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 201 – 400 of 740 Newer› Newest»

ajtelles said...: Some things are just too obvious...

Mr. Apuzzo,

In 1787 when Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 was adopted during the Constitutional Convention, "natural born Citizen" AND "Citizen" were BOTH used in the SAME sentence.

Why?

Because they do NOT mean the same thing... obviously.

And the single word "Citizen" of the 1795 Naturalization Act which corrected the nascent abuse of the three words "natural born Citizen" of the 1790 Naturalization Act confirm that there is a difference between "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen" in Clause 5.

So, for those who do not accept the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document or our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Clause 5, aka anti-birthers, here is a very simple quiz.

Just 10 easy questions, no tricks (well, except, maybe for #9 & #10, for the uninformed), for BIG Talker… BIG Writer… BIG Blogger… "thought leaders" on radio and tv, print and on the web -

1-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

Yes?
No?

2-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent?

Yes?
No?

... even if the papa is known to be foreign born?
... even if the papa is unknown as the result of rape?

3-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. "Citizen" parents?

Yes?
No?

4-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1787 Clause 5 "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

5-
Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

6-
Does and 1868 14th Amendment "Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1787 Clause 5 "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

7-
Does a child born on U.S. soil to TWO non-U.S. "Citizen" parents qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

8-
Does a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. "Citizen" parent and ONE non-U.S. "Citizen" parent qualify to be POTUS?

Yes?
No?

2 more questions for extra credit -

9-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

10-
Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" mean the same thing as an 1795 Naturalization Act "Citizen?"

Yes?
No?

- - - - - - - - - -

Of course, there are many more focused questions to ask misunderstanders of

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

the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

However, this is a good, simple and very easy 10 question quiz that the "anti-birthrs" can use to start to explain to "we the people" with a simple yes or no why the titular head of the "occupy" movement, aka the OCCUPIER-in-Chief BHObama is not a "foreign influence" puppet-on-a-string.

Art; June 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman,

You give us all these little stories about who is more loyal and who is less. None of that is relevant. The "natural born Citizen" clause, which applies only to presidents and vice-presidents, is not situational. Rather, it provides a bright line rule for presidential eligibility.; June 4, 2012 at 1:38 AM
Teo Bear said...: @Woodie Woodpecker said,

"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."

Teo the Bear says,

Let these words ring loud and clear, they earned it. They earned it with their Lives, their Fortunes and something you seem to never have had, their sacred Honor.

Woodie, woodie, woodie stop thinking with your woody, you ol' peckerhead ;-> It is simply so nice to see our battle plan has been validated by you, you are scared.

We will beat you on this issue, just wait until the average American realizes that you obots and the One are trying to seal their heritage. It is not going to be pretty in November when the One is Done!!!

Thank you Robert for your validation of what I have been trying to say. I hope you don't mind if I use "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." in an upcoming essay.; June 4, 2012 at 2:15 AM
John Woodman said...: You have all along maintained that the English jus soli common law rule existed in "common law."

It did; just as the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark stated.

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.

I have not stated, nor do I maintain, any such thing.

What I have said is exactly what St. George Tucker said -- that the only important citizenship laws for Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States were ACCORDANT -- that is, in full harmony -- with the English common law.

And this is EXPLICITLY what St. George Tucker stated.

The fact that the naturalization laws of both Virginia and the United States did not define or affect the status of children born on US soil -- and it is a fact, and has clearly been shown to be such -- is entirely in harmony with the fact that when subjects became citizens, "natural born subject" became "natural born citizen;" and the same rule regarding the children born in the country of alien parents (as the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark explicitly stated) continued to prevail.

And there's no contradiction there at all.

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.

There was no "American common law" that was any different than "English common law" on this matter. That's why Tucker simply stated that our US laws were accordant with the 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.

In fact, they were. But that was not the point of Tucker's footnote. The point of Tucker's footnote was that all three laws were accordant with the English common law -- as that law and our American laws were what he was comparing and contrasting throughout the entire work.; June 4, 2012 at 2:26 AM
John Woodman said...: @Robert

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.

Blackstone's Commentaries on the English common law was the fundamental text for our earliest generations of lawyers -- sometimes the ONLY training they received. It was the foundational law school textbook under both St. George Tucker and his predecessor George Wythe (our nation's first law professor) at William & Mary.

For this reason, references to "the common law" always included the English common law.

A google search of (later) United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 1881 book The Common Law, for example, returns 5 hits on "United States," 6 hits on "American," and 40 hits on "English."

The common law gave us our legal vocabulary and most of our legal world view — including the general meaning of terms used in the Constitution.

The US Supreme Court has on multiple occasions noted its importance in understanding Constitutional terms. Alexander Hamilton, in a discussion of the meanings of Constitutional terms having to do with taxation, noted, "where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."

Hardly what I would call "ludicrous."

@Mario Apuzzo:

The "natural born Citizen" clause, which applies only to presidents and vice-presidents, is not situational. Rather, it provides a bright line rule for presidential eligibility.

It does, which is why the Founding Fathers used a term that had a centuries-long history, was understood by every lawyer in the country (as every lawyer in the country was trained in Blackstone and the English common law) and had a completely unambiguous meaning.; June 4, 2012 at 2:36 AM
MichaelN said...: 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." .... "

John, the "term of art" was just that, to the Framers there was no precedent or existing "term of art" to copy.

They had to create their own "art", and they DID!

The Framers understood that to be a "natural born subject" of England had NOTHING to do with eligibility for a president of a republic.

Why on earth would they choose a "term of art" that was not even remotely analogous to what they wanted their own "term of art" to describe?

A subject of a monarch is NOTHING like a citizen of a republic.

The system of a republic with an elected president was nothing like the monarchical feudal system with the monarch inheriting his office.

English "natural born subject" was merely to describe one's eligibility to inherit and entitlement to other common rights and privileges, i.e. equivalent to what would be a "citizen of the United States", but with more still for the US counter-part, e.g. the US citizen had the right to vote in electing their government and president of the republic and also they were co-sovereigns of the US citizens.

US "natural born Citizen" had no precedent in English common law nor any similarity with any civil or political entity in the English system.

"natural born Citizen" was a "term of art", unique to the establishment of a new republic and it's unique systems and unique type of civil and political membership.

There was no reason whatsoever for the Framers to resort to an English "term of art" that was in no way descriptive to ANYONE in the make-up of the people of the new republic of US.; June 4, 2012 at 3:46 AM
MichaelN said...: Another thing John, is that the English did not use the "term of art" i.e. "natural born subject" as descriptive of native-birth.

It was rather descriptive of one born "under the ligeance of a subject" wherever they were born, based on the level or type of ligeance of the subject father.

So even in pretending to apply the English "term of art" to a US citizen, (given the US requirements for citizenship via application and due process) the father of a native-born child in the US would have to be a citizen.

Unlike the English, there is only one type or level of allegiance of a US citizen.

Here's the English common law holding on the matter of "natural born subject"....

Lord Coke (Calvin's case):
"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 NEITHER THE CLIMATE NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT, nor under the protection of the King."

and ....

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the PLACE of his birth be within the king’s dominion.

And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;"

The example of "enemies", is just that, an example to demonstrate that native-birth alone is not sufficient to make a "natural born subject".

