast "historic" and in one other way too seeing that he used as they say The New Media to accomplish very great crimes.

Bari may think he has genius to do so however as wise people say in Saipan evil genius is no genius at all, no, it is purely evil.

This is why America hates Bari, he behaves with great evil and has what he him self calls "audacity" to pretend he is a man of good deeds.

Puzo1 said...

John Woodman and Reality Check call me a liar for saying that Wong Kim Ark acknowledged and confirmed Minor's definition of a "natural born Citizen." Of course they do that because Wong Kim Ark is their only hope in winning the debate on whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen." Note that any court that has so far ruled on the merits of the "natural born Citizen" argument and said that Obama is a "natural born Citizen" has relied strictly upon Wong Kim Ark to come to its erroneous conclusion.

I just put out this challenge to John Woodman on his blog:

John Woodman,

You and your side kick Reality Check love to put out your challenges. So now here is one for both of you.

You and others have now latched on to New Jersey ALJ Masin's "natural born" argument. Note he amazingly did not say "natural born Citizen" which is what is clearly stated in the Constitution. It therefore appears to be critical to your success in this debate that Wong Kim Ark ruled that Wong was at least "natural born."

Granting you for sake of argument the use of "natural born" rather than "natural born Citizen," please provide for the public any quote from Wong Kim Ark where the Court specifically says that Wong was "natural born." When I say provide a quote, I do not mean your interpretation of the Court's dissertation on English common law or your personal opinion as to what was "irresistible" to the Court. Rather, I need the exact holding of the case, quoted. If you are able to do so, I will concede that I have been wrong about Wong Kim Ark acknowledging and confirming Minor's definition of a "natural-born citizen." But if you are not so able, then I will proclaim victory.

Here is your big chance. Don't blow it.

Unknown said...

Mario, why is the Supreme Court not even bothering to respond to your arguments?
Is it because they are without merit?

Or are they keeping their powder dry until an argument is presented that will enable a binding ruling to be delivered on all issues?