Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in Barack Obama N.J. Ballot Access Challenge Appeal

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in Barack Obama N.J. Ballot Access Challenge Appeal

Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in Barack Obama N.J. Ballot
                                       Access Challenge Appeal

                                       By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                              May 22, 2012
                                        Updated May 25, 2012
                                       Updated May 29, 2012

On May 18, 2012, I filed on behalf of my clients, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran, their Brief and Appendix in their New Jersey Ballot Access Challenge appeal currently pending before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. In the brief, we argue that Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, and New Jersey Secretary of State, Kimberly M. Guadagno, erred in finding that candidate Barack Obama, when challenged to do so, has no constitutional or legal obligation to present any evidence as to who he is, where he was born, and that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” before the Secretary of State can place his name on the primary election ballot. We also argue that because he presented no evidence on the matter, they erred in finding that he was born in Hawaii. Finally, we also argue that because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, they erred in finding that as a matter of law he is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Brief and Appendix may be read here, http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/94493192-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Brief-and-Appendix-Filed-5-18-12

Obama and the New Jersey Attorney General have until Friday, May 25, 2012, to file and serve their responding Brief and Appendix.

Telephonic oral argument is scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., before Hon. Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D., Hon. Linda G. Baxter, J.A.D., and Hon. Philip S. Carchman, J.A.D.

Important Update:

I just received word from the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division that the appellate oral arguments that were initially scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. by TELEPHONE have been changed to in-person oral argument in the OPEN COURT ROOM.

Hence, oral arguments on the Purpura and Moran v. Obama appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division with take place in the open court room as follows:

Place: Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division
Hughes Justice Complex
25 W. Market Street
5th Floor
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0006

Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Time: 1:00 p.m. (Eastern)

Judges: Hon. Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D.; Hon. Linda G. Baxter, J.A.D.; Hon. Philip A. Carchman, J.A.D.

Method: In person argument on the record in open court room (not telephonically).

I hope to see members of the interested public at the oral arguments so that you can learn first hand what the issues and arguments are.

Update: I just filed Appellants' Reply Letter Brief and Appendix. It may be viewed here:
http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/95195368-Purpura-Moran-Reply-Letter-Brief-FILED-5-29-12

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 22, 2012
Updated May 25, 2012
Updated May 29, 2102
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

740 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 740 Newer› Newest»

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Found by internet researcher rxsid and commented upon by Attorney Leo Donofrio, here is what the James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) Administration thought about a child born in the United States to alien parents.

Publius (probably James Madison) stated in October 7, 1811, in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure:”

“Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

Secretary of State, James Monroe, eventually declared James McClure to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. But that was, as the historical record of the James McClure case clearly shows, only because his father naturalized several months before he was born. And this historical record totally supports my interpretation of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. The James Madison Administration did not even considered that child a “citizen” at the time of birth and John Woodman wants us to believe, without providing any evidence supporting his personal opinions, that the Founders and Framers considered that child a “natural born Citizen.”

This historical evidence, from none other than James Madison, completely destroys John Woodman’s thesis that the Founders and Framers gave to a “natural born Citizen” the same meaning as the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.” On the other hand, it completely supports my position that a “natural born Citizen,” under American common law, which had its origins in the law of nations and which became national law, is a child born in the country to citizen parents.; May 22, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Teo Bear said...: The Constitution of the United States was based on English Common Law? Do you even understand what English Common Law was at the time of independence?

No, I thought not. English Common Law is the law a sovereign (King) used to rule the subjects of his jurisdiction. And there were three separate jurisdictions in Great Britain, each with their own Common Law. There was a common law for England and Wales, one for Scotland and one for Ireland. So which one was used for the colonies?

Oh the one for England and Wales you say. Hum, but what version, that is from what years of the reign of which monarch. You do understand that the colonies were formed by royal charter, and the common law of that colony was the common law of England and Wales at the time of the charter. Changing the common law for the colony required the colony's legislature to make changes and then having the king approve them. The colony's were very jealous of their charter and did not want to surrender them, so they would be put under the current common law as known to the English parliament at the time. Do a little research of Connecticut's Charter Oak and perhaps you may understand.

On July 4th, 1776 we declared ourselves to be free and independent states, 13 of them. In 1777 when these same 13 states ratified the Articles of Confederation they specifically retained their individual sovereignty, giving to the Continental Congress only those powers of sovereignty the Congress needed. In 1783 the King of England, in the Treaty of Peace made each of the 13 states to “be free sovereign and independent states.”

Did they surrender their sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution of the United States? While they did not specifically declare themselves to be sovereign, Article III of the Constitution treats them as sovereigns, equal to foreign ministers representing their nation. “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Lastly the states specifically retained the powers of sovereignty they did not delegate to the United States. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; May 22, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Teo Bear said...: Cont.

Why did James Madison write Geo. Washington saying “the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions.” As I said, common law was adopted on the state level but not uniformly, not only did each colony incorporate English common law at the time of its charter, they also modified it to suit their particular local needs. The reason Madison gives Washington the reason they could not adopt English common law into the Constitution ,is because it “would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State.” Because each state seen themselves as sovereign, delegating sovereign powers to” form a more perfect Union.” Think carefully on those words “a more perfect Union,” and perhaps[s you will understand that the Union already existed.

As the Union existed prior to the Constitution so did citizens of the United States. When the constitution was ratified, the citizens of the several states became citizens of the United States of America. In 1787 the only power the states delegate to the United States in respect to citizenship was naturalization. Each state retained the right as sovereigns to determine who was a citizen of that state at birth. Some states (4 exactly)did enact common law in their state constitutions, and these states had a right to determine who was a natural born citizen of that state, but they did not have the right to determine who was a natural born citizen of the United States. Only the Constitution or American common law could define a natural born American citizen. The constitution defers this definition to American common law, so the question is what was the common law of the United States. What form of law could each state agree on when dealing with the other states, and the federal government could use when dealing with the sovereign states?

Read the full title of Vattel treatise, “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS.” When we declared our independence each stated entered into the world as a sovereign nation, with sovereign powers, and Justice Wilson recorded this for posterity, "When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement."

Because each state entered into the Union as sovereign nations, our common law had to be a common law the dealt with the intercourse of sovereigns, putting each sovereign on equal footing before the law, and the only law our founding fathers could seed our American common law with was the law of Nations. This is the common law Justice Waite refers to in Minor when he writes, “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. “

Mario is 100% correct in his assertion that the Law of Nations is the foundation of our national common law because our common law is based upon the Law of Nations, the law that governs the intercourse between sovereigns, and the definition our founding fathers used for a natural born citizens is defined in the Law of nations, not in English common law.; May 22, 2012 at 11:37 PM
bdwilcox said...: Go get 'em, Mario!; May 23, 2012 at 2:23 AM
js said...: Bravo Teo!!

You could include the fact that the laws of nature and of natures God are cited as the authority for us to have established our independence in the Declaration of Independence, which also is a founding document that the US Constitution hinges upon.; May 23, 2012 at 7:06 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I. The Early Naturalization Acts

We know how the Founders and Framers defined a "natural born Citizen" by looking at the early Congress's naturalization acts (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855). Under these acts, if a child was born to alien parents, then only upon the parents naturalizing did the child become a naturalized "citizen of the United States" after birth. Since the wife by choice followed the citizenship of her husband, if the father was an alien, both father and mother were aliens and both would become U.S. citizens upon the naturalization of the husband. Hence, the Founders and Framers did not believe in separate citizenship between husband and wife, so both had to be U.S. citizens in order to give that status to their minor children.

Given these acts, there is simply no way that the Founders and Framers would have considered Obama a "citizen of the United States" "at birth," let alone a "natural born Citizen" given that he was born to a foreign father who during the Founding would have also made his mother an alien. In the eyes of the Founders and Framers and therefore the People of the United States who adopted and ratified the Constitution, only upon his father naturalizing, if done during Obama's minority or if Obama petitioned on his own upon reaching adulthood, could Obama be a "citizen of the United States" and then only a naturalized one after birth and thus not a "natural born Citizen." Hence, Obama did not fit the Founders and Framers and the People's definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

II. The Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark

The Fourteenth Amendment per Wong Kim Ark created a new birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to alien parents. But it neither intended to nor did it amend the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" which specifically applied to the President and which requires not only U.S. citizenship from birth, but birth in the country to citizen parents. The Founders and Framers were highly concerned that the President and Commander in Chief not have divided allegiance, loyalties, and attachment. Given that he was going to be the Commander in Chief of the Military and also wield enormous civil power that impacted not only on our domestic matters but also on our relations with foreign nations, they wanted a President with allegiance from birth only to the United States. Only with birth in the country to citizen parents, thus avoiding foreign allegiances created by jus sanguinis and jus soli citizenships, could they achieve their policy goal.

Hence, it is not sufficient to simply proclaim that any "citizen of the United States" "at birth" is a "natural born Citizen," for even a person with divided birth allegiance, loyalties, and attachments can be a "citizen of the United States" "at birth" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, or Congressional Acts.; May 23, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Kanbun said...: Mario,

As usual your brief is thorough, logical, well researched and of course plainly correct.

Among many others, two points stand out for me. First, you clearly point out that Constitution makes a bright line distinction between 'Natural Born Citizen' and 'Citizen'. If these are conflated as is the case in NJ, what then is the difference? How do those that make this conflation explain the difference? I believe they cannot and have never had to. This together with the court findings that constitutional terms must be independent of one another seems overwhelming to me in the context of the anaysis. Second, is the fact that in 1787, Obama would not only not a 'Natural Born Citizen', he would not even be a citizen. Since the constitution has not been amended to remove or modify the NBC requirement, how then in even time is Obama in any way to be considered a 'Natural Born Citizen'. Clearly he is not and cannot be.

All of this being said and with my admiration for your effort and expertise, I like many others I'm sure, fully expect the NJ appeals court to dismiss or otherwise find in Obama's favor. In that connection, it should be clear at this point that we have a judiciary without integrity, but rather have only judges that engage in political manipulation in the guise of judicial decisions.I certainly hope I am incorrect.

Best of luck and godspeed in your prosecution of this case.; May 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM
jayjay said...: Teo Bear:

No only did the Union exist prior to the Constitution - and was perfected by it - but there were IIRC ten Presidents before G. Washington came along with each having a slightly different title ("... in Congress Assembled ...", etc.) Most people don't know that as American history is poorly taught if at all anymore.

Also in addition to the the 4 states you mention who retained a State "nbC" definition to themselves which was not effective for Constitutional eligibility we also now see exactly the same situation with HI having its OWN "definition" of "nbC" but secretly not telling other states that's what they are talking about with all the purposely-misleading pontifications by FUkino, Onaka, etc. It's a crime in my book!!; May 23, 2012 at 8:21 PM
Ray said...: Teo - excellent observation re Hawaii!; May 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Mick said...: Excellent observations here, but I must disagree w/ Mario about the 14th Amendment, and WKA. WKA certainly did not grant "birthright citizenship". It granted US Citizenship to those who were deemed to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US at birth. Black slaves were not Citizens before the 14th A, and neither were their children, born before the 14A, but they were legal residents of the US. Thus Congress could declare one to be a "Citizen at birth" if that child were the progeny of aliens whom had "subjected" themselves to the jurisdiction of the US by becoming legal US residents. Of course that led to those being born outside of the US to at least one US Citizen parent being deemed as "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US (w/ restrictions as to the residence of the father). Congress is empowered to make naturalization law w/ discretion to the US Constitution (A1S8C4).

As a matter of fact Justice Gray compared WKA to the children of black slaves, who's parents were not allowed to naturalize, born before the 14A, that were made citizens by the enactment of that Amendment-- WKA was the child of resident, domiciled aliens who were NOT ALLOWED to naturalize-- they were Chinese resident aliens subject to the Burlingame Treaty (Chinese Exclusionary Acts). Thus he deemed WKA to be in the same class as negro slaves, born before the 14A.

I am sure that Mario would agree that US citizenship of those born to 2 NON resident aliens has only been presumed, and not yet decided by the SCOTUS-- since in no way can they be considered "subject to the jurisdiction", simply by birth "within the jurisdiction".

There are 2 usages of "jurisdiction" w/in the 14A, "within the jurisdiction", and "subject to the jurisdiction". By the law of statutory construction they must be given separate meaning. That one is born "within the jurisdiction" (w/in the territory) does not make him/her
"subject to the jurisdiction" (part of the political community of the US). If they meant the same thing, then the Amendment would read, "Those born or naturalized, and WITHIN the jurisdiction...". Those born of non resident aliens, in the US, certainly cannot be considered as part of the political community.

That Congress can decide by naturalization law who is "subject to the jurisdiction" by the "Laws of the United States". It cannot change or decide whom is a natural born Citizen by the US Constitution, and the law of nations. Remember that Article 3 separates the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch, in Law and Equity, into 3 categories, The Constitution, and the Laws of the US and Treaties, which must be w/ discretion to the US Constitution.

As noted in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1, (1892),
"The object of the fourteenth amendment in respect of citizenship was to preserve equality of rights and to prevent discrimination as between citizens, but not to radically change the whole theory of the relations of the state and federal governments to each other, and of both governments to the people". In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 , 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930 146 US 1, 39

And also:

"In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, this court held that the first clause of the fourteenth amendment was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race; and, secondly, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States, and citizenship of the states; and it recognized the distinction between citizenship of a state and citizenship of the United States by those definitions"; 146 US 1, 37, 38

The decision of that case, about the election of the President, and the choosing of electors, was UNANIMOUS, and on the panel was none other than Justice Horace Gray. If the 14A did not grant any new privileges or immunities, then it certainly did not "amend" A2S1C5. That case also makes no mention of the 14A having ANYTHING to do with who is eligible to be President.; May 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The Obots over at John Woodman’s blog try to dismiss founder historian David Ramsay as relevant in answering the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” They attack me and accuse me of lying to the Appellate Court in by appellate brief filed in the Purpura-Moran appeal regarding Ramsay and the Smith-Ramsay debate. They continue to argue that Ramsay’s entire views on citizenship were rejected because the House found, over his objection, that William Smith was a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 years, which made him eligible to be a U.S. Representative.

But the truth is that the William-Smith debate had nothing to do with David Ramsay's explanation on who was entitled to birthright citizenship following July 4, 1776. He said in 1789 that only the children of citizens were entitled to birthright citizenship by birth in the country. This was the same thing that St. George Tucker, Thomas Jefferson, early Congress, the James Madison Administration, and others said (all explained in my brief).

Ramsay had argued that Smith was not a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years because he laid low in Europe during the American Revolution and then only came back to America after it was over.

Smith was born before July 4, 1776 and only had to be a "Citizen of the United States" for 7 years to be eligible for the Office of U.S. Representative. The definition of a "natural born Citizen" had nothing to do with William Smith, for Smith could not be a ‘natural born Citizen” given his birth prior to July 4, 1776.

This is the type of ongoing lies and distortions put out by the Obots.

See my April 2, 2010 article entitled, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789 , at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html , for my full explanation of the importance of David Ramsay in understanding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”; May 24, 2012 at 4:20 PM
Justin said...: I found something strange. I was looking for the original text of the INA of 1952. I wanted to show that Obama's mother was to young to pass on her citizenship. Lo and behold the three that I found were all missing Title III - Nationality and Naturalization. Here's one:

http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1950s/McCarran_52.html

Coincidence or conspiracy? Am I missing something? If someone has a link that includes Title III please post.; May 24, 2012 at 5:50 PM
MichaelN said...: @ Justin

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=6420; May 24, 2012 at 9:00 PM
Justin said...: @Micheal

That's not the original text. I'm looking for the one that says a citizen has to live in the US for 5 years after the age of 14 to pass on citizenship. That one says two years.; May 25, 2012 at 12:42 AM
MichaelN said...: Justin.

Here is is...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8693236/1952-Immigration-and-Nationality-Act-Title3-Chapter1; May 25, 2012 at 2:48 AM
MichaelN said...: From the Immigration and Nationality Act 1952

Interesting to note that native-birth in Hawaii after April 30 1900 made one "a citizen of the United States at birth".

(the middle paragraph)

Nothing about 'natural born' there!

Quote:
"PERSONS BORN IS HAWAII
SEC3. 05. A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12,1898, and
before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30,1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.

A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900."; May 25, 2012 at 3:02 AM
James A. Bretney said...: Sir,

Just picked up on the story but I wanted to report on in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE6NTx9EAt4; May 25, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

The Obots over at Mr. Woodman's blog and at Dr. C's blog say that Dr. Ramsay never even uses the term "natural born citizen".

Do you have a link to his dissertation?; May 25, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Important Update:

I just received word from the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division that the appellate oral arguments that were initially scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. by TELEPHONE have been changed to in-person oral arguments in the OPEN COURT ROOM.

Hence, oral arguments on the Purpura and Moran v. Obama appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division will take place in the open court room as follows:

Place: Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division
Hughes Justice Complex
25 W. Market Street
5th Floor
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Time: 1:00 p.m. (Eastern)

Judges: Hon. Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D.; Hon. Linda G. Baxter, J.A.D.; Hon. Philip A. Carchman, J.A.D.

Method: In person argument on the record in open court room (not telephonically).

I hope to see members of the interested public at the oral arguments so that you can learn first hand what the issues and arguments are.; May 25, 2012 at 1:19 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

IMO that is wonderful news and I'm delighted to see it will be "on the record".

Perhaps the panel will even recognize that original jurisdiction really lies with the Supreme Court on such a Constitutional situation such as this and will kick it upstairs as an emergent matter also.

That would be even better!!; May 25, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Joe said...: One word

BRILLIANT; May 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM
MichaelN said...: Ramsay:

" .....that citizenship, by inheritance, belongs to none but the children of those Americans"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342214/Ramsay-Natural-Born-Citizen-1789; May 25, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I have been trying to post this comment on John Woodman’s blog for two day with no success. Hence, I am posting it here for Mr. Woodman to read.

John Woodman,

(1) Again, the Ramsay-Smith eligibility debate had nothing to do with “natural born Citizen” which Ramsay defined as those born after July 4, 1776 to citizen parents. Rather, it had all to do with whether Smith was a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years so as to meet the requirements of Article I, Section 2. The only thing Congress decided was whether Ramsay was right or wrong on whether Smith was such a 7-year “citizen,” belonging to the class of the “original” “citizens.” Smith did not have to be nor could he be a “natural born Citizen, for he was born before July 4, 1776. Hence, Congress did not decide whether Ramsay’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” was right or wrong, but rather only if his claim that Smith did not deserve to be a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years because he did not show that he adhered to the American Revolution by actually being present in America while the Revolution was occurring or shortly thereafter. So, again you lie about our history.

(2) Your St. George Tucker quote does not show that what is stated in the quote was Tucker’s own position. Rather, Tucker only repeated what some “respectable political writer” said. Also, Obots, in quoting Tucker, always left the beginning part of this quote off which is needed to understand that Tucker was only repeating what some other person believed and not giving his personal position on the matter. Only after I took the Obots to task for this deceit have you now started to include the first part of the quote. So, again you lie about our history.