An friendly alien-born visitor to England was considered a "subject" by merely being in the realm, but a friendly alien-born visitor to US is NOT a "US citizen".

English "subject" and US "citizen" cannot possibly be analogous.

As you should already know being "under the obedience of the king" in England is not the same "subject to the jurisdiction" in the US.

In England "under the obedience of the king" makes one a subject, but in US, being "subject to the jurisdiction" does NOT make one a citizen.

It's all about the allegiance of the father AND how that allegiance is reciprocated.

In the US it is via statement of intention, application, acceptance, swearing of an oath and renunciation of any other allegiances, THEN the child can be born "under the ligeance of a" citizen.; June 4, 2012 at 5:24 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Art Telles,

Your “jury interrogatories” are brilliant. They show that you do have a profound and correct understanding of the “natural born Citizen” clause and all its permutations.

Obama’s enablers are scamming the system by staying away from “Citizen of the United States.” They have made the issue “natural born Citizen” versus “naturalized citizen.” They argue that Obama is a “citizen” “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment. They add that the Fourteenth Amendment does not naturalize anyone. Hence, since he is not a “naturalized citizen,” he must be a “natural born Citizen.” This is the typical argument for making anyone who Congress makes a “citizen” “at birth” a “natural born Citizen.”

The fallacy of the argument is in that Congress can naturalize persons “at birth,” which is exactly what it does in all its naturalization acts and what it did with the Fourteenth Amendment which replaced the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Note that Congress in the Fourteenth Amendment lumps its version of a “citizen” “at birth” with “naturalized citizens” after birth and calls both of those “citizens” “citizens of the United States,” and not “natural born Citizens.”

An Article II “Citizen of the United States” is as much a word of art as an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It simply means every “citizen” that is not a “natural born Citizen.” But Obama’s enablers run from the term like if it were the plague (finding sanctuary in a “naturalized citizen”), because the term would take them back to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which uses that exact term and tells us that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution who is a “Citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen” is NOT eligible to be elected President.; June 4, 2012 at 8:40 AM
js said...: By the 17th century, the system of common law in England was becoming problematic. There were just too many precedents, and it was usually possible to find a supporting precedent to support any position litigants might take. Lawyers could spend a lifetime reading the record of old cases and never cover them all. Attempts were made to codify common law in legal treatises, such as those of Bracton, Britton, Hugo Grotius, Francis Bacon, Edward Coke (pronounced “cook”), Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Rutherford, Samuel Pufendorf, John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Bynkershoek, Burlamaqui, Thomas Rutherforth (online edition in progress), Vattel, and Blackstone. However, this only led to conflicting schools of thought on the subject.(re; constitutionalism.blogspot.com)

This is what the Founding Fathers instituted into the Declaration of Independence.

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

The first fact submitted to the candid world is about the laws, necessary for the public good. This Law they spoke of was English Common Law. It would be insane for the Government to be established using the same precepts in law that they had declared “the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism". This is why English Common law, and Common Law in its nature of existing precident, is not cited in the US Constitution, as it was written.

Instead, the Laws of Nations are the only reference to any external guiding principal in existence at the foundation of this Nation. The Founding Fathers would have stated in no uncertain terms that we were acknowledging the precepts of English Common Law, or the Common Law of any existing State or States, if it had intended to anchor the laws of the United States on any of them.

Instead, the only reference you find is to the Law of Nations. Period, end of story, there is no common law in the US Constitution. The only Law that is recognized is the Law of Nations, and this states in no uncertain terms, that what we refer to as a Natural Born Citizen is in fact, a child born to the indigenous population of the first 13 colonies (or that existed in the confederation at that time). Any Child born of an Alien on US Soil was also considered an Alien, or a citizen of his/her fathers country.

Obama himself acknowledged that he was subject to a foreign power at birth, which indicates that Obama himself acknowledged that he was a British Citizen at birth, and has no right to hold the Office he sits in.; June 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Ray said...: There is in the Constitution no Article, Section, Clause, or anything whatsoever which incorporates the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States.

Whatever species of the common law of England extant in the several states at the time of the Adoption, they are by U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 prohibited from incorporation into the Federal government.

Founders acknowledge the common law of England has not been incorporated into the Federal government, and Framers denounce any notion that it has:

President Washington appointed Samuel Chase to the Supreme Court of The United States, John Quincy Adams writes in his Diary, December 18, 1820: I considered Mr. Chase as one of the men whose life, conduct, and opinion had been of the most extensive influence upon the Constitution of this country. He not only signed the Declaration of Independence, but was an active and distinguish member of the Congress during the early and most critical period of the Revolution. As a judge had settled [prinicples] of the highest importance; one of them in my opinion of very pernicious importance. He decided as I think directly in the face of an amendatory article of the Constitution of the United States (the seventh) that this Union in its federative capacity has no common law. ( http://www.masshist.org/jqadiaries/doc.cfm?id=jqad31_468 )

Jefferson letter to Edmund Randolph, August 18, 1799: Of all the doctrines which have ever been broached by the federal government, the novel one, of the common law being in force and cognizable as an existing law in their courts, is to me the most formidable. All their other assumptions of un-given powers have been in the detail. The bank law, the treaty doctrine, the sedition act, alien act, the undertaking to change the State laws of evidence in the State courts by certain parts of the stamp act, &c. &c. have been solitary, unconsequential, timid things, in comparison with the audacious, barefaced and sweeping pretension to a system of law for the United States, without the adoption of their legislature, and so infinitively beyond their power to adopt. ( http://books.google.com/books?id=93hXAAAAYAAJ&dq=thomas%20jefferson%20edmund%20randolph%201799%20ccliii&pg=PA425#v=onepage&q&f=false )

Madison letter to Jefferson, Jan 18, 1800: Madison states that admitting the common law of England as Federal law of the United States "would confer on the judicial department a discretion little short of a legislative power" since federal courts would "decide what parts of the common law would, and what would not, be properly applicable to the circumstances of the United States" and thus would "erect them [judges] into legislators" ( http://books.google.com/books?id=zn5DAQAAIAAJ&dq=writings%20of%20james%20madison%20%22their%20united%20and%20national%20capacity%22&pg=PA347#v=onepage&q&f=false )

The Constitution of the United States is not based on England's common law... "a composition of unwritten laws and maxims" -- Madison; June 4, 2012 at 9:49 AM
js said...: Natural Born Citizens do not need any constitution, or legislation, to be a citizen of the nation of birth, it is a natural descent by right of inheritance.

Congress can not do it, and the Constitutions only act is to recognize it. If any person achieves citizenship by any other means, then that person can not be a natural born citizen by virtue of circumstance, and can only be considered naturalized by act of man made laws.; June 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM
jayjay said...: Teo Bear:

"The One is Done!!!!!" What a delicious phrase!!! One that "John Woodman", "Reality Check", and Kevin Davidson can grasp despite their gross misunderstanding of modern day router/internet technology.

It's nice that they pronounce their own ineptitude for all to enjoy, however.

The OOPS Troops, communists all, are intent (along with their master) on destroying this country and they should rightly come under legal scrutiny and judgement as things progress since they have been - and clearly still are - promoting that self-same endeavor in their attempts to protect a man who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

Their idiotic justification(s) now must run along the lines of "... he doesn't HAVE to be eligible; he's already elected ...". That is, of course the basest nonsense as we shall come to see before too long and it illustrates how low they have fallen as a group.

They are (as the saying goes) lower than whale dung ... and that's the lowest thing on earth since it's on the bottom of the ocean.

Some of this bunch will certainly come to rue the day they took up the communist cudgel as they are hoist on their own petard, e.g. 8 USC 1424, since some most likely fall under its provisions ... possibly even their Fearless Leader.; June 4, 2012 at 11:09 AM
jayjay said...: John Woodman, Reality Check, Kevin Davidson and other communists trying to legitimize The One Who Has Never Shown Himself To Be Eligible To Hold The Office He Now Occupies:

Perhaps you could point us poor unenlightened ones to the exact sentence in English Common Law (e.g., Blackstone's Commentaries) where the term "natural born Citizen" is defined as used in the United States Constitution??; June 4, 2012 at 11:24 AM
jayjay said...: You same Obama Groupies I just addresseed about the "nbC" term in ECL:

Possibly you should switch your "arguments" about universal use of ECL to saying something like ...

"... after all, words like 'the' and 'and' and 'or' and 'a' are all used in the ECL therefore the "nbC' term must also be ..." - it would make as much sense as your current efforts at misdirection/misinformation.; June 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman,

(1) The American Revolution did not bring us to a state of nature. Orderly society had to continue after the revolution. Hence, the English common law continued to apply at the state level where law was needed on contracts, property, inheritance, criminal procedure, marriage, etc. Except for its limited application through the Bill of Rights which did not deal with citizenship and nation building, it did not apply at the national level. In fact, as I have explained numerous times, the English common law was abrogated on the national level as providing the rules for defining citizenship implicitly by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and explicitly by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. Even St. George Tucker, in commenting on the English common law on “natural born subjects” pointed to our Virginia and federal statutes on citizenship and not to any “common law” which as you maintain mirrored that English “common law.”

Yes, Blackstone was an important authority in the United States when we needed to understand the English common law. But Vattel was the source that we looked to when we needed to look to “national law” which is the law that determines our rules of decision on citizenship. As James Brown Scott has correctly stated: "It is therefore to be expected that, when terms of municipal law are found in the Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone's Commentaries; and when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them." James Brown Scott, The United States of America: A Study in International Organizations 439 (1920). Even at the College of William and Mary, our nation’s first law school, the law of nations and Emer de Vattel were taught as “national law.” The law school did not teach the English common law or Blackstone as “national law.”

Continued . . .; June 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

(2) The Founders and Framers did not incorporate an English “natural born subject” into the U.S. Constitution. Rather, they used a term that was known, “natural born Citizen” and used it to signify a new meaning which was based on the law of nations.

James Wilson, both a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution had this to say in 1791 about the new “citizen” of the new republic:

I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people: and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequently employed also in the sense in which I now use it. “Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”

A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights ; but his legislative I consider as his characteristic right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union : for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.
See the works of James Wilson here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=g2uvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=to+use+a+known+phrase+in+a+new+signification+James+Wilson&source=bl&ots=yHHUlAtLGv&sig=yTG4-bRJNSj5QsLXgkEQEgXrZpI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HLfDT5y1B4X76gHgu93RCg&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=to%20use%20a%20known%20phrase%20in%20a%20new%20signification&f=false

Note that Wilson said that a “citizen” is often times confused with another term, which he was probably referring to a “subject.” He said in describing “the people,” we did not use an “unknown phrase.” Hence, we used “citizen” which everyone understood. He said we did not “ use a known phrase in a new signification.” Hence, we did not use “natural born subject” and try to tell people that it had a new and different meaning. So they went straight with “natural born Citizen,” which had that different meaning, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Wilson also said that other than a naturalized citizen, a “citizen” was a “son of a citizen” who had reached the age of majority. Clearly, this is not the English common law which because of its loose rule of allegiance made no reference to the child’s parents citizenship.; June 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM
John Woodman said...: MichaelN said:

John, the "term of art" [natural born citizen] was just that, to the Framers there was no precedent or existing "term of art" to copy.

They had to create their own "art", and they DID!

The claim is that "natural born citizen" was a brand new "term of art" entirely distinct and different from "natural born subject" -- even though "citizen" was directly analogous to "subject," the only obvious difference being that the people were no longer under the power of a King, but free citizens.

1) Why did they "have to create their own art?" If they were naming a recognized concept -- that is, Vattel's concept of citizenship, then why did they not use Vattel's established terminology, and state that the President had to be a "natural" or an "indigene?"

2) If "natural born citizen" is a term of art entirely distinct from and substantially different from "natural born citizen," then why, having all possible terms of art to choose from, did they choose wording which (except for the substitution of "citizen" for "subject") is identical to "natural born subject?" If they wanted to name a concept substantially different from the well-known "natural born subject," then why did they choose a term that was virtually identical?

3) If "natural born citizen" means something entirely different from "natural born subject," then why did the Massachusetts legislature use both terms in a randomly interchangeable way, first one, then the other, in their early statutes?

4) If the two terms mean something different, then why did Zephaniah Swift not use both of them in the nation's first legal treatise, and explain the difference?

5) If "natural born citizen" means something different from "natural born subject," then why was St. George Tucker's sole comment on the Blackstone passage stating that the child born in England of aliens was a "natural born subject" simply to note that Virginia and US law were "accordant?"

6) If "natural born citizen" means something entirely different from the well-known "natural born subject," then why do we not have a single statement from any Founding Father, Framer of the Constitution, or historical or legal figure that this is the case?; June 4, 2012 at 2:58 PM
John Woodman said...: 7) If "natural born citizen" refers to Vattel's concept of citizenship, then why do we not have a single statement from any Founding Father, Framer of the Constitution, or historical or legal figure that this is the case?

8) If the Framers of the Constitution relied on Vattel for their concept of citizenship, then why do we not have a single statement from any Founding Father, Framer of the Constitution, or historical or legal figure that this is the case?

9) If the Framers of the Constitution required two citizen parents in order for a person to be a "natural born citizen," then why do we not have one single statement from any Founding Father, Framer of the Constitution, or historical or legal figure that says, "In order to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President, one must be born in the United States of two citizen parents?"

10) If two citizen parents are required, then why do we have literally hundreds of statements on Presidential eligibility from throughout American history by legal scholars, educators and others, which state merely that the President must be "native-born," or that he must be "born a citizen," with no mention whatsoever that both birth on US soil and two citizen parents are required?

11) If the term of art "natural born citizen" derived from Vattel or the Law of Nations, then why does is the term of art "natural born citizen" not defined in the writings of Vattel or any other writer on the Law of Nations?

12) If the term of art "natural born citizen" comes from Vattel or the Law of Nations, then why does it never even once APPEAR in any relevant writing by any of the seven major writers on the Law of Nations, or -- for that matter -- by any other writer on Law of Nations?; June 4, 2012 at 2:59 PM
John Woodman said...: Note: There is, of course, one very obvious difference in the meaning of "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" -- and that difference is in the distinction between "citizen" and "subject." When I ask, "if they mean something different, then why...?" I am obviously asking for any difference in meaning other than the obvious and given one.; June 4, 2012 at 3:03 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Vattel explains that membership in a society is that of "citizen" or "inhabitant." See The Law of Nations, Sections 212 and 213.

Section 215 explains what the membership of being a "perpetual inhabitant" is. This membership is not that of a "citizen."