(3) You continued to misrepresent the clear and plain text of Jefferson’s citizenship law of 1779. I cannot believe that you do not understand that “infants” trumps “all white persons.” You fail to understand that “infants” followed the condition of their "white" parents. Hence, there was no need for Jefferson to require that the “infants” also be “white.” Only if an infant was born to “citizen” parents could that infant be a “citizen” of Virginia. This same principle was adopted by the early Congress when they wrote the naturalization acts and is confirmed by the James McClure case (see No. 4 below). So, again you lie about our history.

(4) John Woodman, I take great pleasure in telling you that the James McClure case, which informs on the early naturalization acts, is the smoking gun in our quest to find the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” The McClure case totally supports my position and totally destroys your thesis that the Founders and Framers used the English common law and a “natural born subject” to define the republic’s new “natural born Citizen.” It is clear from the historical records that the James Madison Administration declared James McClure, who was born in Charleston, South Carolina on April 21, 1785, a “citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in the United States, but rather because his British father naturalized on February 20, 1786, which was months after McClure was born and at which time McClure was also dwelling in the United States. This was the James Madison Administration’s interpretation of the Naturalization Act of 1802 which is consistent with what I have always maintained about the early naturalization acts, i.e., that they also applied to children born in the United States and treated any child born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. Also, it does not matter who wrote the Publius piece. What does matter is what it says and that it explained how the 1802 statute was interpreted. So, again you lie about our history.

What I have noticed about you, John Woodman, is that you cannot state one truth on anything. Everything that you write is your own manipulation of the historical record. It is all lies, pawned off with your self-righteous attitude as some authoritative scholarship.; May 25, 2012 at 7:35 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

Golly Gee - do you mean that obots lie a lot???

Who'd a thunkit???; May 25, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: James A. Bretney,

Thanks so much for putting together the hard-hitting YouTube presentation. You said a lot in very little time.; May 25, 2012 at 10:58 PM
js said...: Woodmans cure for his malady is to ban anyone who embarrasses him. If he is losing an argument, ban the poster, automatic win.

He just doesnt understand how much of a loser he really is. He is practiced in the lies of omission, he acts willfully so his acts are lies commission. (and if u catch him, he will ban you for that too....); May 25, 2012 at 11:11 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Read this artice on how the Pakistani courts are dealing with the problem of their elected leaders having dual nationalities and citizenships.

It is entitled,
"MNA Farahnaz Ispahani’s reply to a court query on dual nationality has landed her into trouble," accessed at http://dawn.com/2012/05/26/sc-suspends-farahnazs-assembly-membership/

What is interesting is that MNA Farahnaz Ispahani argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction to decide her eligibility. This is what the Court told her:

“We fail to understand that in such an important matter where elected representatives are holding position in Senate and the National Assembly and at the same time they are enjoying benefit of dual nationality against the provision of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, if this court, which is bound to preserve and defend the Constitution, is not empowered to enforce the fundamental rights of the citizens in terms of Article 184(3) of the
Constitution, then which court will be competent to do so?"

The Court also pointed out that an elected leader's political allegiance is important to the nations's national security. It said:

The Court said that political leaders with questionable allegiance have "no right to represent them and decide the issues of all national importance being the members of different committees, including defence, where all open and secrets including nuclear assets and issues for the betterment of the people of this country/nation were discussed.”; May 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Gorefan,

You asked: “Cite the passage from Dr. Ramsay dissertation where he uses the term “natural born citizen.”

The unamended Constitution, which was adopted in 1787, includes only two types of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizen” and the “Citizen of the United States.” Ramsay, in 1789, gave us his list of how citizenship is obtained.
Ramsay defined naturalized citizens as follows: he informed that birthright citizenship for those born after July 4, 1776 was reserved only for the children of the citizens.

Since the Constitution called these citizens the “natural born Citizens,” Ramsay therefore defined the “natural born Citizen” in this manner. There was no other “citizen” which Ramsay could have defined other than the “natural born Citizen” when he gave this definition of birthright citizenship. Does not common sense tell you that in Ramsay giving us his exhaustive list, he defined both a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States?”
St. George Tucker also did not use the clause “natural born Citizen” when he defined birthright citizenship. He defined birthright citizenship as a child born to citizen parents. This is the same thing that Ramsay said. There can also be no doubt that he defined a “natural born citizen,” for only that type of citizen who was born after the adoption of the Constitution was eligible to be President.

This shows that it really did not matter what title the Founders and Framers gave to birthright citizenship. What is important is how they defined it. And that definition always contained the requirement for birth to citizen parents. Hence, the whole argument that Vattel did not use the word “natural born Citizen” when he wrote in French, “Le naturels, ou indigenes,” is nothing more than a red herring. The Founders and Framers knew that how Vattel defined “Le naturels, ou indigenes” in their book was a “natural born Citizen.”

And by the way, are you going to tell the American people and the courts that you and your partners have “inadvertently” mislead them by telling them that Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a “natural born Citizen” when the term “natural born Citizen” does not appear anywhere in the holding of the Court? I see that you caught on to your own contradiction and now try to cover yourself by joking that Ramsay cited “natural born Citizen” “the same way Justice Gray did in Wong Kim Ark.; May 26, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Harold Smith said...: If Obama sees that about Pakistan, Mario, there'll be a push for "regime change" there...or maybe some more drone strikes or something.

BTW, didn't some court in Malaysia just find Bush et al guilty of war crimes?

I'm getting sick and tired of living in a lawless banana republic...I'm jealous of all these other countries that have a functional Judiciary.; May 26, 2012 at 1:04 AM
Joe said...: Mario.

Did the court give you a time limit? Trenton is not the greatest place and I would have to travel a great distance.

jd; May 26, 2012 at 3:49 AM
Harold Smith said...: From what I'm seeing at WND, it looks like AZ Secretary of State Bennett is conspiring with the HI Dept. of Health, to perpetuate the fraud against the people of the U.S.

The fact that Bennett didn't ask HI for official birth records gives it all away. Apparently he's pretending that he lives in a closet and doesn't relly have a clue as to what's going on. Yet he must know what's going on or he would've asked for actual birth records in the first place, since that's the simple, natural, most reasonable thing to do.

And why is WND and/or Sheriff Joe and the team giving such deference to Bennett? It's obvious that no one is being "duped" here except those who want to be "duped".

Note to all the moral cowards and shameless opportunists who are protecting Obama and the criminal entrprise he represents: When Obama and his handlers finally do start WW3 and bring the missiles down upon us, you and your family will suffer and die just like the rest of us. What good will be to have ingratiated yourselves to our criminal establishment, when our country is nothing but a pile of smoking nuclear ash?; May 26, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The Obots insist that because George Collins in Wong Kim Ark and the dissent said that Wong should not be declared a "natural born citizen," the majority in Wong held that he was a "natural born citizen."

What twisted logic they present.

Wong just needed to be a “citizen” not to get deported.

But the district court found that he was a “natural born citizen.”

On appeal Collins said that the district court erred in finding Wong to be a “natural born citizen.”

The Wong dissent said that Wong should not be declared to be a “natural born citizen” because it would not have been fair to the children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who were under the majority’s explanation only naturalized citizens “at birth” under an act of Congress, not “natural born citizens,” and not eligible to be President.

Because Wong needed to be just a “citizen,” and despite the arguments of Collins and the dissent, the Supreme Court was free to find that he was just a “citizen,” and not like the district court did, that he was also a “natural born citizen.” And that is exactly what it did, holding Wong to be under the Fourteenth Amendment a "citizen" from the moment of birth.

That Collins and the dissent said the district court erred in finding Wong to be a “natural born citizen” does not through magic convert the Court’s holding that he was a “citizen” into one that he was a “natural born Citizen.”; May 26, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Here is my response to Scientist and nbc at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog:

Scientist: So if Mario’s pre-school says “Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM” he means BOTH parents, every single day. Lord help the single parent or even the 2 parent family where one has a late meeting because when Mario sees “parents” it means both, never one or more.” Of course, nbc, took this bait hook, line, and sinker.

I am surprised at you, Scientist, being a scientist, that you would put forth such bad logic.

In your school example, of course, the school only needs one parent to pick up the child. The one parent will do the required job, i.e., picking up the child, just nicely.

But with the “natural born Citizen” clause, which is defined as a child born in the country to citizen parents, two U.S. citizen parents are needed to do the job. The reason both are needed is so that the child is born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States which is what the Founders and Framers expected of future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military. In other words, unlike the school pick-up situation, one U.S. citizen parent will not get the job done. And no U.S. citizen parents is that much worst.

This, along with four-legged creatures and a Frenchman is a European, is another fail in Obot logic.; May 26, 2012 at 5:32 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The Obots always scream racism whenever someone cites and quotes Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring)’s Vattelian definition of a “natural born Citizen,” even though his Vattelian definition of a “natural born Citizen” has absolutely nothing to do with race or color. I have shown that the early naturalization acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien themselves and that only upon the naturalization of the parents did their minor children also become naturalized U.S. citizens. This revelation is the smoking gun on the meaning of a ‘natural born Citizen,” i.e., that it also excluded any child born in the United States to alien parents. So the Obots are left with having to show that my interpretation of the early naturalization acts is not correct. So what do they do? They look for comfort in Dred Scott. They provide the following quote from Dred Scott to show that Congress had no power to nauralize anyone born in the United States:

“And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen anyone born in the United States who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.”

Id. 417.

When the Obots want to find support for their position that Congress had no power to naturalize anyone born in the United States so they can overcome my position on the correct interpretation of the early naturalization acts, they cite and quote Dred Scott, which said that Congress could not naturalize blacks who were born in the United States. So when they need racist policy and Dred Scott’s racist findings, they whole heartedly accept them as sound law. But when it comes to Justice Daniel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which has nothing to do with race or color, they reject it as racist.

Apart from their despicable hypocrisy, there is no legal basis to the Obot’s position that Congress never had power to naturalize person born in the United States. On Congress’s power to naturalize someone born in the United States who is not a “natural born Citizen,” prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no Constitutional impediment to Congress exercising such power. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the plenary power to naturalize anyone who is not a “natural born Citizen.” There is nothing in the Constitution which even remotely suggests that such power may not be exercise over those who may be born in the United States who according to Congress are born with alienage. In fact, Congress exercised that power when it passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. This is well documented by the James Madison Administration which resolved the James McClure 1811 citizenship case by finding that McClure, who was born in the United States before his British subject father naturalized as a U.S. citizen, was deemed a naturalized “citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. It again exercised that power in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which focused only upon persons born in the United States and therefore expressly covered in its text the citizenship status of persons born in the United States. So Dred Scott’s statement that Congress could not naturalize blacks who were born in the United States has no constitutional basis and neither does the Obots’ position. This means that my interpretation of the early naturalization acts stands not only as constitutionally sound but well-supported by the historical record.; May 27, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: For those persons who are interested in finding out more about Obot hypocrisy, consider this. They say that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President, even though such person, to be a “citizen of the United States,” as an adult has voluntarily taken an oath to be loyal only to the United States and swore off all foreign allegiances. This person would be Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger. But then they also say that a person who is born in the United States to alien parents, who at birth is born with dual or more conflicting allegiances and loyalties to foreign powers and who never takes any oath to be loyal only to the United States and has never swore off all foreign allegiances to foreign powers is eligible to be President. This person would be Barack Hussein Obama (assuming he was born in the United States).; May 27, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: For those interested in knowing about the frivolous nature of the Obot arguments regarding the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” consider this:

They contend that Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) did not give us a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Treating the clause “natural born Citizen” as if the Founders and Framers gave the clause numerous definitions, they say that because Minor provided the elements of what a “natural-born citizen” is (born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country) before it said that those elements describe a “natural-born citizen,” i.e., A + B = natural-born citizen, the Court did not provide a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” They say that only if the Court would have first stated “natural-born citizen,” and then followed it with the elements of what make up a “natural-born citizen,” would the Court have provided a definition of a “natural-born citizen,” i.e., natural-born citizen=A + B. They make such an argument notwithstanding that Minor told us that historically there had been only one doubt-free definition of a “natural-born citizen” which means that it does not matter in what sequence Minor placed the constituent elements of birth in the country to citizen parents and the clause defined, “natural-born citizen.”

They also make this argument when, among other sources, Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) all used the same elements that the Minor Court used, i.e., birth in the country and birth to citizen parents, in their definition of a “natural born Citizen” and provided no other definition of the clause.; May 27, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I have maintained all along that Justice Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898), interpreting and applying the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalized Wong “at birth” to be a “citizen of the United States” like Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case (1608) naturalized Calvin from birth to be a “natural born subject” under the English common law. Agreeing with my position, the Birther.org just sent me this precious find:

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

“Facts of the Case

The Chinese Exclusion Acts denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. Moreover, by treaty no Chinese subject in the United States could become a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco. At age 21, he returned to China to visit his parents who had previously resided in the United States for 20 years. When he returned to the United States, Wong was denied entry on the ground that he was not a citizen.

Question

Could the government deny naturalization to persons born in the United States in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. The government could not deny naturalization to anyone born in the United States. To reach this conclusion, Justice Gray's tedious majority opinion managed to traverse much of western civilization.”

Source: OYEZ.org at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1896/1896_132

The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent College of Law is a multimedia archive devoted to the Supreme Court of the United States and its work. It aims to be a complete and authoritative source for all audio recorded in the Court since the installation of a recording system in October 1955. The Project also provides authoritative information on all justices and offers a virtual reality Tour of portions of the Supreme Court building, including the chambers of some of the justices.

This analysis by the Oyez U.S. Supreme Court project correctly recognizes that the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark actually naturalized Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled alien parents, to be a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” and that the Government could not prevent Wong from enjoying that right that he gained by being born in the United States to domiciled alien parents. Note that prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark, under all Congressional Acts starting with the Naturalization Act of 1790, a child born in the United States to alien parents was born an alien and could only become a naturalized “citizen of the United States” upon his or her parents naturalizing if done before reaching the age of majority and if he was dwelling in the United States or by his or her own naturalization petition if done thereafter. What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did is create automatic naturalization “at birth” for those born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They brought the United States back to how Great Britain treated children born in the King’s dominions to alien parents in the 18th Century, as explained by Vattel in his Section 214, entitled, “Naturalisation:” “Finally,there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 214 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

The inescapable conclusion from this is that being a “naturalized” citizen “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark did not hold that Wong was an Article II “natural born Citizen,” nor could it have. Rather, it held that he was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth, although in effect a naturalized one “at birth.”; May 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Joe,

Oral arguments start at 1:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 30, 2012.

The rules of the New Jersey Appellate Division state that each party is given a limit of 30 minutes for oral argument. But the Court can also stop one's argument at any time that it deems appropriate.; May 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Joe said...: Thank you Mario, I may take a car in, do they have parking. I hate to bother you with this but you know we are talking Trenton here.

I understand they like to ask questions. To throw ya off or because they can't remember if they don't ask it right away. probably a little of both.

if I can't make it, is there any plans to record it?; May 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Ballantine asked: “Please show us a single court that ever said a person born on US soil was naturalized.”

I have something better than a court. I have the 1811 James McClure case which unquestionably shows that according to the James Madison Administration (remember that James Madison is the “Father of the Constitution), a child born in the United States to an alien father (British subject) was not born a “citizen of the United States. Rather, that child, only upon the father naturalizing during his years of minority and the child dwelling in the United States at the time of his father’s naturalization, became a naturalized “citizen of the United States” after his birth.

Hence, without question, James McClure, born in the United States to alien parents, was later naturalized to be a “citizen of the United States” after his birth. The early naturalization acts and the James McClure case, as treated by the James Madison Administration, are the smoking gun on what the Founders and Framers intended the “natural born Citizen” clause to mean. They clearly show without doubt that they also excluded from being a “natural born Citizen” any child that was born in the United States to alien parents.; May 27, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Joe,

When is the last time that you were in Trenton?; May 27, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Joe said...: I think never.

I have been out of NY for 34 years; May 28, 2012 at 2:31 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Here is what Thomas Brown, the champion of American apple pie, has to say to me at Dr. Conspiracy's blog on my discussion about what is a "natural born Citizen."

May 28, 2012 at 10:54 am Thomas Brown(Quote) #

"I wonder if Apuzzo and Corsi have considered that one of the results of the TeaTardParty’s agenda to erase the 20th century would be that Italians wouldn’t be considered White People."

I guess we can tell who is winning the debate.; May 28, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The Obots at Dr. Conspiracy's blog insist that Minor was all about voting and nothing about citizenship. On the contrary, in several cases that cited Minor, they recognized Minor as a case defining citizenship in the United States. In one case, the Court said that

“this court [Minor] held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since.”

In Re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894).

The other case is Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark also shows that Minor is not a case only about voting rights. Wong Kim Ark confirmed that Minor was a case about citizenship and not just about women’s right to vote. It cited and quoted Minor’s exact definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Here is what Wong Kim Ark said about the Minor decision as it relates to who may be “citizens” and who may be “natural-born citizens:”

“The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

Wong Kim Ark, 679-81. Note that for the Minor Court to concluded that Virginia Minor was a "citizen," it first defined a 'natural-born citizen" and then found that she was a "natural-born citizen."

So we can see that, apart from the many other cases that may have cited Minor v. Happesett as a citizenship case, Wong Kim Ark said that Minor decided the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” Again, in referring to Minor’s addressing the question of her citizenship, it said “[t]he decision in that case.” It said that Minor answered the question of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” in the affirmative, although it held that such citizenship status did not give her the right to vote.

So there should not be any question that, even as the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark instructs, Minor was a case not only about a woman’s right to vote, but as much a case about citizenship. Wong Kim Ark itself told us that Minor resolved a question about citizenship. Therefore, Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” which it gave in the context of resolving the question of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” is one of the holdings of the case and binding precedent.; May 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

At Dr. Conspiracy’s blog they cite Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844) for the proposition that the early naturalization statutes did not apply to children born in the United States.

Lynch is only a state law case on inheritance rights in New York. It does not control on the constitutional meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Lynch recognized the existence of the early naturalization statutes. But it chose, without reasonable explanation, to ignore them as applicable to children born in the United States. The reasoning that the court gave for its interpretation of those statutes has no merit. Lynch was not able to come to grips with the early naturalization acts.

There the court said regarding the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804 that even though Congress did not say that the clause regarding the children born to aliens becoming naturalized when their parents so naturalize applied only to children born abroad, the general language chosen by Congress was over inclusive and not necessary. Hence, the court simply ignored what Congress wrote. I guess Lynch court knew better than Congress what language it should have chosen.