Today in the U.S. we have green card holders, called "legal permanent residents" ("LPR"). While they enjoy the many rights and protections enjoyed by "citizens," they do not enjoy the full list of them. These persons would fall into Vattel's "perpetual inhabitant" category. They are not "citizens." If they commit an enumerated criminal offense, not only do they get punished criminally, but they also get kicked out ("removed) from our country after serving their sentence.

Vattel also informs in Section 213 that if a child is born to a father (parents) who is a "perpetual inhabitant," the child follows the condition of the father (parents) and would be himself or herself a "perpetual inhabitant," but not a "citizen." Our early naturalization acts (pre Wong Kim Ark) followed this model.; June 4, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman said at his blog:

"This is why all persons born on US soil before 1898 who had 8 great-grandparents who were non-citizen immigrants, were never themselves United States citizens, but were only non-citizen inhabitants — even though they, both of their parents and all four of their grandparents had all been born in the United States and had never lived anywhere else.

Right, Mario?"

My response: Why do you not cite for us all here one U.S. Supreme Court opinion prior to Wong Kim Ark (1898) which says that a child born in the United States to alien parents was a "Citizen of the United States."

After you are done with that task, cite for us all here one U.S. Supreme Court opinion prior to Wong Kim Ark (1898) and after which says that a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents was (is) a "natural born Citizen."; June 4, 2012 at 8:47 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman,

You really are a waste of time. You act like we have not presented any evidence on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Ironically, you and your coterie are the ones who can only rely upon Wong Kim Ark for your position that a “natural born Citizen” is the same thing as a “natural born subject,” when that case did not even so hold (it said Wong was a “citizen of the United States” which does not get you a cigar).

On Tucker, you misstate his position.

Mr. Woodman and I both agree that St. George Tucker is early America’s greatest legal authority. What this means is that we must both accept what St. George Tucker says as very convincing on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” So either Tucker says what I say he says or he says what Mr. Woodman says he says. I have explained to Mr. Woodman that the stakes are very high when it comes to Tucker.

Now let us examine what Tucker said:

3. Civil rights, taken in a strict and confined sense, as contradistinguished from natural and social rights, are such as appertain to a man as a citizen or subject, of this, or that, particular state or country; in his private and individual capacity as a free agent, and member of the body politic or state, in respect to the state or body politic; and contradistinguished from such as might be due to him as a magistrate, legislator, judge, or other public agent, character, or functionary. The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights.

These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.

***

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.

http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm

So there you have it. Any child who was a “citizen” and who was not born to “citizen” “parents” was a “naturalized” “citizen” and not a “natural born Citizen.” As a “naturalized” “citizen,” he or she was “forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.” Hence, only if one was born to “citizen” “parents” could one possess the “civil right” to be elected President.

Looks to me like John Woodman lost big time on St. George Tucker.; June 4, 2012 at 9:09 PM
John Woodman said...: John Woodman,

You really are a waste of time. You act like we have not presented any evidence on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

In other words, you have no answer for any of those questions that I asked.

On Tucker, you misstate his position... Now let us examine what Tucker said.

In the article at my blog, I've already pointed out the multiple fallacies in the convoluted reasoning required by you to twist peripheral statements made by St George Tucker around to make him appear to support your claim.

I've also pointed out four clear, direct statements from St. George Tucker which are actually RELEVANT to the questions of natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility, all of which refute your claim as to St George Tucker's position.

But it's like anything else. It doesn't really matter what the clear, unambiguous, relevant evidence says.

You will continue to find whatever pretext you can to support your false claim. You will continue to boldly assert that you've "won" the debate, even though it's clear to less partial observers that you don't have a leg to stand on. You stand in your BVDs before America, urging passers-by to admire the cut of your suit.

The courts will of course continue to toss your meritless and frivolous cases, with decisions that include subtle references (as the last court did) to your arguments being so bogus that they don't even merit the court's time to issue a written opinion.

And those who really want to believe, will continue to believe in and support you.

Who knows? Maybe you can make some money off of them. I'm sure some of them will be willing to pay you, as you are providing a valuable service. You are granting them their political fantasy.

And, you won't have to deal with me for much longer. Talk about a "waste of time." Man, have you wasted mine, and that of others as well.

I am at this moment attempting to get together my final article on this subject. Hardly anything more needs to be said.

The evidence is quite clear enough as to what the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution meant by "natural born citizen." You and a few others will keep riding the train to nowhere, around and around in circles, until you eventually run out of fuel and fade away.

I do wish you and your followers well in your destinationless journey.; June 5, 2012 at 1:06 AM
MichaelN said...: 1 of 2

John Woodman said .....

"The claim is that "natural born citizen" was a brand new "term of art" entirely distinct and different from "natural born subject" -- even though "citizen" was directly analogous to "subject," the only obvious difference being that the people were no longer under the power of a King, but free citizens."
------------------------
Response:

You are wrong John, "citizen" is not directly analogous to "subject", it never was in England and US doesn't have any "subjects".

I am no going to go into it in depth, but just as a taster ....

http://www.cliohres.net/books/7/20.pdf
Quote:
"Citizenship rights are not necessarily linked to fully-established nation-states, but formed part of earlier discussions
in societies with multi-layered perceptions of membership within different political (and
social) corporations."

and...

"The prerequisites of citizenship and the terms of acquisition
were frequently debated and amended over the next few decades both at a national and a local level.

The issue was eventually resolved by a compromise agreed in 1604, which lasted until the passing of the General Naturalization Act in 1709.

English-born children of foreign parents were made denizens, that is citizens with limited legal rights particularly in terms of property-ownership and inheritance patterns."; June 5, 2012 at 1:58 AM
MichaelN said...: 2 of 2

John Woodman said.....

1) Why did they "have to create their own art?" If they were naming a recognized concept -- that is, Vattel's concept of citizenship, then why did they not use Vattel's established terminology, and state that the President had to be a "natural" or an "indigene?"

They DID state that the President had to be a "natural", he had to be a "natural born Citizen", they didn't necessarily get the combination of words "natural" and "born" from the English common law.

Why should they have to use some other combination of words than those which best described what they intended.

i.e.
"natural" = by descent from the parents

"born citizen" = by native birth-right.

Just because the English used the words "natural born" and the Framers used those words too, doesn't mean that the reasoning was the same for using these words; they had separate and different defining purposes and separate and different intended meanings, they had separate and different applications in their separate and different contexts.

You ask all these "whys" John.

Well here's one or two for you...

If the Framers wanted to say "native born Citizen" or "born Citizen", then why didn't they simply say so?

Then later on down the track, (the perfect opportunity to make it clear once and for all, when the 14th Amendment was drafted), why did the Congress and the Senate not state in the 14th Amendment, that those "citizens of the United States" which were the native-born, were "natural born Citizens"?

Why? John, why?

The point is John, there are TWO types of born US citizens, clearly the US Immigration and Citizenship Service recognize this, the Minor court recognized the "natural born" (by descent) ones, and at the same time doubted the solely native-born as being born citizen at all, then the WKA court gave the solely native-born ones "citizen of the United States" but NOT "natural born Citizen", another golden opportunity to define the native-born as "natural born Citizen" gone begging!