The Lynch court even went further. It said that the meaning of the text of these earlier naturalization statutes relating to children would be decided by how Congress dealt with widows in citizenship statutes in 1804. The Lynch court justified its finding that the naturalization statutes meant to apply only to children born abroad by arguing that Congress in 1804 did not distinguish between U.S. citizen widows and alien widows so therefore there should not be a distinction between children born in the U.S. and children born abroad. The court continued that it should be presumed that these earlier Congresses were referring only to children born abroad just like the 1804 Congress meant to refer only to alien widows who would also have been born abroad. But on what reasoned basis are we to bind Congress in 1790, 1795, and 1802 when addressing children with what Congress did in 1804 for widows? Additionally, the Lynch court failed to address the doctrine in 1804 that wives took on the same citizenship as their husbands. The old doctrine of unity of husband and wife provided that whatever citizenship the husband had, his wife had. If the husband was an alien, the wife would also be an alien. And if the husband was a U.S. citizen, his wife would also be a U.S. citizen. There was therefore no need for Congress to distinguish in its statutes between U.S. citizen widows and alien widows, for a widow simply had the same citizenship status of her deceased husband. So the Lynch court gave a completely invalid argument for how it interpreted the early naturalization statues passed by Congress. And now you, following in the footsteps of the Lynch court, give a completely invalid argument for how to interpret Jefferson’s citizenship statutes.

The Lynch decision could have had force within New York to resolve the inheritance issue with which the court was faced, but it surely was not any binding authority on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . .; May 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Furthermore, the Lynch decision was even overruled by the New York legislature. At that time, New York did not have any statute that defined citizenship and so the court applied the old English common law. The New York Legislature in 1860 overruled Lynch:

Political Code of the State of New York (1860)

Sec. 5. The citizens of the state are:

1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;

2 All persons born out of this state who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this state.

Lynch’s parents were “transient aliens.” Hence, under this statute, Lynch would not have been a citizen of New York. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a person was a citizen of the United States only if he or she were first a citizen of a State. If the children of transient aliens were not even considered citizens of a state, they surely would not have been considered “natural born” Citizens of the United States.

Finally, Lynch’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen was also overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), which said that a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. Lynch had said that parental citizenship was not relevant. The last time that I looked, the U.S. Supreme Court trumps a state court decision. So it looks like Vattel was right and Lynch was wrong.; May 28, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman,

Your reading comprehension fails to capture the fact that in Minor the parties conceded that Virginia Minor was a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that the Court did not accept that concession. The Court only stated what the question was as presented to it by the parties. The Court did not say that that was the question that it was going to address. Rather, the Court sought to prove on its own that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to be a “natural-born citizen" and therefore a "citizen" and it did just that. It showed that since the Founding, under "common law," with which the Framers were well familiar and which we know given the Court's inclusion of citizen parents in its citizenship formula could only have been American "common law” and not English "common law," any child that was born in a county to citizen parents was a "natural-born citizen" and therefore also a "citizen."; May 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM
MichaelN said...: It appears that Obama was a dual citizen (i.e. if we rely on information so far presented)

Well here's what the US State Department has to say on dual citizenship.

"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists BUT DOES NOT ENCOURAGE IT AS A MATTER OF POLICY BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS IT MAY CAUSE.

CLAIMS OF OTHER COUNTRIES on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad.
The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, DUAL NATIONALS OWE ALLEGIANCE to both the United States and THE FOREIGN COUNTRY.

They are required to obey the laws of both countries.

Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship."

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

Ergo: it is impossible for Obama to be an Article II "natural born Citizen" due to his dual citizenship and divided allegiance.; May 29, 2012 at 12:47 AM
Sean Osborne said...: I'm following this case with great interest because all over the rest of these United States similar legal challenges to Obama meeting the 'natural born' Constitutional requirement have repeatedly been met with a brick wall failure.

Of note, and as a lifelong resident of both Monmouth and Ocean counties, I have yet to see even one word on the Purpura-Moran v Obama case printed in the Asbury Park Press. I find this an unconscionable and possibly intentional omission by the Asbury Park Press as both of these gentlemen are also residents of Monmouth and Ocean counties.; May 29, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Doublee said...: @MichaelN

I also have read the State Department’s document on dual citizenship. It is definitely on point with reference to Obama.

Of course, the Obots will say that it doesn't apply since Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 23.

When John Jay wrote his letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 in which he "hinted" that the president who is also the Commander-in-chief should be a natural born citizen, what could he have in mind other than the parents must be citizens?; May 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Update: I just filed Appellants’ Reply Letter Brief. It can be viewed here:
http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/95195368-Purpura-Moran-Reply-Letter-Brief-FILED-5-29-12

Hence, oral arguments on the Purpura and Moran v. Obama appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division with take place in the open court room as follows:

Place: Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division
Hughes Justice Complex
25 W. Market Street
5th Floor
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0006

Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Time: 1:00 p.m. (Eastern)

Judges: Hon. Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D.; Hon. Linda G. Baxter, J.A.D.; Hon. Philip A. Carchman, J.A.D.

Method: In person argument on the record in open court room (not telephonically).

I hope to see members of the interested public at the oral arguments so that you can learn first hand what the issues and arguments are.; May 29, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Joe said...: Did you do the radio show yesterday? The archive is empty.

I hope you will do one after your oral argument tomorrow and I hope the court rules soon. Obviously they have some questions for you.

I am optimistic that they really want to hear the case, either way I guess it will move to the US Supreme Ct..; May 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM
MichaelN said...: @ Doublee

Obama (junior) was born a British subject and it appears also a "citizen of the United Kingdom", then he was also a Kenyan citizen, because of his father's status.

So it appears Obama junior had triple citizenship.

The Kenyan Constitution, states....

"Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. if his father becomes. or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.
--------------------

Doublee said...

@MichaelN

I also have read the State Department’s document on dual citizenship. It is definitely on point with reference to Obama.

Of course, the Obots will say that it doesn't apply since Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 23.

When John Jay wrote his letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 in which he "hinted" that the president who is also the Commander-in-chief should be a natural born citizen, what could he have in mind other than the parents must be citizens?; May 29, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: ballantine,

What a coincidence that the James Madison Administration's view of national citizenship is consistent with Emer de Vattel, The Venus (Chief Justice John Marshall concurring), Shanks, Inglis (the majority of the United States Supreme Court), Dred Scott (Justice Daniels concurring), and Minor (the unanimous United States Supreme Court.

Regarding the Wong Kim Ark majority (Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan dissented), the Court simply naturalized Wong "at birth" under the Fourteenth Amendment, which means for the first time that a child could be born in the United States to alien parents (domiciled) who never naturalized and be considered a "citizen of the United States." Wong is nothing more than an extension of the James McClure case. Wong granted the status of a "citizen of the United States" "at birth" to a child born in the United States to alien parents who never naturalized after the child's birth. So Wong replaced the status of parents having to be “citizens” with the status that parents had to be “domiciled” (making the child born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States” before a child born in the United States could be found to be a “citizen of the United States.” And Wong also added that such a child’s citizenship would be from the moment of birth. But again, Wong Kim Ark held Wong to be a "citizen of the United States,” not a "natural born Citizen," like the James Madison Administration held James McClure to be a "Citizen of the United States" and not a “natural born Citizen."; May 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

Truly a superb Appellants Reply Letter Brief and Appendix. I downloaded a *.pdf copy which, if you need it, I can send you as an email attachment.

It beggars belief that the panel of judges could ignore such massively sound legal arguments ... but, as we've all seen, stranger things have happened.

NONETHELESS - A WONDERFUL JOB!!!; May 30, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Reality Check said...: I expected to see President Obama resign today after a thrilling presentation by putative attorney Apuzzo in New Jersey. Did I miss the news?; May 30, 2012 at 6:09 PM
Teo Bear said...: About Obama's Kenyan citizenship. Are we sure he lost it?

I found evidence that Obama was in Kenya in 1983, making him 22 in 1983.

The question is did he use Kenyan law to maintain his kenyan citizenship?

See http://birthers.org/misc/1983.html; May 30, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Ballantine says that James McClure was declared a "natural born Citizen" when in fact as documented by a letter dated November 27, 1811 from James Madison to Joel Barlow, Esq., U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson said he was a "Citizen of the United States."

Ballantine says that Minor was only about voting and not about citizenship when in fact Minor covered the subject of citizenship at length.

Now he says that The Venus was only about domicile and not about citizenship.

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814):

Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said:

“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”

The Venus was a prize case. The first thing that the Court has to do in any prize case is to determine the citizenship of the parties.

As we can see, ballantine just keeps giving us nothing but falsehoods.; May 30, 2012 at 10:01 PM
James said...: Mario,

Update us on the appeals hearing today. We are anxious to hear.; May 30, 2012 at 10:40 PM
MichaelN said...: Puzo1 said....
"Ballantine says that James McClure was declared a "natural born Citizen" when in fact as documented by a letter dated November 27, 1811 from James Madison to Joel Barlow, Esq., U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson said he was a "Citizen of the United States."

Ballantine says that Minor was only about voting and not about citizenship when in fact Minor covered the subject of citizenship at length.

Now he says that The Venus was only about domicile and not about citizenship"

Well then, it should make sense to ballantine that Wonk Kim Ark was about "citizen of the United States" and NOT about Article II "natural born Citizen".; May 30, 2012 at 11:14 PM
MichaelN said...: Reality Check said...
"I expected to see President Obama resign today after a thrilling presentation by putative attorney Apuzzo in New Jersey. Did I miss the news?"
----------------

Oh, it's all about you now?

Understand this, traitor, what you expected or missed, is about as insignificant as a pustule on an elephant's arse.; May 30, 2012 at 11:21 PM
cfkerchner said...: Exclusive Video: Atty Apuzzo – Purpura & Moran v Obama Appeal Hearing – 30 May 2012 Trenton NJ | Video courtesy of Daniel Haggerty of the Baer Haggerty Offensive Radio Show
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/exclusive-video-atty-apuzzo-purpura-moran-v-obama-appeal-hearing-30-may-2012-trenton-nj/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; May 31, 2012 at 12:13 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Commander Kerchner has the YouTube video of today's oral arguments before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Divison at his blog. You can go there and follow the link to the YouTube presentation.

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/exclusive-video-atty-apuzzo-purpura-moran-v-obama-appeal-hearing-30-may-2012-trenton-nj/

The video is courtesy of Daniel Haggerty of the Baer Haggerty Offensive Radio Show; May 31, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: ballantine,

I’m sorry, ballantine, but you are in checkmate. You said that the James Madison Administration did not declare James McClure to be a naturalized citizen which means then that, given it found that he was a “Citizen,” it would have had to declare him a “natural born Citizen.” Per James Monroe’s letter of November 27, 1811 that he sent to Joel Barlow, Esq., U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson found and stated in his Certificate that McClure was a “Citizen of the United States,” which we know from Article I and II was a naturalized citizen. Note that Justice Johnson even capitalized the “C” when he wrote “Citizen of the United States,” which shows that he was specifically referring to Article I and II “Citizen of the United States.”

We know that a “Citizen of the United States” in Article I is a naturalized citizen. You have also always maintained that a “Citizen of the United States” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was a naturalized citizen. And since we are talking about Founders and Framers making these statements and decisions regarding McClure, they surely used their words wisely and knew the critical constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Even though there was no dispute that he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785 (after the Revolution), Justice Johnson did not say that McClure was a “natural born Citizen.” And the reason he did not so declare is that when McClure was born, his father was a British subject. And the only reason he ruled McClure was a “Citizen of the United States” is that his father naturalized during his age of minority while McClure was dwelling with him in the United States.

So there you have it. Justice Johnson declared McClure to be a “Citizen of the United States,” and not a “natural born Citizen,” even though McClure was born in the United States after July 4, 1776.

The only difference for Obama is that if he was born in Hawaii, he became naturalized by the Fourteenth Amendment to be a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. James McClure became naturalized by the Naturalization Act of 1802 to be a “citizen of the United States” after birth. Remember that when the Founders and Framers wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution, there was not Fourteenth Amendment. Regardless of the fact that Obama became a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, both McClure and Obama are not “natural born Citizens.”

Checkmate, ballantine. And it could not happen to a nicer guy.; May 31, 2012 at 2:35 AM
Andy said...: But Mario…

Article I requires that one be a "Citizen of the United States," (which I won't disagree with). You just argued that "Citizen of the United States" in Article I was a "naturalized citizen."

How could someone born here to citizen parents ever be a representative or senator, then, since they would not a naturalized citizen as you just stated? Does this mean that nearly our entire Congress has been fraudulently elected?

Since according to your arguments, "Citizen of the United States" can't include natural born citizenship, does this mean that we've been doing this wrong since the beginning of the Constitution?

You can't have it both ways: either a "Citizen of the United States" can be both naturalized citizens as well as natural born citizens, or it can't. But you can't pick and choose your definitions based on where the quote appears. Either our representatives and senators could also be natural born citizens or they can't. The same statement could apply to Mr. McClure - just because they used the broader term doesn't mean they negated the more specific, unless you're saying our Constitution does, as well.; May 31, 2012 at 4:59 AM
bdwilcox said...: Reality Check, Ballantine, John Woodman; all are evidence that slime molds have learned how to type.; May 31, 2012 at 5:09 AM
juniper55 said...: Who in New Jersey determined that Roger Calero was not eligible to run for US president in 2004 and 2008 under the Socialist Workers Party?

He was definitely not a NBC. But he was on the ballot in up to nine states, including New Jersey.

Who said he COULD be on the ballot?

Wasn't this what Donofrio charged in 2008? What was New Jersey's response at the time?

From The Green Papers:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/President-Details.phtml?n=CALERO,ROGER

Thank you also, Wayback Machine!

http://web.archive.org/web/20070730141140/http://www.politics1.com/swp04.htm; May 31, 2012 at 9:38 AM
juniper55 said...: Were New Jersey (and New York and others) voters informed at the time of the 2008 election that Roger Calero was NOT eligible to be President?

If not, why not? Doesn't the SOS deserve responsibility here?

If they were NOT informed, doesn't that constitute a fraudelent election, just as much as Jim Crow poll taxes or landownwership or voter intimidation since those people were not informed that their ballots would be wasted on an ineligible candidate?

I know the Supremes refused to review Donofrio v Wells but the basic premise of the case remains - and in yesterday's hearing the judges themselves could not seem to state WHO has actual authority to determine ballot eligibility - they pawned it off on Congress!

But Congress doesn't determine who qualifies for state ballots!

I wish Calero had been brought up; I haven't read your filings this time yet, Mario, but I hope he was mentioned.; May 31, 2012 at 9:53 AM
bdwilcox said...: Mario,

How history will view your efforts. Thanks for all your hard work defending our country and Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.; May 31, 2012 at 10:37 AM
juniper55 said...: The FEC says you must be a natural-born citizen to be a Presidential candidate!

So how come Abdul Hassan (naturalized US citizen) is ineligible but Barack Obama (as-yet-to-be-verified-NBC-by-any-court-that-has-guts thanks to dear old non-citizen dad) is eligible?

It sounds that in the case of Hassan, a federal agency deems itself qualified to determine the eligibility of a candidate. However, when you raise the question regarding Obama's eligiblity, the feds point to the states and the states point to the courts and the courts point to the feds.

BTW no outcome on this case yet. Thank you, Pacer.gov!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ABDUL KARIM HASSAN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendant.
Civ. No. 11-2189 (EGS)
MOTION - FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MOTION TO DISMISS

[Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS Document 8 Filed 02/27/12 - excerpts follow]

The Commission then opined that “[b]ecause Mr. Hassan has clearly stated that he is a naturalized citizen of the United States, and not a natural born citizen under the constitutional requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Commission concludes that Mr. Hassan is not eligible to receive matching funds.”

The Court’s decision in Schneider was consistent with repeated, earlier rulings ... See Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658, (1946) (explaining that naturalized citizenship “carries with it all of
the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country ‘save that of eligibility to the Presidency’”); Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944) (holding that “[u]nder our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency”); Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22-23 (1913) (same). This line of Supreme Court precedent is anchored in principles dating back to the nation’s very founding. See Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827-28 (1824) (Justice John Marshall explaining that a naturalized citizen “is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction.”) (emphasis
added)).

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS

[Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS Document 13 Filed 04/02/12 - excerpts below]

Fundamentally, Hassan asks this Court to hold that a provision of the Constitution
is itself unconstitutional. But “this Court lacks the power to grant the relief sought because the
Court, as interpreter and enforcer of the words of the Constitution, is not empowered to strike the
document’s text on the basis that it is offensive to itself or is in some way internally
inconsistent.” New v. Pelosi, No. 08-9055, 2008 WL 4755414, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2008)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff’d, 374 Fed. Appx. 158 (2d Cir. 2010). Thus,
contrary to Hassan’s suggestion (Opp. at 14-15), the natural born citizenship requirement should
not be treated like a statute or presumed invalid because it makes a distinction based on national
origin. Instead, unless the requirement is explicitly repealed through the amendment process
specified in the Constitution, it remains in full force.; May 31, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Andy,

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says that a “Citizen of the United States” is eligible to be President only if he/she has that character as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Hence, under that clause, anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be president.

This clause informs us that there are two types of “citizens,” a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.”

The Founders and Framers did not say “natural born Citizen of the United States” like they said “Citizen of the United States.” That is because a “natural born Citizen” was a national citizen, a member of the national republic and not just a “citizen” of one of the several states. A “citizen” of one of the states could obtain that character through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution or otherwise by satisfying the naturalization laws of any one of the states. All these “Citizens of the United States” were considered as having been naturalized either by the Revolution or by state naturalization statutes.

Starting with the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress also added to the “Citizens of the United States” through the exclusive naturalization powers given to it by Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Congress again exercised this naturalization power in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (covering persons born in the United States) and even by having the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause passed (covering persons born in the United States and also those born abroad). Congress continues to exercise its naturalization powers today and to add to or modify the numbers of “citizens of the United States.” See 8 U.S.C. Section 1401 et seq.

Under the scheme set up by the Founders and Framers, to be a “natural born Citizen,” the person had to satisfy the definition of a “natural born Citizen” as provided by the law of nations which became our national law and was incorporated into Article III “Laws of the United States.” See Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 which expressly refers to the law of nations; Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) (Alexander Hamilton argued that the law of nations was part of the “common law” and that the decisions of the New York Legislature must be consistent with the law of nations. Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations); Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111 (Pa. Ct. of Oyer & Terminer 1784) (“This is a case of first impression in the United States. It must be determined on the principles of the law of nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State, and is to be collected from the practice of different Nations, and the authority of writers.” Id. at 114. The Attorney General argued that the law of nations “compose a part of the law of the land.” Id. 113); In 1789, the Continental Congress expressly resolved that the United States would cause the “‘law of nations to be strictly observed.’” 14 Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789, at 635 (1909), cited in Harold Hongju Koh, Is International Law Really State Law? 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1824-25 (1998); Ross v. Rittenhouse, 2 U.S. 160, 162 (1792) (In 1792, the supremacy of the law of nations within the United States was affirmed by Chief Justice McKean in

Continued . . .; May 31, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Ross v. Rittenhouse where he said: “The Congress on the 15th of January, 1780, resolved (inter alia) 'that the trials in the Court of Appeals be according to the usage of nations, and not by Jury.' This has been the practice in most nations, but the law of nations, or of nature and reason, is in arbitrary states enforced by the royal power, in others, by the municipal law of the country; which latter may, I conceive, facilitate or improve the execution of its decisions, by any means they shall think best, provided the great universal law remains unaltered”); Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281(1796) (Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States "were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement); The Nereide, U.S. v. 388, 423 (1815), Chief Justice Marshall suggested that the “Court is bound by the law of nations, which is part of the law of the land.” The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); M. J. Glennon, Constitutional Diplomacy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1990), at 245 (“The courts have always considered the law of nations to be part of the law of the United States”); Michael D. Ramsey, The Law of Nations as a Constitutional Obligation, http://www.law.georgetown.edu/internationalhrcolloquium/documents/RamseyPaper.doc. (Provides many historical sources and much case law showing how committed the Founders and Framers were to the law of nations during the yearly years of the nation); Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography, p. 27 (Random House 2005) (Indeed, The Law of Nations was widely read and cited in revolutionary America); Jordan J. Paust, In Their Own Words: Affirmations of the Founders, Framers, and Early Judiciary Concerning the Binding Nature of the Customary Law of Nations, University of California, Davis Vol. 14:2, p. 205 (2008) (provides an exhaustive list of case law, authorities, and other sources showing that the Founders and Framers saw the people, Congress, the President, and the States to be bound by the law of nations and considered the law of nations as part of the “Laws of the United States”).