But one BOTH of these golden opportunity occasions, and given all the debate and hoo haa about citizenship, and also given the extremely lengthy discussions which took place in the WKA court about "natural born", the solely native-born STILL only got to be the ONE AND ONLY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL "term of art", being "citizen of the United States"

Why? John, why?

I'll tell you why John, it was because the Framers defined and meant for an Article II "natural born Citizen" to mean one born of BOTH native birth-right AND natural descent.; June 5, 2012 at 1:58 AM
MichaelN said...: Even the English common law did not intend "natural born subject" to be based solely on native-birth.

So what's with the claim by the Obots that the Framers adopted the English common law "term of art", replaced "subject" with "citizen", then changed it's meaning from being based on the "ligeance of a subject", to being based solely on "native-born"????

Why? John, why?; June 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM
bdwilcox said...: Obot merit badges.

If anyone has any more ideas for obot badges, send them to birferbadges_at_hotmail.com (replace the _at_ with the @ symbol) and I'll try to get to them when I can.; June 5, 2012 at 4:48 AM
MichaelN said...: John Woodman said .......

"If "natural born citizen" is a term of art entirely distinct from and substantially different from "natural born subject," then why, having all possible terms of art to choose from, did they choose wording which (except for the substitution of "citizen" for "subject") is identical to "natural born subject?" .."

Response:
(I have corrected your error)

I'll answer with a question John.

Why do you take it for granted that the Framers had to "choose" any other "term of art"?

Why could the Framers not create their own "term of art"?

You ARE aware that in the Framing period and thereafter, people in US who were suspected of being loyal to the British monarchy were tested by being required to swear an oath of allegiance to the US, and those that refused or who were fence-sitters, or openly sided with the British, were driven out of the communities along WITH their NATIVE-BORN CHILDREN (who were NOT considered as US citizens at all)and their possessions and lands confiscated?

John Woodman said ....
"If the Framers wanted to name a concept substantially different from the well-known "natural born subject," then why did they choose a term that was virtually identical?"

Response:
Well have a look at the available words in the English language John.

If YOU wanted to create a "term of art" description for a person who was to be of the highest possible allegiance, loyalty and dedication to the republic, with the least chance of them being influenced, persuaded or claimed as one of their own by a foreign sovereignty, then what words would you choose?

I think the choice of words on the part of the Framers was perfect.

i.e.

"natural", meaning by natural descent, which was already a universally recognized standard.

"born citizen", meaning born a citizen by native birth-right, which was an already a universally recognized standard.

Even the first naturalization act of 1790 (enacted a mere 2-3 years after the ratification of the US Constitution) recognized "natural" as meaning by descent.

And if you need to go all English in your thinking, then you will find that Coke said "Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by nature and birth right" acknowledging that the English common law recognized natural descent as essential to making a "natural born ******"

Coke even described those with the highest allegiance (aka natural born subjects) as such "due by NATURE and BIRTH RIGHT".

ALL the evidence shows that the use of the word "natural" was in relation to natural descent.

It is impossible for the Framers to have intended "natural", (in the context of Article II) to mean native.

Furthermore, even to the English in 17th century, the word "natural" in the context of defining a "natural born subject" was not intended to mean solely "native", but was more inclined toward natural descent as being the paramount quality.

It was and is all about the allegiance of the father and his status as a "subject" or "citizen".

It was NEVER the case that a child born to "subject" parents was NOT ARE cases where a child, native-born was NOT a "subject".

So what's the most important quality John?; June 5, 2012 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: @Robert

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?

The Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark made that reference. Justice Gray quotes with approval the earlier case of Smith v. Alabama which stated:

***There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. ***

WKA at p. 655. So the Court makes clear that English common law is the "common language" that colors terms used by the Framers.

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.

I don't see it as ludicrous. It takes time for a body of law to develop. Cases need to be brought, get heard, opinions written. In 1787, the U.S. had only been a nation for 11 years (and for a number of those it was busy fighting for freedom). So there wasn't yet much of a national common law. Jurisprudence then was still very much steeped in the English common law that the Founders and Framers grew up with and studied. The Supreme Court acknowledged this.

Not ludicrous; just pragmatic.; June 5, 2012 at 8:25 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman,

You say that I have not properly interpreted the plain words of St. George Tucker. Here are his plain words:

"These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens."

What does this mean?; June 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Carlyle said...: I remain puzzled at the obtuseness of some pro-Obama supporters who post here and try to sway us with their twisted arguments. To me, they seem to be wandering without compass or guidebook in the farthest reaches of the shadows, emanations, and penumbras of the constitution and supreme court writings.

I am not a lawyer - I am an engineer, scientist, and above all a mathematician and logician. Silly us - we like to imagine that the best way to connect two points is with a straight line.

So, taking 'then' as Point 1, and 'now' as Point 2, how might one proceed.

The only sensible way is to establish the meaning of NBC at Point 1, work your way directly to Point 2, and see if the definition and meaning ever changed.

First, we look at the constitution itself. The only thing that is even in the neighborhood is the 14th Amendment. Upon examination however it says nothing about NBC. Further, thinking of its purpose, it was simply to promote the slaves into full citizenship, not to totally alter the meaning of citizenship or any of it's variants.

Second, we look at the supreme court. We all know from Mario's excellent work here the relevant cases. Again, they all touch on various aspects of citizenship, but do not directly address the definition nor application of NBC.

Finally, on other days in other places, it is a fairly common understanding that "the supreme court has never defined NBC". So why do we keep trying to look to them for guidance?

So we seem to be left with the clear and obvious conclusion that NBC today means what it meant then, and has always meant.

(to be continued); June 5, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: bwwilcox,

You Obot Merit Badges are absolutely brilliant. I am happy to see that you copyrighted them.

You can also add some more.

Here is just two other quick ideas and there are more:

(1) The Obots read Article II "Citizen of the United States" as "natural born Citizen."

(2) The Obots will not accept the plain and simple words of any court or historical source simply because of what the court or source DID NOT SAY. In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor or St. George Tucker said 2+2=4, but did NOT also say that 2+2 does NOT ALSO equal 5, the Obots maintain that 2+2 ALSO equals 5 because Minor and Tucker did not say that it did NOT.; June 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Carlyle said...: (continued)

So - what then did it mean?

First of all, it is clear that it meant something specific and common knowledge. There are no explanations, definitions, footnotes, reference, etc. It just puts it out there along with other Terms Of Art like "bills of attainder" and "shall not be infringed". It must be clearly understood that, AT THE TIME, no one was even remotely confused.

The OBOTS love to challenge us to prove that they used Vattel. We cannot and we don't have to. In fact, I bet they did not. Just like they did not grab some dictionary to look up Bills Of Attainder, I doubt if they stumbled over the phrase NBC and said to themselves, "Let's go see what ol' Emerich has to say". They already knew and were in total and instant agreement.

Vattel is just a convenience for us moderns to re-affirm what we think the plain meaning probably is.

Even more strongly, I am not aware of any contemporaneous debate or discussion. I am not aware of any reputable references that took issue with Vattel. Like a dictionary, I don't think Vattel invented or defined the term out of thin air - he simply documented its common use.

That along with - what in my opinion is - the coup de grace - the clause about NBC was meant to be RESTRICTIVE, leaves no doubt as to its original meaning.

Now, as suggested above, "draw the straight line" to arrive at the answer. Any other process, any other result, can only be had with torturous contortions.