Hence, under Article I, a Representative or Senator had to be at least a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. This was, of course, a minimum requirement, for it would be absurd to think that a “natural born Citizen,” who could be president, could not be a Senator or Representative. For those born after the adoption of the Constitution wanting to be President, they had to be “natural born Citizens,” by satisfying the definition of such a “citizen” under the law of nations which became part of our national law and incorporated in Article III “Laws of the United States” and which Minor called “common law.” As Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) confirmed, that definition was a child born in the country to citizen parents.; May 31, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Born912 has left a new comment on your post "Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in...":

Mario,

I watched the arguments and believe you did a very good job given the hostile demeanor of the judges. I get the feeling that they have a strong desire to avoid determining just what an NBC is and simple want to throw this problem to congress.

That said, a couple of 20/20 hindsight items. There are numerous examples of SOSs ruling various candidates as ineligible though their state statues don't specifically require them to vet the candidates. Also VP Cheney left out the question to congress where he should have asked if there were any objections to Oboma as prez. Thus the post election vetting these judges were referring too never took place in 2008 by congress or the electoral college. Also the determination as to the legal meaning of NBC in the constitution is a question of law and not one for politicians in a post election ceremony. Thus if these judges consider this a serious issue they need to rule on it so the case can ripen and make its way to the Supreme Court which is the only body charged with the final say as to the meaning of the Constitution.

I have always felt that the eligibility question will hinge on an honest judge. These three are [editor's deletion] playing hot potato. However the case in Tenn Fed Court has a judge who sees the seriousness of the issue and now Oboma's lawyers are asking for a venue change in what I see as a clear case of judge shopping. I suspect a lot of pressure is being placed on that judge right now. TBD.

Again, great job with the arguments and briefs.

Howard; May 31, 2012 at 12:03 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

As with Born912 above, it seemed very clear that even if one did not have the audio enabled (which I DID), all 3 of the jurists were sitting back with arms folded in front of them and attacking the presenter with sometimes-odd questions.

Just watching the interaction/body language of the judges it seemed that they certainly had already accepted the defenses' positions and didn't wish to even think about the eligibility issue that you clearly framed in your brief (or, perhaps, thay hadn't bothered to read it).

The appellants received about 75-80% of the alloted 30 minutes including the time for judges' questions while the 2 defense barristers made their pitch ("... why do anything since the status quo is 'lubberly'...?") with - at most - one minor question asked between the two attorneys as opposed to the 15/20 peppered at Mario. The "bench" completely ignored the fact that their position has resulted - and will likely do so again - in the election of an ineligile person since NO ONE in the Justice system is brave enough to step up to the plate but instead pretend "it is someone else's job". They are all more than fat, happy, and content to ignore the Constitution which they also swore to defend.

The nature of the questions already indicated their intent, I believe, as did the relative imbalance and content of questioning of each party.

Kudos anyway and hang in there.; May 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM
Joe said...: Great Job Mr. Apuzzo !!

It was an excellent brief.; May 31, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Update:

The Appellate Division has rendered it decision. The Court has affirmed, for the reasons stated in those decisions, the decision of the ALJ and the Secretary of States on all points.

The decision may be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95462169/Purpura-Moran-Appellate-Division-Decision-a4478-11-5-31-12; May 31, 2012 at 3:01 PM
Reality Check said...: The words "Apuzzo" and "without meritt" have been used together quite frequently lately.; May 31, 2012 at 3:50 PM
js said...: Its strange.

SC decisions tend to be detailed, filled with findings of fact, or documenting those facts when they are given substantial grounds they disagree with.

These appeals involving Obama are short, and give absolutely no explanation, just, we agree. The facts are irrelevant at this point, and it is sufficient to say that the appeals court is substantially incapable of documenting its choices. I do believe that they are chosing the path of least resistance for whatever reason or rhyme they may have, but I see that the entire chain of legal authority ignore a substantial quantity of case law that they should address, analyze and use to establish the purpose and cause/effect of thier decision.

Its missing, completely, and thier failure breaches the professional conduct that we expect from them.; May 31, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Reality Check said...: Pardon the iPhone typo "without merit"; May 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM
bdwilcox said...: "The words 'Apuzzo' and 'without meritt' have been used together quite frequently lately." -Fealty Dreck

That reminds me of these:

“How long will you who are simple love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?" (Proverbs 1:22)

"The arrogant mock me unmercifully, but I do not turn from your law." (Proverbs 119:50-52)

"The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning." (Proverbs 14:6)

"A corrupt witness mocks at justice, and the mouth of the wicked gulps down evil." (Proverbs 19:28)

"The proud and arrogant person—'Mocker' is his name— behaves with insolent fury." (Proverbs 21:24)

"Drive out the mocker, and out goes strife; quarrels and insults are ended." (Proverbs 22:10)

"The schemes of folly are sin, and people detest a mocker." (Proverbs 24:9)

Same old, same old. Basically: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9); May 31, 2012 at 4:40 PM
cfkerchner said...: Coverage of the NJ appeal hearing by Terry Hurlbut Essex County Conservative Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-eligibility-and-judicial-embarrassment-nj

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; May 31, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Reality Check said...: @ js

The opinions are brief when one side argues that which has no merit as was the case in Pupura v Obama. First, as the painful oral argument and questions by the judges to Apuzzo demonstrated there was nothing in New Jersey election law that said any nationally recognized candidate for president had to prove they were eligible. Second, his frivolous and meritless arguments on the definition of natural born citizen hardly need a detailed opinion to rebut.; May 31, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Ray said...: It offends reason to state that an opinion which "finds" that "President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a 'natural born citizen'" is a "thorough and thoughtful[ly] written opinion" when no evidence whatsoever is presented to establish identity, citizenship, or birthplace of the candidate.

The lack of evidence in the Administrative Hearing, an Appellant Division declaration devoid of any supporting or explanatory content, and deferential salutations intimating that this candidate deserves preferential treatment that others do not, lead to the inescapable conclusion that a political decision has been given, not one based upon law.; May 31, 2012 at 6:41 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: nbc and ballantine at Dr. Conspiracy's blog keep telling us that John McClure was a "natural born Citizen" because he had an American passport. But that passport was not worth the value of its paper. McClure ended up in a French jail, a prisoner of the French for being a British enemy, regardless of his having that American passport.

To get out of that French jail, McClure still had to prove he was a U.S. "citizen." He did that by showing that he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785 to a British father who naturalized on February 20, 1786 while McClure was dwelling in the United States. Based on those facts which had been proved, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson ruled that “agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States,” McClure was a “Citizen of the United States.”

Note that “the laws and usage of the United States” does not refer to the “common law.” Rather it could have meant only a treaty, statute of Congress, or the law of nations. Since there was no treaty involved, we know he was referring to the Naturalization Act of 1802. Also, “usage of the United States” referred to the law of nations and not the English common law which only applied on the state level.

So, we can see that nbc and ballantine are wrong because in the words of Justice Johnson, McClure was declared a “Citizen of the United States” under a Congressional Act (the Naturalization Act of 1802) or the law of nations and not under any English common law. And being declared a “Citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802 proves that McClure was not a “natural born Citizen.” This historical record clearly proves Justice Gray wrong in what he said about the English common law prevailing in the United States on matters of citizenship after July 4, 1776 and down to the present.; May 31, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Reality Check said...: @ bdwicox

Have you been honing your skills making lots of copies lately? Had you only been allowed to testify about all the copies you have made this entire thing might have turned out differently. Or not.

Mario failed to point out that the panel cited R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E) which reads:

(e) Affirmance Without Opinion:

(1) Civil Appeals. When in a civil appeal the Appellate Division determines that any one or more of the following circumstances exists and is dispositive of a matter submitted to the court for decision:

[. . .]

(E) that some or all of the arguments made are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion;

then and in any such case the judgment or order under appeal may be affirmed without opinion and by an order quoting the applicable paragraph of this rule. [emphasis added]

In other words they said that Mario's dreck was so pathetic that it did not even merit a written opinion. That is reality BD. Ouch!; May 31, 2012 at 7:26 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Reality Check,

Radio Bully Reality Check, you really think your some big shot.

I'll give you your big chance here on my blog. Since you think you are so smart, tell us here why my argument was "so pathetic that it did not even merit a written opinion."

If you can show us this, then maybe you will have made some valid point. Just think, we will have your answer so that we can understand just what the court meant. Go for it!; May 31, 2012 at 7:48 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: jayjay has left a new comment on your post "Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in...":

Puzo1:

I seriously doubt that any of the 3judges bothered to read the Appellant's Brief and consider the legal arguments therein. Their presented "opinions" are in fact the acts allowing the "chaos" they apparently so dread (which we now have in large part due to judicial inaction) ... and that is only going to intensify if the Judicial continues to cower in front of the Executive/Legislative.

I wonder if [editor's deletion] the judges . . . realize the implications for themselves by not following the black-letter law of the Constitution?

I doubt it and there is nothing in either their questioning or their problematic "decision" indicating that they did [editor's deletion]

The at-once funniest and most ironic words in their entire "non-consideration of any factual things" was the last sentence therein where they said:

"We affirm substantially for the reasons set forthin ALJ Jeff S. Masin's thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12,2012."

I'd give them that it WAS written.

Perhaps they do not realize that Masin made up many "facts" (as well as laws) out of whole cloth and as they have done by affirming? It's certainly far easier to "duck and cover" as Masin did and perhaps safer in their minds. [editor's deletion]

Actually, if laws do not matter and are not to be followed (or Constitutional oaths for that matter) then why have them?? Anarchy is alive in high places, it seems.; May 31, 2012 at 8:05 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

Perhaps some of these "learned" obots can delineate the actual evidence relied upon in Masin's decision (for eligibility/nbC etc.) as well as in the Affirmation???

The cop-out tried ("no comment required") just doesn't cut it. It would surely help elucidate us poor sloping-forehead, knuckle-dragging types to be as educated as the persons who benefitted from the current educational system.; May 31, 2012 at 8:17 PM
js said...: sorry reality chuck...if you check the history of SC cases...they always itemize in detail what they rely on when it comes to constitutional issues...

maybe you check reality and chuck the attitude eh...maybe you could use that brain of yours for something more than a hat holder...

maybe; May 31, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: You cannot make this stuff up.

Over at Dr. Conspiracy's blog, I contend that the New Jersey courts have ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii. You would think that they would be happy about that. I kid you not. The whole mob of them vociferously argues that the New Jersey courts did not find that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, the Obots say that the New Jersey court did not find that Obama was born in Hawaii.

I asked them what are they afraid of with the court finding that Obama was born in Hawaii. They tell me that I have a reading comprehension problem. So where was Obama born?

Like I said, you cannot make this stuff up.; May 31, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: May 31, 2012 5:17 PM

James said...

Mario,

Don't feel bad. This was another [deleted] court. I could tell immediately that the judges had no interest in listening to your arguments. I seriously doubt they read your brief. The appeals court was clearly biased by showing Presidential treatment to Obama even though you indicated he was a candidate on the New Jersey Ballot. The court then tried to say his eligibility was settled with the 2008 election. This is a moot issue and nonsense as this is the 2012 election and anything concerning Obama's eligibility in 2008 is moot. Further the courts basically violated the seperation of powers by suggesting that Congress settle matters concerning Constitutional Law such Obama's eligibility under Article II Section I. Finally, in truly an appauling show, allowed the New Jersey SOS to prescribe to the court that unlawful and fraudlent elections can take place in New Jersey by suggesting that the SOS has no duty to insure candidates are eligible. This is complete nonsense and the court's reason for it is nonsense too - That they HOPED the problem of eligibility would be settled by Congress.; May 31, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Reality Check said...: @ Mario

Any judge would realize as soon as he or she read your interpretation of Minor and Wong Kim Ark that you haven't a clue about law. Your theories have been shown to be incorrect in thousands of words written at CAAFLOG, The Fogbow, John Woodman's blog and many other forums. There is no need for us to cover the same ground over and over. You took your best shot and you lost again and you lost completely. This ruling will stand on any appeal because it was about as cut and dry as a ruling can be.

Everyone knows that anyone born a US citizen is a natural born citizen. The judges know that and someone coming into their court citing de Vattel and the McClure case will be seen as a kook. Judge Masin and the three Appellate judges read your briefs and they ruled according to the law. I hope you do not give up frankly because your efforts will eventually lead to sanctions when the courts have had enough.; May 31, 2012 at 11:47 PM
js said...: Reality Chuck strikes agin!!

Just think, if the Judges in this case realized that they needed to incorporate the WHOLE truth about the case, then they would document every step, dot every "I", and insure there is nothing left to clear up in the end.

But thats not what they did is it chuck...lol.

They endorsed the error of a Jr sitting Admin Judge. Thats not justice, its cronyism, the good ole boy system. They IGNORE 99% of the facts and rule based on 1% of the BS. Then again, thats what you're about right? BS...you make all the small talk, but when it comes to to stand up and be a man, do the right thing, and DEFEND THIS NATION...you disappear, you do the same thing the corrupt institution does.

I remember Nixon. Its time to end this charade, we have the American People on the right side. The ones that believe in the truth, justice and the same values that the Founding Fathers fought for to bring us this nation. History will well remember your ilk, much like it remembers Benedict Arnold, a traitor to your country.; June 1, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Reality Check,

The ALJ provided more than one ground for his decision. He said:

(1) Obama has no constitutional or statutory obligation to provide any evidence to the State of New Jersey that he is eligible to run for the Office of President;

(2) Obama was born in Hawaii and he is therefore a "natural born Citizen," regardless of the citizenship of his parents.

On appeal, I argued that the ALJ erred as to both issues. I argued that Obama has a constitutional and statutory duty to present evidence to the SOS that he is eligible for the office he seeks to occupy. I argued that the ALJ erred in finding that Obama was born in Hawaii because Obama conceded and the ALJ confirmed that there was absolutely no evidence before the court as to Obama's name, his identity, or where he was born, including the 2011 Certificate of Live Birth Obama released on the internet also not being before the court. I also argued that the ALJ’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” was erroneous.

As can be seen below, my arguments are more than reasonable despite what you and your coterie are trying to con-off on the public about them.

(1) To any reasonable person it is beyond comprehension that Obama has no constitutional or statutory obligation to show to the State of New Jersey that he is eligible for the Office of President before he can run for President, especially when the Constitution says only a “natural born Citizen” can be president, New Jersey state statutes clearly say that both the petition circulator and the candidate have to certify that the candidate is eligible for the office he seeks, both the SOS instruction and nominating petition advise the presidential candidate that he must be a “natural born Citizen,” and there is no federal law prohibiting the State of New Jersey from vetting presidential candidates.

(2) Since Obama presented absolutely no evidence of who he is, what is his identity, or where he was born, which was both conceded by Obama and confirmed by the ALJ, it is more than reasonable to argue that the ALJ erred in finding that Obama was born in Hawaii.

(3) I have provided a ton of historical evidence and case law showing that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. The only case that Obama and the Attorney General relied upon is Wong Kim Ark which did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” So my argument as to the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is immensily reasonable.

The Appellate Division did not tell us why my arguments are without merit. The court did not give any reasons for its decision. It just said that my arguments are without merit and affirmed.

So why do you come here and try to persuade the public to think that the case that I presented to the Court was such a lousy and botched up case? Any straight and honest thinking human being will tell you that there is nothing lousy about it.; June 1, 2012 at 12:52 AM
Reality Check said...: @ js

This was not a US Supreme Court case. This was a state appellate review of a decision by an administrative law judge as affirmed by the secretary of state. This case would never get through the door of the US Supreme Court. It did not represent a genuine issue in law that would merit the attention of the highest court in the land.

This was a short opinion because the judges agreed completely with the opinion of Judge Masin and felt no need to elaborate. The rule cited by the judges tells you that the case presented by the plaintiffs had so little merit (actually none) that it was not worthy of a long opinion. This will be the end of it.

The judges who decide these things just told Mario the same thing that real attorneys (and people like me who can read) have been telling him for 3 years.; June 1, 2012 at 1:11 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Reality Check,

I asked you before but you did not answer. I will ask you again. Why does the case have "so little merit (actually none)?"; June 1, 2012 at 1:26 AM
js said...: So explain in detail, how the Founding Fathers put in that NBC clause...and exactly how they would agree that a man, Barak Hussein Obama, who was born a Citzien of Britain, could sit at POTUS.

You are no "real" attorney. "Real" Attorneys stand up for the law, they incorporate the spirit of the law into the word of the law and they will fight to the death to defend it.

You are just..well...simply put...reality chucked out the door. You sit on your high horse and assume to know what the Judged did NOT say. You ignorantly tell me that the State OF NJ Supreme Court Appellate Division has no duty to do the right thing because they are "NOT" a US Supreme Court.

BS.; June 1, 2012 at 7:08 AM
js said...: He wont answer you Mario.

He cant. Remember, No is a complete sentence.; June 1, 2012 at 7:20 AM
Reality Check said...: @ Mario
I could say just go back and read Judge Masin’s ruling to see why your case had no merit but I will mention just a few items.

1. You completely misinterpreted NJ election statutes to assign a vetting duty to the SoS that he did not have. You read the law as you wished it to be not as it is.

2. You maintained that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents and that President Obama is not eligible. No case has ever ruled that is the definition despite your incorrect reading of Minor and WKA. There are now plenty of recent cases where courts and tribunals have ruled President Obama is a natural born citizen beginning with Ankeny v Daniels and several cases in 2012.

3. You included irrelevant nonsense with your briefs such as Sheriff Arpaio’s silly investigation and “Barry” Obama’s High School Yearbook that had no bearing on your case.

4. In oral argument on appeal you conceded that it was too late to do anything about the primary ballot so you instantly tried to convert your case to a general election challenge on the spot. That one I am sure left the judges with their eyes rolling.

I could go on but really just read the rulings. If you think these judges were wrong you can always appeal and you can file again in the general election season. There is no law against stupidity but the courts may eventually get their fill of yours.; June 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Harold Smith said...: Maybe R.C. had to get back to his Talmudic studies.; June 1, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Reality Check said...: @ Mario
I could say just go back and read Judge Masin’s ruling to see why your case had no merit but I will mention just a few items.

1. You completely misinterpreted NJ election statutes to assign a vetting duty to the SoS that he did not have. You read the law as you wished it to be not as it is.

2. You maintained that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents and that President Obama is not eligible. No case has ever ruled that is the definition despite your convoluted reading of Minor. There are now plenty of recent cases that have ruled President Obama is a natural born citizen beginning with Ankeny v Daniels and several cases in 2012.

3. You included irrelevant nonsense with your briefs such as Sheriff Arpaio’s silly investigation and “Barry” Obama’s High School Yearbook that had no bearing on your case.

4. In oral argument on appeal you conceded that it was too late to do anything about the primary ballot so you instantly tried to convert your case to a general election challenge on the spot. That one I am sure left the judges with their eyes rolling.

I could go on but really just read the rulings. If you think these judges were wrong you can always appeal and you can file again in the general election season. There is no law against stupidity but the courts may eventually get their fill of yours.; June 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Reality Check said...: @ js

Dual citizenship matters naught. All the founding fathers required is that the president be born a citizen. The dual citizenship fallacy has been debunked many times. I suggest you go read at www.fogbow.com and educate yourself.; June 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Teo Bear said...: Reality Checklist said "Everyone knows that anyone born a US citizen is a natural born citizen."

Hummm, if we go by your logic then a child of a single US citizen, born overseas (perhaps in the other parent's native country) is a born US citizen according to both yourself and 8 U.S. Code 1401 say so.

But 8 U.S. Code 1401 (g) says a born citizen is " a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years"

So according to you a child born in Pakistan, to a US citizen father, and whose mother is a Afgan citizen is a natural born citizen, constitutionally elidgable to be President after reaching the age of 35 and residing in the US for 14 years?

Of course you do! and I am sure Adam Perlman aka Adam Yahiye Gadahn will be happy to hear that.; June 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Teo Bear said...: Reality Check is off his/her rocker for all of these are citizens of the United States.

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.; June 1, 2012 at 1:16 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Reality Check wants to hear from Supreme Courts. Here is what the New Jersey Supreme Court said in 1895, just 3 years before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wong Kim Ark in 1898:

The New Jersey Supreme Court explained that children born in the United States to alien parents were born subject to a foreign power but that “it will never be conceded by our government that such persons are subject to any foreign power, so as to exclude them from the right to citizenship intended to be conferred upon persons born in this country by the first section of the civil rights bill of April 9, 1866, hereinbefore referred to.” Benny v. O’Brien, 586 N.J.L. 36, 29 Vroom 36, 32 A. 696 (1895).

Having just fought a Revolution with England, demanding complete and undivided loyalty to the American cause, and having great suspicion of monarchial and foreign influence trying to retake America, there is simply no way that the Founders and Framers would have allowed a person such as Barack Obama, born to a British father and himself born a British “natural born subject,” and who at age two also became a Kenyan citizen, all which made him born “subject to a foreign power,” to be the Commander of the republic’s military forces and head of its civil power. Under the early naturalization acts (1790, 1795, 1802, 1855), the fact that Obama’s father never naturalized meant in the eyes of the Founders and Framers that Obama never even became a U.S. “citizen” during his minority. The only way he could have become a U.S. citizen was to later petition for naturalization on his own upon reaching the age of majority. See the citizenship case of James McCure (1811) (reported in The Alexandria Herald, October 7, 1811, and reprinted from the Richmond Enquirer), accessed at http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf . See also the following letter from then Secretary of State, James Monroe:

Joel Barlow Esq. Department of State
Paris Nov. 27, 1811

Sir

I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.

I have [the honor]
James Monroe

Of course, our naturalization laws have changed since 1790. But while the definition of a “citizen of the United States” has changed by way of the Fourteenth Amendment (if born in Hawaii, Obama can be a “citizen of the United States” under this amendment) or through Congress’s power to naturalize persons, the original Article II constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen” as accepted by the People of the United States who adopted and ratified the Constitution and which they put in place as a requirement for presidential eligibility is still the law of the land and cannot change without a constitutional amendment.; June 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM
cfkerchner said...: Meet Professor Richard C. Rockwell of the Univ of CT, aka TollandRCR, aka RC, aka Reality Check in this video about some of the FogBow cast of socialist-communist, disinformation "social engineering" specialists.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=045_1307642475; June 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM
js said...: So sorry you are misinformed reality chuck (NOT). The qualifications for POTUS do not address "born a citizen" for anyone alive today. They didn’t entertain the topic in the Constitution about anyone being a dual citizen as a matter of fact. When they wrote the US Constitution, it was well acknowledged that anyone born on US SOIL of an alien father automatically acquired the fathers foreign citizenship and was automatically an alien themselves. That being well documented here, that person, being subject to the authority of a foreign sovereign power, was not completely subject to the US at birth, and that person’s citizenship even under the 14th Amendment is questionable. You can omit everything and condense that down to mean something else, but that is just lying through omission.
Stop wasting our time, you are about as clueless as your Fogbow handlers, and their dishonesty reflected directly on you. That makes you the liar, after having been schools so well by Mario and others here, whom you ignore so you can play stupid games when I bait you. Otherwise you would need to actually involve yourself in some very long explanations about the details that you ignore (intentionally I presume).; June 1, 2012 at 3:15 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Harry has left a new comment on your post "Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in...":

Mario,

I watched and listened to the hearing. Unbelievable! Do these judges know anything? Were they prepared? Had they read the briefs? Have they read anything? The Constitution? The Law of Nations? Are they concerned about the future of this country? The rule of law? Do they care? Are they afraid? Probably so!

The [deleted] questions asked by the judges suggests total ignorance of or indifference to the issue:

1. Where is it written that a candidate has to prove he is a natural born citizen?

What? How about some common sense? [deleted] The Constitution requires it. That is where it is written. If you don’t have to show that you are an nbc, why have any eligibility requirement? Why prove a candidate is 35 years old? Why prove a candidate has lived here for 14 years? Why not let anyone be president?

2. Why not accept what Congress has done at face value?

Was he kidding? Congress failed in their responsibility to support and defend the Constitution. That’s why you cannot take what Congress did at face value. My own Representative (Rehberg R-MT) responded as follows to my question about Obama’s eligibility in August, 2009:

Given the general knowledge of this issue prior to the Nov. 4, 2008, election, I asked him why he (or any other members of Congress) did not object when the electoral vote was counted by Congress on Jan. 6, 2009. His response was that since the Democrats held a majority there was no point in objecting as they would simply vote to override the objection. It was a question of "practicality." He indicated that we ordinary citizens did not understand the "rules."

Quoting from Dr. Edwin Vieira:

"Yet the Constitution demands that, if such an inquiry is held, it should arrive at the correct conclusion with sufficient evidence in support. After all, the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or to decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient. Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be “a natural born Citizen,” by simply assuming that he is such... Congress simply cannot ‘waive,’ or simply flub, the Constitution’s eligibility requirement ‘to the Office of President’ by inaction, or incompetent action, or collusive action."

So Congress simply waived the Constitution. Congress failed to support and defend the Constitution and will fail again if given the chance.

Defendant’s lawyer concluded that Obama “is indeed a natural born citizen.” He is not an nbc simply by declaring that he is.
The conclusion to this hearing was established before these three judges entered the court room.

To state that your arguments are “without merit” is nothing less than a slap in the face to millions of American citizens who have a right to know that the person occupying the Office of the President is legitimate. Obama’s right to privacy does not trump the Constitution.

[deleted]; June 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM
Reality Check said...: I love the way Birthers introduce straw man examples of bogey persons born to one Muslim parent in a Muslim country to try to demonstrate that there is a flaw in the definition of natural born citizen. They always forget the little detail that you have to be elected to the office. They act as if any NBC can automatically become president. The voters are primary vetters. What Birthers want to do is disenfranchise 69.5 million voters in 2012. As far as I am concerned you can kiss my ... with that wish.

@ Mario

NBC at Doc C's blog demolished your latest misreading of the NJ Supreme Court case. Do you really want me to go grab that and quote it here?

You really need to learn to accept defeat. Answer this question please: Are all the judges who said your case was "without merit" stupid? Were they liars? Or are they just better jurists than you will ever hope to be? My money is on the third choice.; June 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM
jayjay said...: Worth a chuckle:

The consistent manner in which those posting on this blog are in opposition to ANYTHING resembling factual or legal demonstration of the lack of eligibility of the man currently holding the office of US CEO.

These folks - for lack of a better word, let's call them a "gang" since they behave almost in predictable unison as any gang might do - at the very least provide a lot of mirth as they put their sterling ignorance of both the facts and the laws on display for all to "admire".

These wannabe barristers spout off some of the funniest sayings it has been my pleasure to observe. For example the one (mis)named Reality Check proffers that the Kevin Davidson (Dr. Conspiracy) and the "fogbow" websites are far superior to any lower court such as the U. S. Supreme Court and it is to those websites that anyone should use to lead hs affairs.

Mr. Check (or, perhaps better Mr. Rockwell, also tells us that "thus and so" has been "debunked many times" without offering any proof of such an outrageous claim. Apparently he believes that as a professor of something at Conn. U. he must be believed and that we are his students.

With supposedly upper level educators mouthing such nonsense, is it any wonder many of his students grow up to be liberals and help trash our country?? Oddly enough, he's probably proud of his "educational" work all the while not realizing it is merely brainwashing. He'd no doubt fail or greatly mark down any of his students had they the temerity to oppose him.

We, however, are NOT his students and can enjoy his multiple bits of failed logic and political/legal misinformation such as "dual citizenship matters not" and/or that a legally-constituted law enforcement investigation into the birth certificate etc. is "silly".

The good prof is right about one thing, however (in a sigularly solitary instance), which is that there is "no law against stupidity" so he should be safe from incarceration.

Perhaps if he lived in NJ rather than CT he'd be able to read NJ legalese. As it is, it seems to go right over his head.

At least the "good Doctor" Kevin Davidson has the excuse of living further away and can write with a southern accent (no more informative or accurate but even more entertaining).; June 1, 2012 at 4:52 PM
jayjay said...: Reality Check:

... and you and your myrmidons seem to have forgotten that a candidate for either of the 2 highest offices must be a "natural born Citizen" which you certainly seem to have missed in your "education" up the tax-supported education system. Many of us learned the definition of nbC long before we arrived at high school even (not tax-supported in those days) ... but then we usually said the Pledge of Alliegance each day also.

I'd imagine you do not even remember the words of that Pledge let alone most likely have not spoken (or meant) it. I'd warrant that a few weeks/months in a real elementary school might do wonders for your grasp of what this country is all about - fogbow notwithstanding.

As for Kevin's blog, the only thing I see there that is funnier than fogbow is the idiomatic expression of misinformation and crudity. The only thing "demolished" by NBC is his own grossly flawed reading (matching yurs BTW) of the NJ laws.

As for "defeat"??? Naw, not hardly. If anything it's like A. C. Doyle had his Sherlock character say "The game is afoot ...". Pay attention!!!; June 1, 2012 at 5:44 PM
Reality Check said...: Mario got a shout out (along with C. Kerchner) in the Defendant's motion for sanctions against John Dummett and the Liberty Legal Foundation in Tennessee. The motion for the TN Democratic Party cited Kerchner as an example of a frivolous case where sanctions were imposed:

"As the Court is well aware, this is obviously not the first time that President Obama’s political foes have pursued these frivolous claims. No less than eighteen different cases in various federal and state tribunals have been filed challenging President Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States,1 and, as should be abundantly obvious, none of these cases have succeeded. All that have reached a decision have been dismissed on the pleadings or on the merits, and some have resulted in sanctions against those bringing these types of claims. See e.g., Kerchner, 612 F.3d 204 (sanctioning attempts to challenge President Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office of the President); Rhodes v. Macdonald, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85485 (M.D. Ga. 2009) (same); see also Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (finding that President Obama is a natural born citizen qualified to hold the office of President of the United States); Farrar, et. al. v. Obama, Dkt. No. 1215136-60 (Ga. Secretary of State, 2012) (same)"

This will be your legacy: forever branded as an example of frivolous and vexatious litigant.; June 1, 2012 at 6:01 PM
Reality Check said...: @ jayjay

You may think you know who I am but you do not.

The reason I trust web sites like The Fogbow, OCT, John Woodman's blog, and other similar sites (like my own blog and show) is their record for being correct. They have predicted the way the cases would be decided and in most cases given the exact reasons.

Look at this blog. Mario is carrying on as if the NJ courts actually found merit in his silly arguments. They didn't. As a matter of fact they found no merit. None, Zilch. Zero. Was I surprised? No, absolutely not. As a matter of fact we told Mario exactly what was going to happen. How did we know? Was it some magic or evil conspiracy? No, we can read the relevant sources and understand them. Unfortunately, reading comprehensive seems to be out of the grasp of Birthers like you and Mario. He is going to go on reading Minor, Benny, the naturalization acts, and the Virginia citizenship laws incorrectly. It is quite sad yet funny at the same time.; June 1, 2012 at 6:23 PM
Teo Bear said...: Reality Obsessed "... persons born to one Muslim parent in a Muslim country to try to demonstrate that there is a flaw in the definition of natural born citizen"

He is right, we birthers call that flaw Obama ;-> Well Kenya is not quite yet a muslim country but cousin Odinga has promised to make it so if he is elected. Obots don't like it when we point out the absurdly obvious flaw to their arguements.

Reality could kiss my furry little tush, but I will not even hint to this, hells-bells there no telling where his lips been.; June 1, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Reality Check, if you want to gain any respect on this blog, you will have to start thinking for yourself rather than just repeating the conclusions (erroneous at that) of others.

So, you do not like Minor, Benny, the naturalization acts, and the Virginia citizenship laws. Maybe you will like this 1845 piece from the prestigious The New Englander:

Continued ...; June 1, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

In all cases arising under this clause, the character of an individual, as citizen or subject, is determined by a single test, which is his allegiance; if due to a foreign state, it constitutes him a citizen or subject of that state; if due to the United States, it constitutes a citizen of the United States, and of his particular state. And so, too, in other clauses of the same article; it has been settled by repeated decisions that the term ‘citizen of a state’ includes all persons ‘resident or domiciled in a particular state, being at the same time citizens of the United States;’* which latter qualification again, as already stated, depends on allegiance to the United States, by birth or naturalization. The expression 'citizen of the United States' occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ' natural born citizen' is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases, the word 'citizen' is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members. (*Judge Washington, See 4 Wash. Circuit Court Reports, 516).

***

It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state. For the state and the citizen spring at once and together from the ordinance of nature, and from this natural relation between them result the essential rights and essential duties of both. The highest and most solemn enactment, even the fundamental, organic law of a state, does not by its proper force as positive law create, but only acknowledges this relationship.
3 Massachusetts and South Carolina, The New Englander, 413-414, 434-435 (E. R. Tyler, W.L. Kingsley, G. P. Fisher, T. Dwight, eds. (1845). http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel++"natural+born+citizen"&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false .

The editors inform that citizenship is all about allegiance, either inherited at birth or acquired after birth by naturalization. They emphasize that “natural born citizen” “excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases, the word “citizen” is used without the adjective, and “excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws.” Finally, they state that this is the only understanding of the clause had at the constitutional convention. They explain that “natural born citizen” status comes strictly from nature and not from any positive law or what they call the “will of the state” or “organic laws of a state.” They inform that such a citizen’s rights and duties spring from nature and not from positive law. They say that positive law can at best only recognize the status of being a “natural born citizen,” but cannot create it. Hence, any “citizen” made by any positive law cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” And any positive law includes the Fourteenth Amendment or any act of Congress or treaty. So, a “natural born Citizen” is not merely born a “citizens,” for he must be born a “citizen” and be free of any attachment to any foreign power. Given allegiance and citizenship being potentially obtained by either jus sanguinis (inherited from parents) or jus soli (inherited from the territory on which one is born), in order for a child not to be born “owing allegiance by birth to foreign states,” he must be born in the country to citizen parents. Hence, under the test provided by the editors, only a child born in the country to citizen parents could be a “natural born Citizen.”; June 1, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Reality Check,

I let your defamatory "sanctions" comment go through so that I can tell you right to your face how much of a liar you are and to warn that corrective action concerning the comment must be taken. Clearly, the lawyer who wrote that garbage does not know what he/she is talking about. I will be contacting him/her to advise that he/she has to correct the record so as not to mislead the court on erroneous information and not to be stating defamatory statements that concern my professional reputation. Maybe you can even pass this message along to him/her.

And you, to attempt to capitalize on other’s misdeeds is shameful. You know that what that lawyer wrote is false because we have been through this many times. So at this point you are intentionally publicly stating defamatory falsehoods about my professional reputation.

I am now convinced that you are a disturbed individual. If you want to show the public that you are not disturbed, show us that the comment that I was sanctioned is true. You know that truth is a defense.

I am also warning you that if you want to continue to post here, you better clean your act up.; June 1, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Reality Check said...: @Mario

Why would I want your respect? You are a loser. You are a buffoon. You bring nothing to the table of importance to any legal discussion. The words "without merit" said it all.

Speaking of loser Birther attorneys, I see that your fellow buffoon Leo Donofrio and his completely insane partner in Birfer law Stephen Pidgeon have to cough up $127,987.50 in fees for their sterling legal work in the Old Carco case. You better pay attention Mario. This is in your future if you keep filing nonsense like the Pupura case. At some point the Democratic party will stop playing nice and ask for fees. The Strunk case in NY should be a lesson too. Six digit sanctions seem to be in the future for those pursuing frivolous cases.; June 2, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Reality Check,

I am warning you. You better print a retraction here, right now, regarding your comment that the New Jersey Federal court sanctioned me.; June 2, 2012 at 12:23 AM
ksdb said...: Wow, someone is spreading a lot of disinformation. There's a false claim that Ankeny declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen. There's no such claim anywhere in that decision. They admitted too that there was no legal precedent in Wong Kim Ark that supported the errant conclusion that one can be a natural-born citizen without having citizen parents. The only legal precedent Ankeny cited was from Minor, which was also cited, quoted and affirmed unanimously by the Wong Kim Ark court.

Here's what Foggers, Faithers and Obama's Excuse Makers can't explain away. Why did the Minor court reject Virginia Minor's 14th amendment citizenship argument and why did they bring up anything at all about citizen parents, especially when she never volunteered that she was born of citizen parents?? Why did Wong Kim Ark cite the holding in Minor as being dependent on citizen parents??

Also, Wong Kim Ark destroy's Fogger assumptions when it cites the statement from the Supreme Court of New Jersey: "The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens." The court cites this favorably in explaining that the parents who were not citizens must have permanent residence and domicil. "when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship" ... Obama's father was NEVER domiciled here, so his child did NOT have a right to citizenship. The first step in being domiciled is to be admitted into this country as a resident alien. Obama's father was never admitted as such and was ultimately deported.

Lastly, I wanted to emphasize that Luria v. United States clearly says Minor is THE legal precedent on presidential eligibility, not Wong Kim Ark. This case, decided in 1913, does not even mention Ark in talking about the difference between naturalized and "native citizens" ... keeping in mind that Minor defined natives exactly the same as natural-born citizens: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

Here's the quote from Luria.