I am not using any of this in a partisan way. I believe so strongly in this inescapable logic, that I insist on applying it to a great favorite and hero - Marco Rubio. It is with a great sigh and regret - but you cannot hide from the truth.

I think there is a legitimate debate as to whether the need for the NBC restriction is any longer needed in the post-modern world (or maybe it is needed even worse?) - and that could be a future topic. But, currently, right now, it is what it is!; June 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman wants us to think that the Founders and Framers had no body of knowledge from which to obtain their idea of a “natural born Citizen” other than the English common law. This is a ludicrous claim given the vast amount of information studied by the Founders and Framers. Consider this:

“Lex MENSIA, That a child should be held as a foreigner, if either of the parents was so. But if both parents were Romans and married, children always obtained the rank of the father, (patrem sequuntur liberi, Liv. iv. 4.} and if unmarried, of the mother, Uipian.” Alexander Adam, Roman antiquities: or, An account of the manners and customs of the Romans 210 (6th ed. corrected 1807).

***

With many of the Founders being proficient in Latin, Greek, and French, they probably obtained the clause “natural born citizen” and its synonym, “native,” from ancient Latin text which was also translated into English rather than from simply copying the clause “natural born subject” from the English common law and substituting the word “citizen” for “subject.” That ancient text was found in Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (or Quintilian), published in Latin in the first century A.D. The Framers were well read in the Roman and Greek classics as is expounded upon in their writings in the Federalist Papers. Jefferson and other Founders had a love for Roman history and education. From the excellent research conducted by John Greschak, we learn the following: “In 1774, the phrase natural born citizen was used in an English translation (from the Latin) of the book Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (published in the first century A.D.); this was done in Chapter I of Book VIII. The phrase is found in the Latin text: Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book 1, Chapter VIII. There have been at least five different English translations of this work and this sentence. The first was by Guthrie in 1756. Since then, there have been translations by Patsall (1774), Watson (1856), Butler (1920-2) and Russell (2001).” http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm. Greschak found that Guthrie in 1756 used the word “native” when translating Quintilianus’ reference to that Roman citizen who because of birth and family upbringing was expected to be most able to speak the pure Roman language. In referring to the same type of citizen, Patsall in 1774 translated the same sentence as: “Therefore, if possible, every word and the very tone of voice, should bespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education” (emphasis supplied). Greschak states: “I do not claim that this is the first use of the phrase natural born citizen, but it is the earliest use of which I am aware.” Id.

Hence, Quintilianus’ work which was translated from the Latin to the English provided the clause “natural born citizen” and the word “native” and the translators used the words interchangeably to mean the same thing. This fluctuation in translation explains why the Founders, too, used the words “native” and “natural born Citizen” synonymously.

From Mario Apuzzo brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama.; June 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM
jayjay said...: It is VERY clear that the term "obot" has come to mean both "communist" and "liar" in equal measure.

This is on display from all of them most often in the form of altering the content of much earlier writings of persons no loger around to rebut their nonsense. The OOPS Troops (Obama Onager Posse Slugs) with the likes of "woodman", "check", etc. along with the newly-discovered AOL Identity hider "1b81e294-af09-11e1-ac8b-000bcdcb8a73" (what an unimaginative, mispronounceable monniker!!) can only spout mistruths and warped logic.

Move than that, they do not even know what a "term of art" is and why it is used in the Constitution. These persons (and I use THAT as a "term of art") do not seem to grasp what is meant by the term.

A "term of art" is the use of specialized words (jargon, if you will) that has a definite meaning yet does not yield to discernment by merely defining/specifying and then conjoining the word(s) involved.

Examples of terms of art are "blue sky laws", "straw man", and even "natural born citizen" and each such term of art means something specific.

The OOPS Troops can't even spell "term of art" but merely try to misdefine it to their own purposes - to keep a communist in power ... a man who has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies.; June 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM
MichaelN said...: Correction:

"It was NEVER the case that a child born to "subject" parents was NOT "subject", but there WERE cases where a child, native-born was NOT a "subject".

Coke (Calvin's case)

"The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject."; June 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM
Teo Bear said...: 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?"
and OpenId replied with a quote from Justice Matthews, who in turn took this quote from Justice McLean, “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
What OpenId Obot fails to understand is Justice Matthews was not referring to the definitions of every word used in the Constitution, but how the framers prepared (i.e. provided for, provisioned ) the law of the land to be read, What Justice Matthews is examining is in fact the supremacy clause of the Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, Clause 2; June 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Teo Bear said...: Cont.

As can be clearly seen by his next sentence, “The code of constitutional and statutory construction which therefore is gradually formed by the judgments of this Court, in the application of the Constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, has for its basis so much of the common law as may be implied in the subject, and constitutes a common law resting on national authority.”
Justice Matthews at this point refers to Justice Bradley in Moore v. United States - 91 U.S. 270 (1875), who is saying that unless Congress specifically authorizes a different rule of evidence or a different court to have jurisdiction, the common law rule must be applied.
Justice Matthews makes clears of what he means refereeing to the exception, in the very next sentence , “The statute of Alabama the validity of which is drawn in question in this case does not fall within this exception.”
To say that the words and phrase in US Constitution must be interpreted by English Common Law because of the common language is to say that we in America should all follow English driving rules and drive on the left side of the road because we speak English. It is clear from reading these ruling what Justice Matthews is saying the that the application of the law and the court having jurisdiction would follow the precedents of English common law if Congress did not provide for an alternative.; June 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM
John Woodman said...: You say that I have not properly interpreted the plain words of St. George Tucker. Here are his plain words:

"These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens."

What does this mean?

Did you happen to notice who St. George Tucker didn't mention in that comment? He made no mention at all of children born on US soil of non-citizen parents. So he doesn't tell us how he thinks those persons gain their civil rights.

Nor does he tell us that civil rights have to be "inherited" in order for a person to be eligible to be President.

But these are fallacies I've already discussed in my article on what St. George Tucker actually had to say that was relevant to natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility.

I have, however, added another comment to that:

When he states that children of citizens "inherit" civil rights, that obviously has reference to children who may be born of American parents either in the United States or overseas -- just as was also the case in English law. The English passed specific laws in order to ensure that children born overseas of English parents enjoyed rights in England -- particularly, the right to inherit property.

And in fact, anyone who wants to know what St. George Tucker actually had to say on the matter should read and understand the full article. I won't attempt to condense the entire thing into a comment here.; June 5, 2012 at 3:30 PM
John Woodman said...: @Carlyle: You ought to read and understand every single word of the 20 articles I've written over the past couple of months on the meaning of "natural born citizen." When you do, you will find yourself happily supporting Marco Rubio.

The Founding Fathers weren't afraid of a native-born child of immigrant parents. In fact, FOREIGN-BORN Americans naturalized before the Constitution was adopted were fully eligible to become President until well after the Founding Fathers' entire generation had died off, until at least the 1860s.

What they were afraid of was intriques from existing foreign politicians and royalty -- the same kinds of intrigues they had seen bring down the governments of other countries.; June 5, 2012 at 3:33 PM
John Woodman said...: As far as Mario's claim:

"With many of the Founders being proficient in Latin, Greek, and French, they probably obtained the clause “natural born citizen” and its synonym, “native,” from ancient Latin text which was also translated into English rather than from simply copying the clause “natural born subject” from the English common law and substituting the word “citizen” for “subject.”