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. "

That makes 27 Supreme Court justices who agreed on a definition of natural-born citizen that inherently precludes the Kenyan Coward™ from being Constitutionally eligible for the office he occupies. The three cases, Minor, Ark and Luria, need to be presented in tandem, IMO, especially to show that Ark has been misinterpreted. Ark cites Minor saying that NBC is NOT defined by the 14th amendment. It gives the holding and then it uses a completely different term ... "citizenship by birth" that is ONLY defined by the 14th amendment and only applies to the children of resident aliens (of which Obama was not). Obama is not even a 14th amendment citizen under Wong Kim Ark because his mama's permanent domicil became her husband's permanent domicil upon marriage ... that permanent domicil was in Kenya ... where Obama belongs.; June 2, 2012 at 12:59 AM
MichaelN said...: Orly's got a few subpoenas out there

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=91886; June 2, 2012 at 1:21 AM
MichaelN said...: The problem with these disgusting and deceitful traitors, i.e Reality Check et al, is that they expect people to fall, for their most ABSURD LIE, i.e. that the Framers and Founders would have proposed native-birth as sufficient to make an Article II "natural born Citizen".

Given the prevailing circumstances in the framing period where allegiance and loyalty was THE MOST PARAMOUNT concern, there can be no honest and reasonable doubt that the Framers and Founders intended "natural born Citizen" to best describe one with the LEAST POSSIBLE foreign, influence, persuasion, allegiance and claim, which can only be one born of US citizen parents and born in the US.

Quoting from ..

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

"Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that LAWS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE INTENT OF THE AUTHOR, AND EVERY INTERPRETATION WHICH LEADS TO ABSURDITY SHOULD BE REJECTED."

@ Reality Check (who is sooo GUTLESS to even use his real name)... YOU rate highly as one of the most disgusting and despicable characters I have ever come across, it's little wonder you hide in the shadows behind a pseudonym, you would bring great shame on your family and friends.

Every time I see your disgusting posts, I just feel like I am going to VOMIT.; June 2, 2012 at 4:56 AM
MichaelN said...: Reality Check said ....

"He is going to go on reading Minor, Benny, the naturalization acts, and the Virginia citizenship laws incorrectly. It is quite sad yet funny at the same time."

So YOU can read it the "right" way?

Ok, so what "common law" was the SCOTUS in Minor referring to, where the SCOTUS saw merit in doubts as to whether a native-born in US was even a US citizen?

This "common law" was held to recognize "natural born citizen" as one native-born to US citizen parents, but doubted native-birth alone sufficed to make a citizen at all.

Let's hear your "right" reading.; June 2, 2012 at 5:33 AM
Reality Check said...: I have no acquaintance with any of the parties in the Tennessee case. The case I quoted is Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al removed from Tennessee state court to the Eastern District of Tennessee. You can research it yourself. I assume the defendants are referring to the action by the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kerchner v Obama case but I do not speak for them. As you are well aware the Third Circuit found your appeal frivolous and issued an OSC for monetary sanctions that they later discharged. You had failed to cite the Berg v Obama case, which was very similar case recently decided in the same jurisdiction. The court was not amused.

If you have any bone to pick you should contact the parties in the Tennessee case. If you want to brag about your only "victory" in any of your "Birther" cases, that you avoided monetary sanctions in the Third Circuit, I certainly do not wish to rain on your parade.; June 2, 2012 at 8:12 AM
Reality Check said...: @Mario

So you did a Google search for "Vattel" and "Natural born citizen" and found an article from 1845 and then you proceeded to interpret to your liking? The article does not say an NBC must be the child of two parent citizens. That speaks for the quality of your research. Wong Kim Ark settled the question as to the definition of natural born citizen. The courts have said so.

John Woodman has a new article up debunking another poor research on your part about what Sir George Tucker had to say on the subject. (You remember the quote you were asked to provide repeatedly and could never provide). http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/birther-bust-bombshell-prominent-legal-expert-st-george-tucker-directly-refutes-mario-apuzzos-crank-natural-born-citizen-claim/; June 2, 2012 at 9:55 AM
Reality Check said...: One interesting point in the hearing the other day was when one of the judges asked you if Congress had not already concluded in January 2009 that President Obama was qualified to hold office. That was a great point for which you seemed totally unprepared. Your reply was something like “they didn’t have all the evidence”. Isn’t that a bit of a fib, Mario? By January 2009 the Birthers were writing, faxing, and calling all the electors and every member of Congress to try to convince them that Obama was not a natural born citizen. Not a single one of them was convinced – not one. It would have taken only one senator and one representative to raise an objection.

Were you trying to say that if Congress had seen your “brilliant” research on the subject they would have considered the issue? Do you really think that is a legitimate claim? That is a laughable claim since no court has ever found any merit in your arguments. You even filed a lawsuit naming the leadership in Congress as defendants as a result of their certification and you and your plaintiff were denied and told the argument was wrong.; June 2, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Kanbun said...: Mario,

Reading these recent comments, I am struck at the absolute foolishness of the 'Reality Check' idiot. As always, this court again demonstrated it is a political body not a judicial one. Reality claims that all the founders required for eligibility was a "born" citizen. Based on what? Perhaps this fool can explain the difference between 'citizen' and 'Natural Born Citizen' in the constitution? Or, where the founders that imprecise? I think not.

With all due respect to you and your attempt to bring sanity to the insane, my preference would to simply lock myself in a small windowless room with Reality Check. Upon exit, he would think that Atilla The Hun was a liberal. What an idiot.; June 2, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Unknown said...: Reality Check is obviously a trouble maker. Rude and jangling. I often wonder if these guys get paid or given some perks to cause trouble on serious blogs. Or were they just badly reared? It is hard to tell. He's is probably young as that seems to be a pervasive style these days. Obviously such people lead miserable lives as they are stuck with themselves 24/7. He hangs out over at John Woodman's as well and does as much harm as he can with snooty remarks and ignorant comments. He probably has a little circuit he runs where he can dump his distress. A visit to a therapist is in order. Or at least a self help book. But it is doubtful he will take anyone's advise.; June 2, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Teo Bear said...: Reality Check can say what he wants, just like those fake scientists who keep talking about global warming. Obots like these unscientific scientist have to lie about the data they try to use. And just like Americans figured out global warming is a scam these same Americans know there is a cover up and conspiracy taking place about Obama's lack of Constitutional eligibility.

Reality Check should go be a carbon broker for Al Gore's Carbon Credit Exchange in Chicago.; June 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Reality Check,

You are both a coward and a liar.

First, you are coward. You do not want to admit that you intentionally posted that I was sanctioned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kerchner case when you knew all along that I was not. You figured you would mislead the public into believing that lie by using the false statement made by the attorney representing the Democratic Party in Tennessee. Now that I have exposed your lie, you simply want to play innocent, telling us that you only “assumed,” and blame that attorney for the lie. You simply want to blame others for your lies.

Second, you are a liar. You keep repeating to the public that the Third Circuit found my case or as you call it “your appeal frivolous.” You lie when you say that I did not cite the Berg case when in fact I did. You lie in not informing the public that the Third Circuit had at first concluded that my appeal on the “standing” issue was frivolous. This initial finding had nothing to do with the merits of the case which involved my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is to be defined under American “common law” which was based on the law of nations, and not under the English common law, and that that definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. You just want the public to think that the Court found the merits of my “natural born Citizen” argument to be frivolous when it never made any such finding. Also, you fail to tell the public that after the Court received my explanation of why my appeal on the “standing” issue was not frivolous, the Court discharged it order to show cause and thereby absolved me of any wrongdoing. You do all this to keep hiding the fact that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and to keep the public from discovering the truth of the matter.

So, Reality Check, instead of just simply retracting the lie that you stated here in which you said that the Third Circuit sanctioned me, you just continue with your cowardice and more lying, what you mistakenly believe is enough to cover you from any potential legal action against you for defamation.

Reality Check, you really are a disturbed human being.; June 2, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Harold Smith has left a new comment on your post "Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in...":

LOL! So finally "Reality Check" has started heavy on the ad hominem. I knew that was coming. (BTW considering the source, his calling Mario a "buffon" and a "loser" is actually the best compliment Mario could hope for. Frankly I'm jealous).
Anyway, what "normal" "person" would spend countless hours of his time defending a bloodthirsty, completely morally bankrupt, illegal alien poseur, that's destroying America? What "normal" "person" would get so worked up about it and take it all so personally? Answer:

No "normal" "person" would. "Reality Check" is obviously a [deleted] supremacist, doing his pathetic best to protect the [deleted] supremacist agenda that's destroying America.
To a [deleted] supremacist, an attack on the Obama eligibility fraud is an attack against the agenda the [deleted] has been feverishly working on for a hundred years or so. That's what's going on here.

After laboring for a hundred years or so to get to this point, they're not about to be stopped now, not when WW3 is finally within sight.
The more childish name-calling that "Reality Check" and his fellow [deleted] do, the more you know Mario's doing a good job.

Way to go, Mario!

Posted by Harold Smith to Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers at June 2, 2012 7:44 AM; June 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Reality Check said...: @Mario

I am glad we agree that the Third Circuit found your appeal frivolous.

The Third Circuit said in the discharge order:

"ORDER (SLOVITER, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges) On July 2, 2010, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause directing Appellants’ counsel to show cause in writing why he should not be subject to an Order pursuant to F.R.A.P. 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal. In response, Mario Apuzzo filed a 95-page statement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing. However, based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause, filed. Sloviter, Authoring Judge. (PDB).”

So I guess you are maintaining that they determined only that you were a poor researcher? (Although I do not read that as a retraction of the earlier finding that the appeal was frivolous, just that they were not going to impose monetary sanctions. If you maintain that all they found was that your research was inadequate I can live with that. We are all entitled to our opinions).

Standing is part of the merits of the case. Birthers seem to miss that point. If a plaintiff has no standing a case has no place in the court.

Do you really think any court is going to find merit in your two citizen parent theory? For a list of cases where the courts have already ruled that Obama is eligible see the footnote I posted here: http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/mario-apuzzo-comments-on-rc-radios-report-on-the-strunk-hearing-and-gets-it-wrong-again/; June 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Reality Check,

You really are a poor fool. What is unprepared about telling the Court that Congress confirmed Obama for the Presidency without having all the available evidence on the issue?

And yes, I would very much like for Congress to have my research and findings on the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

If you think you are so sure of yourself on this, why not set it up for me to provide my findings to Congress. Let's see what they say.; June 2, 2012 at 2:38 PM
Reality Check said...: @ Mario

PS:

If you can show me where you directly cited Berg v Obama in your opening brief before the Third Circuit I will apologize for saying you did not cite it. It should have been cited there by rule because as the court in their decision said it was a case where the court had to decide similar standing issues in the same jurisdiction. I believe your failure to address the issues in Berg was the main reason the court came to the conclusion in the OSC that your case was frivolous. Would you not agree?; June 2, 2012 at 2:56 PM
ksdb said...: Question for any foggers who are lurking/trolling: If English common law prevailed in the United States making children born in the country without being born to citizen parents, why did the Supreme Court reject Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen and why did it introduce a definition of citizenship based on having citizen parents?? If the 14th amendment defined or redefined natural-born citizen, then the Minor court should have accepted Minor's argument. Why didn't they accept it??; June 2, 2012 at 3:06 PM
bdwilcox said...: Mario,

For patiently putting up with Fealty Dreck as long as you have, I've created two merit badges you've earned many times over.; June 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM
jayjay said...: Reality Check:

Do you then affirm under oath that you are not Richard C. Rockwell???

Another Arthur Conan Doyle saying that applies:

"It is always awkward doing business with an alias."

... and yet another (alias or not):

"It is a question of cubic capacity. A man with so large a brain must have something in it."

Really, guy, you Onager Obama folk are all cut from the same cloth woven from overbearing arrogance and unremitting stupidity that cannot abide any opinions other than your own misplaced malformed BS.

I truly DO pity your students.; June 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: bcwilcox,

Those badges are just great. We should get those around as logos. What a great concept. Be sure to copyright them.; June 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM
Reality Check said...: @ Mario

The good thing is that you will have another chance to convince Congress to take up your findings in January 2013. Good luck!

So can you show me that citation of Berg v Obama in your opening brief before the Third Circuit? I am sure a competent attorney would have mentioned a recent case in the every same jurisdiction that questioned Obama's eligibility and failed on standing issues. He would know that he must overcome the standing hurdle set by Berg if he were to have a chance. I a ready to tender my my apology.; June 2, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Reality Check said...: I like the badges however the one I really want is the a Shurf Joe Super Dooper Cold Case Posse one so I can go to Hawaii on taxpayer money and hang out on the beach while pretending to investigate something.

@ jayjay

So is jayjay your real name? If you think I am Professor Rockwell I am flattered but you should consider the source for that information. It is some moron who calls himself Kenyabornobamacornut or something like that and has filed a case in Maryland demanding that every member in the state legislature be thrown out of office because they passed a law he didn't like.; June 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM
Teo Bear said...: The fact is Reality Check, who advocates English common law, would rather be a subject of the government then the sovereign of the government, and it is this that separates Obots from Birthers. Obots think the government creates natural-born citizens while Birthers know it is the American Citizen who creates the next generation of natural born Citizen.; June 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Reality Check,

You are still a liar. I love how you just keep producing more lies on top of your previous lies. Here is the Third Circuit Court order:

"ORDER (SLOVITER, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges) On July 2, 2010, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause directing Appellants’ counsel to show cause in writing why he should not be subject to an Order pursuant to F.R.A.P. 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal. In response, Mario Apuzzo filed a 95-page statement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing. However, based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause, filed. Sloviter, Authoring Judge. (PDB).”

(1) You are a real liar. At first, you said that the Third Circuit sanctioned me. But now you say that it did not. You had this information before posting that incorrect statement from the lawyer in the Tennessee case. You just wanted to capitalize on someone else's error. Reality Check, you are an open book for the whole world do read.

(2) You are a real liar. We do not agree that the Third Circuit found my appeal frivolous. The Court issued an order for me to show cause why I “should not be subject to an Order pursuant to F.R.A.P. 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal.” You are so ignorant that you do not even know that F.R.A.P. is not even a sanctions provision. Rather, it is a rule related to a party or his counsel having to pay for attorney’s fees generated by the defendant having to defend an appeal.

(3) You are a real liar. The only issue on appeal was standing. The court made its ruling on what it thought to be a frivolous appeal before hearing from me. The court gave me an opportunity to present my argument to the court showing why the appeal was not frivolous. That is what the court’s order says. I explained to the Court that appealing on standing was not even close to being frivolous given that standing is a very complex procedural issue, U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases on standing are always divided (there are U.S. Supreme Court cases decided 5-4 on standing), and there is no U.S. Supreme Court case on citizen-voter standing to enforce Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (the “natural born Citizen” clause). I presented to the court all these standing decisions and showed how there is no way that a reasonable attorney could ever conclude that to appeal on the unprecedented issue of “natural born Citizen” standing would be found by the court to be frivolous. Just as an example, in my Purpura-Moran ballot challenge case before the New Jersey Appellate Division, Obama made the same standing argument, even citing the Berg case. The Appellate Division did not accept the argument and did not find that plaintiffs did not have standing. I also showed the Third Circuit that the Kerchner case was much different than the Berg case. Based on the standing case law that I presented to the Court which shows how divided the courts are on standing and that there is no clear standard for an attorney to follow, the court discharged its order to show cause and absolved me of any wrongdoing.

(4) You are a real liar. Where do you see in the Court’s order that the Court concluded I was a “poor reasearcher.” On the contrary, the court absolved me of the OSC because of the research that I presented to the court on the issue of standing and whether my filing an appeal on that issue was frivolous.

Continued . . .; June 2, 2012 at 6:35 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

(5) You are a real liar. The Court accepted my arguments that my appeal on the issue of standing was not frivolous, but did not accept them on the issue of whether or not the court had standing. The Court said that my arguments as to the merits of the court’s decision that it did not have standing could only be considered through a Petition for Rehearing.

(6) You are a real liar. Standing is not part of the merits of the case. When a court says there is no standing, that means the court has no subject matter jurisdiction. When a court has no subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot and must not decide the merits of the matter. To do so is an abuse and usurpation of judicial power. Finding that plaintiffs did not have standing, that is why no court ever decided the merits of the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case.

(7) You are a real liar. You said that I “failed to cite the Berg v Obama case, which was very similar case recently decided in the same jurisdiction. The court was not amused.” I said that you lied because I did cite the Berg case. Now you say I did not cite it in the opening brief and that “i]t should have been cited there by rule.” Why do you not produce for use here what New Jersey rule you are referring to which as you lie says that I had to cite the Berg case in my opening brief. On the contrary, under New Jersey rules of professional conduct, an attorney is allowed to cite case precedent in a reply brief which is exactly what I did. See RPC 3.3 (“A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by the opposing counsel). Not only did opposing counsel fully disclose and discuss the Berg case in his opposition brief, but I also fully disclosed and discussed it in my reply brief. So what is your problem, Reality Check?

Having shown how much you lie on this blog and all over the internet, I’ll wait to receive more lies from you.

So just keep digging for more lies, Reality Check. Do your students at the University of Connecticut know how you behave on the internet? I would be ashamed if I were you and for more than one reason.

Are you now ready to tender your apology?; June 2, 2012 at 6:36 PM
Kevin Davidson said...: So, are you going to appeal Purpura to the NJ Supreme Court?; June 2, 2012 at 6:54 PM
cfkerchner said...: @Reality Check

Mario uses his real name and since he is your target when you come to his blog, at this point you should confirm your real ID and stand behind your words.

I am using my real name so you cannot evade answering with that "social engineering" evasion trickery. Are you Professor Rockwell of the University of CT, yes or no? If you are not, then why are you using his User ID?

CDR Kerchner (Ret); June 2, 2012 at 7:32 PM
jayjay said...: Reality Check:

Thanks for confirming that you are Richard C. Rockwell.

I hope you are better at training your little CT U libs in your class to lie more effectively than you yourself can do.

Come to think of it, as one of the ringleaders of the Obama Onager Posse Slugs (known as "OOPS") you'd better brush up on your evasions, untruths, and just general informaton in case you are hauled into one of the criminal court actions that are clearly coming on this matter.

I imagine that real men will want to know why you put so much effort and/or funds into protecting someone who - it is becoming clear - has committed criminal document fraus (and that's just for starters). You and the rest of the OOPS troops are accessories to and/or even complicit in those acts you see so you'd better get your "story" together, professor.

Since you seem too dense to grasp what is being said, I'm reminded of another Sherlockian quote:

"I wonder how a battery feels when it pours electricity into a non-conductor."

Have fun with your classroom kiddies and warp their minds to love Obama as do you.; June 2, 2012 at 7:42 PM
Reality Check said...: @ Mario

Let's review those things upon which we agree:

- The Third Circuit said in it's decision that your appeal was frivolous and issued an OSC to award costs to the defendants.

- After you filed a long response and tried to argue the case again the the court bought none of the disguised attempt at rehearing. They however chose not impose monetary sanctions and award costs to the defendants. The original decision stood which contained the frivolous finding.

The New Jersey rules of professional conduct says in rule
RPC 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal:

"(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;"

So you avoided citing Berg v Obama and addressed it only after the defendants cited it in their reply. The court found Berg v Obama was applicable and and was averse to your case.

IMO you were lucky to avoid monetary sanctions. Tell me where I am wrong.; June 2, 2012 at 7:52 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Reality Check,

You just keep confirming here that you are a fraud, coward, and liar. Your simply recasting issues as you do is nothing but your in-vain attempt to avoid my responses to your lies which have destroyed those lies. I am not going to waste any more time with a coward and liar like you. You lost here big time. Your character has been well exposed here, Professor Rockwell.; June 2, 2012 at 8:05 PM
jayjay said...: KIevin Davidson:

(Or Dr. Conspiracy in your "nether life"). You surely don't think that you can goad Mario into revealing anything about his strategy?

It would only appear (warped and castigated in advance) on your blog so the other OOPS troops could, like the captive monkeys they are, scrape the bottom of their cages and fling dung jumping up and down with rhetorical shrieks. I can't think of any reason why he should do that ... can you???

Of note is the fact that you've already started your usual warping in your blog of what is said - or outright lying - in the Voeltz action in FL. You'd be better served to have your "followers" think you have some credence by waiting until AFTER the case is heard to offer your half-vast analysis.

Your hatred somehow makes you unable to do that since you're so eager to impugn and cast aspersions on anyone who has dramatically different beliefs than do you in the eligibility issue. Even your website is a misnomer (as is your nom-de-prevarication) since the basic concern is not a "conspiracy" at all (that's just the way the OOPS troops paint it in order to lie more effectively) but instead is a matter of truth and following the laws of the country which all of you seem to gleefully ignore.

I suspect that you also will be on the deposition lists when that finally starts up as it is certain to. You'd best line up some "caring obot" to bring you smokes and playing cards in your cell - assuming that is allowed.

You might read the suggested list given to Reality Check above and start to use your head for something other than a prop for that ugly hat.; June 2, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Teo Bear said...: What I love best about Obots is their predictability. When they start up with name calling, veiled threats and misrepresenting the facts they are loosing the battle.

They said Obama is the One, and we are going to help them prove this my helping to make him a one term wonder.

Born a Brit, he's not legit!; June 2, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Teo Bear said...: JayJay,

Before Prof Rockwell aka Reality Check can use his head, he needs to pull it out of his a$$. He could just pass-gas but damn they might kick him out of the CCCP (carbon control climate party) for surpassing his carbon foot print for the year ;->; June 2, 2012 at 10:21 PM
Reality Check said...: Let's set correct a few of your misstatements. First, I never said you were sanctioned by the Third Circuit. I brought to your attention a filing in a federal case in Tennessee where the Kerchner v Obama case was cited. You should be thanking me instead of making false accusations. Second, your appeal was found to be frivolous by the Third Circuit in a published opinion and that opinion stands. It has never been retracted nor modified. Your appeal was frivolous. Here is what the court said:

“Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we
will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just
damages and costs should not be imposed. Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 38 provides that “[i]f a court of appeals
determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee. “The purpose of an award of attorneys’ fees under
Rule 38 is to compensate appellees who are forced to defend
judgments awarded them in the trial court from appeals that are
wholly without merit, and to preserve the appellate court
calendar for cases worthy of consideration.”

The court did two things. They determined the appeal was frivolous and they issued a proposed order for optional damages under FRAP Rule 38. They later discharged the order for damages but the original finding that the appeal was frivolous still stands. It was never modified, amended, nor retracted. It is a published opinion of the court. It cannot be much clearer than that.

Now for those of you defaming Professor Rockwell just how sure are you that I am that person? What is your source? I choose to post under a handle as do the majority of the commenters at this blog. I saw what happened when slime merchant Jerome Corsi published pictures of Fogbow Foggy’s children and asked people to harass him and his family at Foggy’s workplace. I do need that and apparently a lot of you choose to be anonymous for similar reasons. When you file lawsuits you become a public person. I do not abuse the courts like the Birthers have done. However, I will speak up for my President and the Constitution against people who are out to pervert it.; June 2, 2012 at 11:22 PM
cfkerchner said...: @Reality Check

You did not answer my simple and direct question. It requires on a simple yes or no answer and then a short explanation. Here it is again.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

-----------------------------
Mario uses his real name and since he is your target when you come to his blog, at this point you should confirm your real ID and stand behind your words.

I am using my real name so you cannot evade answering with that "social engineering" evasion trickery. Are you Professor Rockwell of the University of CT, yes or no? If you are not, then why are you using his User ID?

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
------------------------; June 2, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Professor Richard Rockwell, a/k/a Reality Check,

(1) You just keep lying. Before you said:

“Mario got a shout out (along with C. Kerchner) in the Defendant's motion for sanctions against John Dummett and the Liberty Legal Foundation in Tennessee. The motion for the TN Democratic Party cited Kerchner as an example of a frivolous case where sanctions were imposed . . .

This will be your legacy: forever branded as an example of frivolous and vexatious litigant.”

Now you say:

“First, I never said you were sanctioned by the Third Circuit.” You add that I should be thanking you. So you say that I should be thanking you for posting on my blog for public consumption that “[t]his will be your legacy: forever branded as an example of frivolous and vexatious litigant.”

Anybody with any sense can tell that you are still lying. Clearly, you said that I got sanctioned by repeating what that Democratic Party lawyer said in Tennessee. You even said that “[t]his will be your legacy: forever branded as an example of frivolous and vexatious litigant.” There is no doubt that “this” refers to being sanctioned. I would give up if I were you. You just make it worst for yourself. But I have to admit, the good professor deserves every bit of the shellacking that he is getting here.

(2) The Third Circuit decided that the appeal on the standing issue was frivolous before hearing from me. After making its initial finding, it gave me an opportunity to address the issue. I did address it and showed how filing the appeal on standing was not frivolous. The Court ruled: “However, based on Mr. Apuzzos explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause.” The court discharged the order which means that it reconsidered its position regarding whether I filed a frivolous appeal. The Court ultimately found that the appeal was not frivolous based on the case law on standing (“the applicable law on standing”) that I presented to the Court. The Court’s decision stands because that was their decision. The Court in its order said that it would not reconsider the merits of its decision, which was the Court’s decision that appellants did not have standing, without a Petition for Rehearing. We did not pursue the matter further with the Third Circuit. There simply is no reason for the Court to not make me pay for the defense damages if they ultimately still believed that the appeal was frivolous after hearing from me. The fact that the Court did not make me pay anything shows that they eventually decided that the appeal was not frivolous.

(3) You show no concern for how you defame me in public, all over the internet. But you are so concerned that we are defaming the good Professor Rockwell here. What a nice guy you are. I would then suggest to you that you make the good professor aware of how he is being defamed at this blog. Suggest to him that he write me a cease and desist letter. Upon receipt of such a letter, I will then reconsider my position.

(4) You try to tell me that I am a public figure and therefore you can defame me at will. Consult with an attorney and he/she will tell you that you get no protection if you intentionally or recklessly defame a public person.

(5) You say that you will “speak up for my President and the Constitution against people who are out to pervert it.” You have every right to “speak out” as you indicate. But you do not have the right to defame anyone in the process. What is more shocking is that you are a Professor at a university and you act the way that you do. The mistake that you make is that you think you have license to move the filthy tongue any which way you want simply because you are under the cloaking device of anonymity.; June 3, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Reality Check said...: The statement you quoted by me is not a falsehood. Kerchner v Obama was cited by the defendants as I said. I have corrected the implication that monetary sanctions were imposed in that case. Monetary sanctions were not imposed. You can take the matter up with the Democratic Party in Tennessee if you wish. As you agreed the ruling that the appeal was frivolous is still on the record and stands. The court also issued an OSC for sanctions. That is indisputable. You may think you convinced the court that the appeal was not frivolous but they chose not to modify the order.

I may be excused for not researching every Birther case to see if sanctions were imposed. Kerchner v Obama is one of 130 losing, frivolous actions filed by Birthers. There are even more when you count the ballot challenges like the Pupura case in NJ that was found to be without merit. Your record as a Birther attorney speaks of your ability – no wins in any case, a frivolous ruling on a federal appeal where you had to argue your way out of monetary sanctions and an appeal in New Jersey that was ruled to be without merit. If you are proud of that record you must have very low expectations.

Let me state this again. I am not Professor Rockwell. I have informed him before and he is aware that some idiot Birther has incorrectly identified him as me on blogs and on YouTube. I will also make him aware of this particular topic. You as the blog owner know that I am not posting from Connecticut by my IP address. I would advise you to correct this error and to stop promoting the misidentification. If you do not it only associates you with the idiot who made the mistaken identification.; June 3, 2012 at 7:05 AM
js said...: Looks like you got your arse handed to ya in a hand basket reality chuck.

Gratz', ya deserved much more.; June 3, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Reality Check said...: @ Charles Kerchner

I am using the same handle I use my radio show, on my WordPress blog, and at the Fogbow. I can't help it if you believed an idiot. I have read your blog so it doesn't surprise me however.

I am not Professor Rockwell. Is that clear?; June 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Reality Check said...: @ Mario

I am done posting here. If you feel any of my comments are not correct please feel free delete any or all of them. Moderating of every comment and holding mine for hours makes it impossible to carry on a discussion. If you found any of my comments offensive I remind you that you approved them to be published.

In my opinion your Birther cases are without merit and are wasting valuable resources.

In invite anyone who wishes to continue the discussion at a better venue that does not moderate and doesn't use CAPCHA, which I am sure anyone who posts here will agree is a pain. On my blog only the first comment is moderated. There are other forums that also do not moderate like Fogbow or other political forum. Blogs are not amenable for discussions like these.

My opinions are of your actions and I find them wrong headed. I do not know you personally. I disagree politically with John Woodman but we have managed to strike up a friendship both on and off his blog. He will vouch for the fact that I am not who you claim that I am.

I wish you and your family well. However, like John Woodman I will give you the same advice: you should look at your beliefs carefully for they are not correct. I don't need to go into a point for point rebuttal since John Woodman and others have done that in great detail. John has a new article today. The courts have spoken too either directly in cases you have filed or where you have stepped in with attempt to change the outcome. It will not change.; June 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Carlyle said...: Mario -

In your righteous eagerness to let 'the other side' post comments here - presumably to help fulfill your mission of A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers - you have IMHO over-achieved, and are in great danger of this blog becoming a cesspool. Sorry about the strong language, but methinks that perhaps that is their grand plan - disinformation - confusion - subsume and overwhelm the diamonds in the dirt.

Some of these people are way beyond help - they are not even remotely interested in exploring or learning The Right Answers - they are just being ever circularly disruptive. Around and around and around. I am getting dizzy.; June 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM
Carlyle said...: PS - let me remind the slow learners that the Founding Fathers OBVIOUSLY intended for the NBC requirement to be RESTRICTIVE, not INCLUSIVE. So any argument that broadens or opens up the definition is suspect from the start.

The only feasible way to ferret out the truth is to ASSUME the most restrictive possible meaning and then challenge the inclusive crowd to prove their claims. Many seem to have it backwards here and putting the burden of proof in the wrong camp.; June 3, 2012 at 1:25 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Professor Rockwell a/k/a Reality Check,

Again, your recasting issues, stating platitudes, and providing whatever morsels of things are not in dispute, is nothing more than your deperate attempt to have the last word here on this matter and more importantly, to hide the fact that you have been proven here to be a fraud, coward, and a liar.

Since you insist that you are not Professor Rockwell, here is some homework for you:

First Set of Interrogatories

(1) Please provide all dates on which you contacted Professor Rockwell about this matter and for each date, provide: (a) the mode of communication; (b) who was present when the communication was made: (c) where the communication took place; and (d) what was said by both of you or any other third person present.

(2) Please provide me with the contract information for Professor Rockwell that as you claim you used to make contact with him so I can communicate and/or speak to him personally about this matter.

First Notice to Produce

(1) Attach a copy of all documents and correspondence, whether in paper or electronic format, between you, Professor Rockwell, or any third party, which supports your answers to our First Set of Interrogatories or otherwise involves the question of Professor Rockwell’s name being as you claim incorrectly used by “idiot Birthers.”

(2) Attach any and all documents and correspondence upon which you will rely to establish that the “idiot Birthers” have mistakenly identified you as the good Professor Rockwell of the University of Connecticut.

Warning: Your default in providing timely and complete answers to these interrogatories and notice to produce will further confirm that you are a “fake, phony, fraud.” Bob Grant.; June 3, 2012 at 1:41 PM
cfkerchner said...: @Reality_Check

A question for you ...

Are you the host of the Reality Check BlogTalk radio show?

--------------------------
You said ... "Let me state this again. I am not Professor Rockwell. I have informed him before and he is aware that some idiot Birther has incorrectly identified him as me on blogs and on YouTube. I will also make him aware of this particular topic. You as the blog owner know that I am not posting from Connecticut by my IP address. I would advise you to correct this error and to stop promoting the misidentification. If you do not it only associates you with the idiot who made the mistaken identification."
-------------------------

CDR Kerchner (Ret); June 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM
cfkerchner said...: @Professor Rockwell, aka Reality_Check

Why do you lie about who you really are? I heard in one of the very early Reality Check radio shows someone address you as Richard and ask you how the weather was up there in New England one snowy day. But you scrubbed all the early show Reality Check radio shows, claiming the computer dog ate them.

Come clean. We are using our real names here. Come clean and use your real name to back up your words and insults.

CDR Kerchner (Ret); June 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Carlyle said...: Wow, it's my lucky day - just came across THIS - and it seems EXTREMELY relevant to current circumstances here.

Here's a quote from Cass Sunstein:

[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.

Sunstein is a sort of caricature of everything people don't like and don't trust about government. The fact that he's in charge of "open government" speaks volumes.; June 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Unknown said...: I notice at Woodman's, and Realty Check is echoing it here, that they rely heavily on the court for Truth. Black humor? "Your record as a Birther attorney speaks of your ability – no wins in any case . . ." This is a very naive position to take. Anyone familiar with the judiciary in this country can only feel a great deal of disgust. Not only have lower courts come to some very remarkably wrong judgments but so has the Supreme Court. In recent times the decision that corporations are Persons is very remarkable. When does one run for president?
No sane, intelligent and educated person could fault Apuzzo for failing thus far in the courts. The courts are doing their very utmost to avoid this whole issue. And they are succeeding to no one's surprise. Paul Craig Roberts has written an excellent book on the current condition of the American judiciary, and I highly recommend it to Reality Check and his cohorts. Also, Reality Check, put your energy into finding the truth and stop slinging mud--notice how dirty your hands have become!; June 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM
Tracy Fair said...: RealityCheck said:

"am not Professor Rockwell. Is that clear?"

You are full of crap. You are Professor Richard C. Rockwell and you work at the University of Connecticut as shown here:
http://sociology.uconn.edu/faculty/rockwell.html

You posted on Fogbow that you teach Alinsky, let me find it and post it!; June 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Teo Bear said...: Dear Reality Check or who ever,

I do hope you are not Prof Rockwell, reading his students reviews he is simply too boring of an academian to be you. It seems the only reason students take him is so they can sleep in his class. I actually had a chance to read on of his papers for an project I was involved in, "Using Electronic Social Science Data in the Age of the Internet" and I can say without doubt his expertise in IT systems is not worth repeating. While I thought his paper could be gleamed for some gems, his idea of a gateway library, well started to put me to sleep.

Well anyway if you are not this professor that is good, as I can speak for the majority of Birthers when I say "you can kick us in your blogs, you can berate us in the media, you can call us racists all day long, just please do not bore us."

But you know why no court will ever sanction Mario? I will tell you, because SCOTUS has defined a NBC as having 2 American parents and having a place of birth within the juristiction of the United States. And this definition was never changed, especially in Wong Kim Ark. If a lower court sanctions him for saying what the Supreme Court said, then he has a "go to the front of the line" ticket to be heard and decided by SCOTUS. Simply put the Supreme Court of the United States have never said the child of aliens born in the United States is a natural born citizen eligible to be president. But they did say the child of Americian parents born in the United States is elidible.; June 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM
Tracy Fair said...: @Reality Check

Hey, Professor, did you forget all this...

We've already proven that you are also Tolland RC by this comment, where you say you work at UCONN and teach "Energy, Environment, and Society":
http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/forums/f4/teaching-about-fuel-efficiency-12445/

And if you look on this page from the Fogbow http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1346&start=2150 you are talking to someone named davida27, who claims to be Alinsy's son. You reply to him saying:
"That's why RFR is still taught in sociology classes on social movements, political sociology, society and the law, and several other fields. I use it in my Energy, Environment, and Society class, and students have put it to work."

If you search this page for ROCKWELL, you will see that class is taught by Richard Rockwell!
http://ecohusky.uconn.edu/focusthenation2008.htm

IT'S CUT AND DRY PROFESSOR, You're BUSTED!; June 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM
Tracy Fair said...: Obama's Brown Shirts EXPOSED:
INCLUDING PROFESSOR ROCKWELL aka Reality Check:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=045_1307642475; June 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM
bdwilcox said...: "You as the blog owner know that I am not posting from Connecticut by my IP address."

Mario, it's very easy to hide one's true IP with a proxy or spoof. They are utterly useless for identification.; June 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM
John Woodman said...: I don't normally post here because Mario moderates everything, but I just had one question.

How come I don't merit a Professorship? I am deeply dissatisfied with the service here, if Reality Check gets a Professorship, and I don't.; June 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM
bdwilcox said...: "I am not Professor Rockwell. Is that clear?"

-This actually might be technically true as the good professor may have loaned his "virtual identity" to other parties to post as him.; June 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM
John Woodman said...: PS - I figured out months ago precisely who Reality Check is. I can tell you that you guys are not even in the ball park as to his identity. He is most definitely NOT Professor Richard Rockwell. His initials are... well, I won't tell you what his initials are, since he hasn't authorized me to release any of his personal information, but I'll tell you this: Even though he runs "Reality Check Radio," they sure as heck ain't "RCR."

Your insistence that Reality Check is Prof. Richard Rockwell is both hilarious and pathetic. It's also generally indicative both of birther inability to discern the truth, and of birther inability to accept reality.

The census bureau says there are currently 313,668,044 people in the United States. If half of those are male, that makes 156,834,022 guys in the country (oops -- I gave something away -- Reality Check is in the United States!)

Now you know that Reality Check isn't Mario Apuzzo,and you know he's not me, and you know he's not Richard Rockwell.

So keep guessing. That only leaves 156,834,019 other possibilities for you to go through. :-); June 3, 2012 at 3:43 PM
Tracy Fair said...: @John Goodman

Because you are an IDIOT! But so Is Rockwell, so...hmmmm; June 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM
Tracy Fair said...: Yeah bdwilcox, you are right, but we do know that RC and TollandRC are Richard Rockwell from UCONN, no matter who's using his ID!; June 3, 2012 at 3:50 PM
Tracy Fair said...: @Jihn Goodman

DIVERSION, don;t change the subject!