-- He has to use the words "PROBABLY OBTAINED THE CLAUSE..." because he has no actual EVIDENCE whatsoever to support the idea that they did!!

There is, on the other hand, ABUNDANT historical evidence to support the completely obvious supposition that "natural born subject" became "natural born citizen" when "subject" became "citizen."

Among that evidence is the fact that American legislatures before the Revolution and the establishment of the Constitution gave naturalized citizens the rights of "natural born subjects," and after the Revolution and establishment of the Constitution simply changed the phrase to "natural born citizens" without missing a beat.

Except in Massachusetts... where they DID miss a beat, or two.

In Massachusetts, for a time, they actually used the two phrases synonymously and absolutely interchangeably. One time they would say "natural born subject;" the next time it would be "natural born citizen." Then it would be "natural born subject" again.

That's just the beginning. There's plenty more historical evidence to support that "natural born subject" simply changed into "natural born citizen" when we changed "subject" to "citizen."

As for evidence that the Founders "probably obtained the clause 'natural born citizen'" from ancient Latin text, it's virtually nonexistent. We have at this point nine known usages of the phrase "natural born citizen" in the English language prior to its use in the Constitution.

All known translations yielding the phrase from ancient Latin occurred NOT in America, but in England.

Only six of the known usages of "natural born citizen" occurred in a legal context. All six of those occured in America. And those usages -- the ONLY known usages of "natural born citizen" in an American or in a legal context -- support the obvious fact that the term came from "natural born subject."

Again, people who want to know the actual truth -- okay, so I don't expect to find many of those here -- ought to read the 20 or so articles I've written on the subject, as well as the final wrap-up article I have coming.

For those who have "ears that are capable of hearing" -- and by that I absolutely DON'T mean "Obama supporters," as I personally am manifestly no such thing -- the evidence, in the end, is clear.; June 5, 2012 at 3:38 PM
John Woodman said...: If the Framers wanted to say "native born Citizen" or "born Citizen", then why didn't they simply say so?

Because "natural born citizen" was perfectly clear to everybody of their generation, and especially so to lawyers, all of whom were trained in the English common law. Blackstone was the foundational text, for example, at our nation's first law school under both George Wythe and St. George Tucker. And for many American lawyers, Blackstone was the ONLY legal training they received.

Secondly, as far as I can tell, in spite of the fact -- and if you go back and look at the historical records this fact is clear -- that it was often popularly reported that the President had to be "native born" or "born in America," they actually didn't intend to limit Presidential eligibility to ONLY those who were "native born" or "born in America." I believe they intended for children born of US parents overseas to be eligible as well.

"Natural born citizen" was the only term of art -- and again, the descriptive phrase "natural born" was a perfectly well-known term of art -- that accomplished this.; June 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM
John Woodman said...: (2) The Obots will not accept the plain and simple words of any court or historical source simply because of what the court or source DID NOT SAY. In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor or St. George Tucker said 2+2=4, but did NOT also say that 2+2 does NOT ALSO equal 5, the Obots maintain that 2+2 ALSO equals 5 because Minor and Tucker did not say that it did NOT.

Mario has been limited to:

1) Attempting to (generally, falsely) label those who disagree with his bogus claims as "Obots." In this category is virtually every legal authority who has ever spoken on the matter, throughout American history, including such folks as Mark Levin, Ronald Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese, and the highly conservative Constitution-promoting Heritage Foundation.

2) Making straw man arguments to attempt to defend his false claims.

In fact, in this statement he represents his own position. Mr. Apuzzo finds the gaps through which he can characterize authorities as having said things that clearly do not represent their positions (2+2=5).

When someone notes, however, that 2+3=5 (true statement), he states that they are claiming that 2+2=5 (false statement).

Look, the facts are out there. As has been amply demonstrated, there's no real legal basis for Mario's claim. Actually, the case that Mario makes was made in US v Wong Kim Ark, and it lost -- 6 to 2. That's a 75% / 25% split. Fuller's dissent, if you understand the actual history, was honestly so ill-founded in law that I personally find it a bit surprising that he even found one other Justice to sign on to the dissenting opinion with him.

And frankly, there's no historical basis for the claim, either. In my last article, I intend to take a bird's-eye view of the historical meaning of "natural born citizen." Those who are interested in the actual truth should, I trust, find it helpful and informative.

Be that as it may, as I've noted earlier, the actual evidence doesn't really matter for most of the folks here. If somebody, however, for whom the evidence and the truth DOES matter happens to wander across this thread, I recommend that they read both sides of the issue (including all of the 20 or so articles I've personally written on the subject as a lot of honest research has gone into that), do their own follow-up, and read the original source materials for themselves. And honestly test everything I've said, and honestly test everything Mario has said.

When you do, I have every confidence you'll come to the same conclusions I have. The truth is available, and a very good deal of it is in the large quantity of material and analysis I've published on the subject.

Again, I wish you well. Now if you good folks will excuse me, I have some final writing to do, and a life to move on with.; June 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM
John Woodman said...: Will make a quick response to a question that was asked before my last comment, but did not appear through moderation until after I posted mine:

If YOU wanted to create a "term of art" description for a person who was to be of the highest possible allegiance, loyalty and dedication to the republic, with the least chance of them being influenced, persuaded or claimed as one of their own by a foreign sovereignty, then what words would you choose?

For me, I probably would've gone, as our Founders did, with "natural born citizen." I would not have been (as our Founders weren't) overly concerned with children born on US soil of immigrant parents.

As James Madison noted in the debate on citizenship requirement for Senators, the greater danger is likely not from a politician who is foreign born (who would naturally be subject to additional scrutiny from the public) but from our own purebred American politicians being bribed by foreign governments.

If I wanted to use a "term of art" that meant Vattel's definition, then I would have obviously used "indigene" -- and explained to the public that the term came from Vattel's Law of Nations. Simple, clean, a total of eight letters -- Done.

If I wanted to otherwise say "born on US soil of citizen parents," then I would've written "The President must have been born in the United States of two citizen parents." Done.

I would NEVER, EVER have used the term "natural born citizen," which was virtually identical to and by that time had a HISTORY (1785, 1786) of use that was SYNONYMOUS with "natural born subject --

unless, of course, I meant the same thing as "natural born subject," except for the obvious difference between "subject" and "citizen."

As a final note: I'm fully aware some here (probably including MichaelN) will accuse me of "fleeing the argument in defeat." But the fact is, none of the folks here have had any good answer for the points I've raised -- either here or at my blog. And that's clear enough to anybody who is reasonably objective about the issues. I would frankly be a fool for allowing bogus arguments, from this point, to consume any more of my time. There comes a point when you need to move on with other things that are more important.

Again, the truth is available, for those who are capable of hearing it. Those who are incapable will continue to promote the things they prefer to believe. In the end, those fantasies will go nowhere; and history will remember that the analysis I've done is correct.

I do wish you well.; June 5, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Teo Bear,

Following what you said, if there is no alternative then we could rely upon the English common law. But we had both the law of nations and Congressional Acts (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) which abrogated that English common law. From the law of nations and these Congressional acts, we know that the Founders and Framers defined a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in the country to citizen parents.; June 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Mario,

There is a rumor that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has accepted your amicus brief in Tisdale v. Obama and at the same time affirmed the lower courts ruling.