I've posted the proof (UP THERE) of who he is, so your lies aren't helping him!; June 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Tracy Fair said...: Oh, take a hike John, no one believes a word you say!; June 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM
Tracy Fair said...: Look at the fact Mr. Goodman, you are wrong!; June 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Unknown said...: For Professor John Woodman:

One morning as Professor John Woodman was leaving for the university his wife told her absent-minded husband, "Don't forget we are moving today. If you come to this house this afternoon it will be empty."
Predictably, he didn't remember until he found the house vacated that afternoon. He mumbled to himself, "And where was it we were moving to?"
He went out in front of the house and asked a little girl, "Did you see a moving van here today, little girl?"
"Yes," she replied.
"Would you know which way it went?"
She looked up at him and said, "Yes, Daddy, I'll show you."; June 3, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Tracy Fair said...: bdwilcox said...
"Mario, it's very easy to hide one's true IP with a proxy or spoof. They are utterly useless for identification"

Yes, and I have proof that Dr. Conspiracy uses one, so I'm sure the others do too.

FROM DR CONS WEBSITE:
"The Phone's No Longer Busy
The whole family has gone internet-happy around here. But my son Patrick set up a Linux server running IP Masquerade here at the house."
http://www.davnet.org/kevin/whatsnew.html

WHAT IS IP MASQUERADE?
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/IP-Masquerade-HOWTO/ipmasq-background2.1.html

BUSTED, Dr. Conspiracy! Go tell him RICHARD, that he's been BUSTED!!; June 3, 2012 at 4:17 PM
jayjay said...: All Posters and Lurkers:

Those of you reading this blog may be confused by the attacks launched by "Reality Check" and "Kevin Davidson" so let me explain what is going on to help unconfuse things for you. First as to the particular posters and later to comment on them (and others of their ilk) jointly.

"Reality Check" is a professor of Sociology at Connecticut University who is so intellectually dishonest as to now claim he is someone else on his postings here. He also uses the Alinsky text to "educate" his students who often merely find him boring (so much for our current liberal education, eh?). No matter,since it is quite clear he is the "good prof" despite his now-panic-driven protestrations to be someone else.

"Kevin Davidson" is a South Carolinean who has posted a copy of an Aururn University advanced (Masters) degree in Arithmitic (sometimes called by the classier term "Mathematics"). He also runs the notorious blog of grossly distorted misinformation and often outright lies (called "Obama Conspiracy Theories" - which is itself and misleading as hell) known there by the appellation "Dr. Conspiracy".

Both of these individuals (along with several others) make up the communist claques known as the OOPS Troops (Obama Onager Posse Slugs). Just like the claqueurs of the old French opera houses these "professional applauders" do not merely "like" Obama and his works, they are communists to the core and are part and parcel of the far left efforts to destroy this country. Their pretense to the contrary is unconvincing in the extreme.

When I remind that their guardian angel is in the process of fluttering to earth like Icarus when his wings melted, asome number of these individuals are undoubtedly going to be ensnared in the coming legal contretemps. Some of them are beginning to realize they have been involved in one of the great crimes of American history - and they are struggling as best they can to prevent that.

Unfortunately for them, the truth is not on their side. The smarter ones will "evaporate" from their present activities, but those you see attacking on this site seem either too hard-core or too stoopid to change their ways.

Coming events will be very interesting ... stay tuned!!; June 3, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Tracy Fair said...: Here's all the loser Obots that are covering for Obama, faces and all!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlLGLpWgqgYFdEZxMVJnUDJ5N2NyYWVGSWpUcGNKblE#gid=0; June 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM
jayjay said...: Posters and Lurkers:

... and I should have mentioned (in case it's not obvious with the postings of other OOPS Troops such as "John Woodman" that these communist claques delight - as do the Islamic idjuts - in the practice of "taqiyya" which really means that it's just fine (or even applauded) to lie for your "cause" as you will note them frequently doing.

If you don't know the terms "onager" or "taqiyya" (or "claques" for that matter) I suggest you look them up.; June 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM
John Woodman said...: Tracy,

I know with 100% certainty who "Reality Check" is, and he most definitely isn't Professor Richard Rockwell.

In fact, I told you that back in April, over at my blog.

Oh -- and it's Woodman, not Goodman.

@ William St. George -- Lol.

@ jayjay -- The "two citizen parent" claim will never prevail in court, for the simple reason that it's entirely without legal or historical merit. The court in Purpura this week said as much, when in answering Mario's arguments they referenced a section of the code that had to do with cases that lacked enough merit even to issue a written opinion.

All that the two-citizen-parent proponents can do is attempt to prevail in the court of public opinion. There is plenty of information out there now for anyone who is interested in the issue, and those interested can always do more research on their own. I encourage any such interested parties to read as much as possible, on both sides.

Yes, I encourage interested parties to read this blog -- and my blog as well (obamabirthbook.com), and Dr. Conspiracy's blog (obamaconspiracy.org), and other sites as well -- WND, birtherreport.com, etc.; and listen to Reality Check's radio broadcasts of the issue, and read the comments and various debates of the issues that have taken place.

I have every confidence that who are honest and open-minded, and who research the matter thoroughly, will undoubtedly reach the same conclusions I have.; June 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Tracy Fair said...: Great comments JayJay

Awww, has Mr Dick Rock been outed AGAIN?
WAH WAH WAH!; June 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM
Tracy Fair said...: Yes, for the record, I meant WOODMAN, whenever I said Goodman!; June 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM
Teo Bear said...: Wow, look at what happens when you turn over a rock. All the creepy crawlers come out, good old Doc Constipation, even John Woodman the so called Birther who discovered the joys of a self-inflicted lobotomy. I hope Woodman is getting a "woodie" posting here with the big boys, normally Mario requires adult supervision.

I can firmly state that the only thing more pathetic then you serpents is the pResident you are trying to justify. I know what really pisses you pansies off, it is the fact that you One cannot prove he is a natural born citizen, he needs minions like you to seed confusion. How frustrating it must be that 200 years of history is on our side, while all you have is Soladad O'Brian and Wolff Blitzer to try and berate Donald Trump. You try to promote a justice system that can swallow a camel of a lie but choke on a gnat with the truth as proof you are right, but in the end ... the One will be dOne, as his gOOse in American history will be cooked.

Mario can take comfort you are all here trying to discourage him, because it simply means you are scared little campers. It is so obvious, if Mario was such a looser, why are you bothering.; June 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Tracy Fair said...: hahaha
Doc Constipation, LOVE IT!; June 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Unknown said...: This may be the first time in his life that anyone really wanted to know who Reality Check was--except perhaps the police or the IRS!
In any case it is a peculiar diversion. Perhaps Reality Check has problems similar to Obama--no legitimate birth certificate, and fears the people here might start checking his background and get him into trouble. Seems likely. So, now RC where were you born; and are you a Muslim or a Christian? Was your father an alien? Or was it your mother? We will need the document verified by a forensic document expert so don't waste time manufacturing one. Sorry. Unlike the US Congress we have very high standards and abide by them.; June 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM
jayjay said...: John Woodman:

You are, as they say (and pardon the French) as full of fumure as a Christmas Turkey!!

Your observations are so far off the wall that you make it clear that taqyya lives indeed among you communists.

The OOPS Troops are on patrol again it seems. Most reading your propaganda enticements to OOPS Troops blogs will recognize it for the nonsense it is. They would be far better off to wait a bit and see the legal action abainst the tip-top commie evolve and you can be sure that when some of the OOPS Troops are snared therein also that it will be highlighted for public ridicule.

You ALL have made the mistake of thinking that Americans are as foolish as the bored students of Richard Rockwell down in CT.; June 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM
John Woodman said...: By the way, do you folks even understand what IP Masquerade is, or what it does?

It's a means of allowing one computer to access the internet on behalf of a bunch of computers. It's similar to a router, except that obviously it can be set up to use dialup internet -- which is obviously what DrC had at the time.

The post mentioned here was obviously made some time before TEN YEARS AGO, as Davidson notes in July of 2002, "I did finally get the high-speed Internet access."

Here's the entire brief post:

The Phone's No Longer Busy

The whole family has gone internet-happy around here. But my son Patrick set up a Linux server running IP Masquerade here at the house. All the house computers are on a local area network and the Linux box multiplexes all this through a dial-up ISP connection. Cool! As a result, the computer phone is busy, but the main phone line isn't. Now how about some DSL here?

So the purpose of running IP Masquerade on a Linux server was obviously to allow ALL of the computers at DrC's house or place of business -- looks like house -- to access the internet, at the same time, over one single dialup internet line, so that one line could be used for internet, people wouldn't have to juggle dialup connections, and the voice line wasn't being used for dialup all the time because more than one person wanted to be on the internet at the same time.

It does absolutely nothing to disguise the location of a person's IP and as far as I can see has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with IP spoofing.

This once again illustrates the quality of birther thinking and arguments: Get an idea in your head, based on some total and absolute misconception, and then assert that idea as being absolutely true -- without ever bothering to find out whether your idea is right or not.

And if someone points out that the claim isn't actually true, then attack that person, and keep on reasserting it.; June 3, 2012 at 7:29 PM
MichaelN said...: @ John Woodman.

What "common law" was it that the Minor court was referring to, which the court recognized as giving merit to doubts as to whether a native-born child to alien parents was even qualified as a US citizen?

In the framing period, given that loyalty, allegiance and risk of foreign persuasion was of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE to the Founders and Framers of the USC, then how could it possible be that the Framers intended and meant "natural born Citizen" in the context of Article II to merely mean native-birth?

You see John, your entire warped argument is based on this absurdity, as you attempt to retro-fit you absurd notion to history via bias and dishonest mining for selective ambiguous quotes and fabricating a false string, citing others throughout history, whom like yourself were bent on revising and watering-down the qualities of the USC by stealth and deceit.

What is it with you John, that you need soooo very much to have the Framers seen as being derelict in their duty of responsibility to the extent that they would settle for anyone less than one with the LEAST risk of loyalty and allegiance conflicts for the office of POTUS?

Do you REALLY think the Framers were that stupid?; June 3, 2012 at 7:29 PM
thalightguy said...: Why is it so hard to understand the Framers feared foreign influence, they knew persons born with citizenship to another country could possess divided allegiance and this resulted in them making it a requirment for the President to be a natural born citizen?; June 3, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Teo Bear said...: Woodie, has a woodie ;-)It is amazing how easy it is to get you off Woodie. Please write in your boot blogs how linux un-savy we Birthers are. Shit son why don't you all go out for Chai lattes.

Why you are busy doing that we are going to keep getting the message out as @thalightguy is saying, "... the Framers feared foreign influence, they knew persons born with citizenship to another country could possess divided allegiance and this resulted in them making it a requirment for the President to be a natural born citizen."

That is our battle cry and that is how we will win!!!

The One is Done!!!!!; June 3, 2012 at 9:57 PM
MichaelN said...: Woodman (avoids like the plague and goes all silent), can't come up with a reasonable response to my questions, because of his dishonesty, he is bound to the path of deceit he has committed to.

Same as Woodman also avoids like the plague,to honestly address the FACT that in English common law, if the parent was not a subject, then the child could not be a subject even if native-born.

Fact is John, that the Framers were not stupid like you wish they were.; June 3, 2012 at 10:50 PM
John Woodman said...: It's simply a false belief that the Framers of the Constitution were so paranoid of ANY "foreign influence" whatsoever that they meant something other by "natural born" than what that term of art had always meant.

If they had meant anything else by those words than that which they had always meant, then they would have told us. If they had meant Vattel's concept, then they would've used Vattel's terminology -- and said that the President had to be a "natural" or an "indigene."

They didn't.

And they were not so paranoid as to block ALL "foreign influence" in our government, either.

Some of the Founding Fathers (prominently, George Mason) WERE more fearful of foreign influence than others. Others -- including James Madison and Benjamin Franklin -- moderated Mason.

Mason would have preferred that our Senators -- who are engaged in the making of foreign treaties -- be only natural born citizens. But even he only actually proposed a Constitutional requirement of 14 years' citizenship for Senators. So even Mason allowed for both Representatives and Senators to be people who came here from foreign countries.

James Madison, Ben Franklin, James Wilson and other prominent Founders opposed long Constitutional citizenship requirements for Senator, because they wanted to actively attract desirable foreigners to come and join us. Madison favored no Constitutional citizenship requirement for Senator at all, calling such a requirement "improper."

Madison even stated that it wasn't the foreign-born we needed to be afraid of, but that some of our own natural born citizens -- who would be less suspected by the American people than our foreign born -- would be bribed by foreign powers.

But no... that's not possible, is it? That a pure-bred American good-ole-boy Senator or President would cut some deals with foreigners in return for money or support?

And the final Presidential eligibility clause itself required a TOTAL of only FOURTEEN YEARS of RESIDENCE in the United States before a person could become President.

It is therefore entirely Constitutionally possible for a purebred American to move to Russia or China or England or France -- or Kenya -- as a young child, spend his entire growing up and formational years there, go to university there, then return to the United States at about age 22, live here for 14 years, and then be elected President at age 35 or 36.

And this has been freely Constitutionally possible for the entire history of the United States, from the very moment of our Constitution's adoption.

There is FAR more potential for "foreign influence" in that scenario than there is with someone merely born in the US of immigrant parents.

How could that be?

But wait... there's more.; June 3, 2012 at 11:21 PM
John Woodman said...: Continued --

The Founding Fathers EXCLUDED from the natural-born-citizen requirement ALL persons who were already US citizens at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.

That means that every single naturalized citizen in the United States, in 1788, was Constitutionally eligible to become President.

In other words, it was entirely possible that someone might have been born in England or Bermuda or Ireland or Germany -- for example -- grown up in that foreign country, moved to the United States at age 50, been naturalized as an American citizen, and been elected our President by age 55.

And in fact, since some people would've naturalized as children, actual FOREIGN-BORN individuals were perfectly eligible to be elected President all the way up into at least the 1860s -- after the very last of our Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution were long dead.

If our Founding Fathers were so fearful of "foreign influence," how is this even possible?

The answer is pretty simple. As real historians have always recognized, it wasn't US-born children with immigrant parents that our Founding Fathers and Framers feared, or even the foreign immigrants who were already in our midst. And they feared foreign immigrants so little that they were perfectly happy to make them Senators after only 9 years of citizenship.

It was the people who were already royalty and politicians in other countries. It was the kind of governmental takeover that they had seen before in other countries.

That's it. Not much more, really, that needs to be said -- except that the most prominent early American legal authorities knew the meaning of "natural born citizen," and -- except for the change in status of the people from being "subjects" to being "citizens" -- they clearly understood that "natural born citizen" meant what "natural born subject" had always meant.

This is shown by Zephaniah Swift, author of our first legal text, subscribed to by three of our first four Presidents and half the US Supreme Court, when he wrote in 1795, "The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the =rest of the citizens=."

It is also shown by St. George Tucker, arguably our greatest early legal scholar, when he commented in 1803 on the passage in Blackstone that says, "The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such," by stating that ALL of the important citizenship laws of both Virginia and the United States were "accordant."; June 3, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

John Woodman,

Here is evidence that the new nation did not adopt the jus soli English common law rule to define the new national citizenship. The proof is found right in St. George Tucker’s 1803 publication of a five-volume edition, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803), http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm .

I have cited Tucker in my briefs to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the New Jersey Appellate Division. I show that Tucker considered only a child born to citizen parents to be a “natural born Citizen.” I have explained that for Tucker, only children born to citizen parents could inherit the “civil right” to be elected President. This means that a “natural born Citizen” had to be born to citizen parents.

Tucker provides more evidence. He quotes William Blackstone thus: “The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.10 In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.c” 10. L. V. Edi. 1794, c. 110. L. U. S. 1 Cong. c. 3. 7 Cong. c. 28. accordant.

You argue in your article in which you attempt to discredit my argument on Tucker that this quote and footnote show that Tucker agreed with the jus soli English common law rule and that he informed that the rule prevailed in the United States. But Tucker did not say any such thing.

Tucker quotes William Blackstone’s jus soli English “common law” on “natural born subject” and Blackstone’s explanation that France’s constitution followed jus sanguinis rather than jus soli. But when he compares that English “common law” to American law, he does not cite to American “common law.” Rather, he compares that English “common law” to the 1783 Virginia statute on citizenship and Congress’s Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1802. You say that this shows that Tucker read these statutes to be consistent with the jus soli English common law. But in earlier arguments, you have maintained that these statutes only naturalized children born abroad and that they did not address any child born in the United States. You have all along maintained that the English jus soli common law rule existed in “common law.” But now you maintain that these statutes confirm that any child born in the United States was a “natural born Citizen.” Your two arguments are contradictory.

Continued . . .; June 4, 2012 at 12:32 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

On the contrary, here is what Tucker really meant by his footnote 10. What is critical to understand here is that Tucker did not cite any American “common law” but rather statutes. This means that there was no American “common law” that was comparable to the jus soli English “common law.” If the American “common law” was the same as that of Great Britain like Wong Kim Ark said in 1898, Tucker would have cited and quoted that “common law” and explained that the United States had adopted the English common law rule of jus soli on the matter. But Tucker made no such statement. Rather, he cited to Jefferson’s and Congress’s statutes which on their face do not agree with the jus soli English “common law.” Tucker also told us that Act of 1802 was “accordant” (in agreement) with the Virginia 1783 citizenship statutes and Act of 1790.

Tucker told us that the Virginia statute of 1783 which was basically the same as that of 1779, and the 1790 and 1802 Congressional Acts were all in agreement. We learn from the James McClure citizenship case that the 1802 act provided that any child born in the United States to alien parents was an alien and became a “citizen” when his or her parents naturalized if done before the child’s age of majority or on his or her own naturalization petition if done thereafter. This is the jus sanguinis rule. Hence, Tucker told us that all three statutes followed the jus sanguinis rule and not the jus soli English “common law” rule. This is solid evidence that the Founders and Framers did not allow a child that was born in the United States to alien parents to be a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, they required birth in the United States to citizen parents.

As I have told you, I have a full essay on St. George Tucker which I hope to publish soon.; June 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM
Robert said...: For a court of any country to refer to the "common law" of a foreign nation wouldn't it make sense that they would specifically identify that nation?

Teo Bear has given a terrific illustration of why this must be the case and why it is only reasonable to deduce that Justice Waite was indeed referring to American Common Law.

Using a common sense approach just imagine traveling to a variety of countries to ask the legal community there about the "common law" in each. In how many instances would the answer be given in context of British Common Law? I would guess only in Great Britain.

If you can't go overseas try the same experiment here from state to state. Include Canada and/or Mexico, if you wish. You'll get the same result. No state has exactly the same common law as any other state. None of them, when legally referring to the "common law" in matters of the state, ever assumes that reference to be from any other state or municipality than its own.

Suggesting that our Supreme Court or any Justice was referring to any other nation than ours when it mentioned the "common law" is ludicrous beyond belief.; June 4, 2012 at 12:44 AM