Have you heard anything?; June 5, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: [I'll gladly cease being a string of characters if I can figure out how to make a name come up instead. This place requires a choice of log-in; and since mine is an AOL email, I picked the AIM option. Why the system converts my AOL name into a string of characters I don't know.]

TeoBear said:

What OpenId Obot fails to understand is Justice Matthews was not referring to the definitions of every word used in the Constitution, but how the framers prepared (i.e. provided for, provisioned ) the law of the land to be read, What Justice Matthews is examining is in fact the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

Justice Gray in WKA was undertaking to analyze the meaning of a specific Constitutional phrase -- "natural born citizen." He wasn't talking about the Supremacy Clause at all! Your response drifts so far from Justice Gray's analysis it defies response.

Justice Gray indicates the meaning of the Constitutional language is to be understood in light of English common law. (Yes, he says exactly that.) He then proceeds to analyze the meaning of "natural born citizen" in light of the directly corresponding phrase "natural born subject" in the English common law.

Very simple.

And that's all true, notwithstanding your tortuous reply that first wanders off into other things Justice Matthews said that Justice Gray didn't quote, and then further off into some other case by Justice Bradley.

But it's clear the need to distract away from the WKA opinion is pressing.; June 5, 2012 at 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr Apuzzo,

From the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decsion affirming the lower court ruling,

"We grant the motion to file an amicus curiae brief and file it out of time. We deny all other pending motions filed by Tisdale. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process."

Oral arguments would not aid the "decisional process."

Is this another hit for the two citizen parent theory?; June 5, 2012 at 6:14 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

John Woodman,

You have some nerve trying to bring a dead body back to life.

Here is what Tucker said:

“3. Civil rights, taken in a strict and confined sense, as contradistinguished from natural and social rights, are such as appertain to a man as a citizen or subject, of this, or that, particular state or country; in his private and individual capacity as a free agent, and member of the body politic or state, in respect to the state or body politic; and contradistinguished from such as might be due to him as a magistrate, legislator, judge, or other public agent, character, or functionary. The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights.
These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.

***

Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.”

(1) You comment: “Did you happen to notice who St. George Tucker didn't mention in that comment? He made no mention at all of children born on US soil of non-citizen parents. So he doesn't tell us how he thinks those persons gain their civil rights.

My response:

But clearly “children born on US soil of non-citizen parents” are not part of “all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens." Hence, “children born on US soil of non-citizen parents” could not inherit the “civil right” to be elected President because if they became “citizens” at all, they were naturalized “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.” Being naturalized “citizens,” they acquired their “civil rights.” Being naturalized “citizens” and thereby having acquired their “civil rights” and not inheriting them, Tucker explained that they were forever barred from being President.

(2) You comment: “Nor does he tell us that civil rights have to be "inherited" in order for a person to be eligible to be President.”

My response: Tucker spoke only of inheriting “civil rights” or acquiring “civil rights.” He did not give any other means by which a person obtained such rights. He said that the naturalized “citizens” acquired their “civil rights” and were forever barred from being elected president. It follows a fortiori that in order to be eligible to be elected president, one could not have acquired his “civil rights,” which is what a naturalized “citizen” did, but rather had to have inherited his “civil rights” which is what a child born to “citizen” parents did. Also, clearly to be President one has to be elected. So being President fell within the “civil rights” of which Tucker spoke. We are also assured that he was also referring to the office of President because he mentions the “executive” when he spoke about “political rights” and even said that it is presumed that “[p]ersons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2. This is an important point made by Tucker because is shows that only those born before the adoption of the Constitution who were naturalized “citizens” were eligible to be elected President. For those born after the adoption of the Constitution, they had to be “natural born Citizens,” i.e., born to “citizen” parents.

Continued . . .; June 5, 2012 at 6:26 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Tucker said that only “citizens” possessed “civil rights.” He added that the right to be elected to office was one of the most valuable of these “civil rights.” He added that naturalized “citizens” were forever barred from elected President. He said that naturalized “citizen” acquired their “civil rights.” He said that children born to “citizen” parents inherited their “civil rights.” Therefore, only those who inherited their “civil rights” could possess the “civil right” to be elected President. And only those who were born to “citizen parents” could inherit the “civil right” to be elected President. Hence, a “natural born Citizen,” being eligible to be elected President, was a child who was born to “citizen parents.” This is exactly what the First Congress told us in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

(3) You comment: “When he states that children of citizens "inherit" civil rights, that obviously has reference to children who may be born of American parents either in the United States or overseas -- just as was also the case in English law.”

My response: It is not clear what your point is. You may be saying that Tucker did not require birth in the United States to be a “natural born Citizen” and you attempt to make some point about that. First, you fail to realize that your point contradicts your first point when you say that he did not explicitly exclude “children born on US soil of non-citizen parents.” You are right that he did not say that birth in the United States was necessary to possess the “civil right” to be elected president and that is because for Tucker as was for Jefferson, children followed the condition of their parents “wheresoever” (Jefferson) born. Second, what you also fail to understand is that the fact that Tucker did not exclude from being a “natural born Citizen” someone born out of the United States to “citizen” parents does not mean that he included children born in the United States to alien parents. Your reasoning is fallacious.

Per Tucker, even if place of birth did not disqualify Obama, he is disqualified because he was not born to “citizen” parents.” It is clear as a sunny day that Obama does not meet St. George Tucker’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Obama, not being born to “citizen” parents, did not inherit any right to be elected President. At most, he could have acquired his civil rights. But having acquired those rights, per Tucker, he is a naturalized citizen and not a “natural born Citizen.” Therefore Obama is not eligible to be President.

(4) You comment: “And in fact, anyone who wants to know what St. George Tucker actually had to say on the matter should read and understand the full article. I won't attempt to condense the entire thing into a comment here.”

My response: I read your article. It is your effort to overcome my Tucker arguments made in my briefs to the court in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Jersey. The article does not address my arguments. Also, as is typical of your arguments, you try to avoid what Tucker clearly says by telling us what Tucker did NOT say. You have provided that same fallacious reasoning in your effort to attack the Minor decision, telling us what the Court did NOT say. You efforts are logical failures.; June 5, 2012 at 6:27 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman,

You said:

"When someone notes, however, that 2+3=5 (true statement), he states that they are claiming that 2+2=5 (false statement)."

So you want to use different numbers. Not a problem. The problem with your arguments is that YOU arrive at 2+3=5 by you saying that when the Court said 2+2=4, they did NOT mention anything about 2+3=5. Did it ever occur to you that the Court was not interest in 2+3=5 and only in 2+2=4?; June 5, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Unknown said...: Some time ago someone discovered Chester Arthur's father's naturalization papers--which indicated that he was naturalized after his son's birth. I do not know where these were found.
It has occurred to me that early naturalization documents could serve as an indirect proof of what the nation believed in the early decades. Births in the USA indicated in these documents would show alien parentage. And not citizenship by birth. Woodman's theory would maintain that no one ever born in the USA needed to be naturalized.
I can't recall with any exactitude but I believe there was some concern about Arthur's eligibility. And I am sure he did not announce his father's naturalization as occurring after his birth. In fact I believe he misled by maintaining it was prior to his birth. Now why would he do that if it did not matter? Where would he have gotten any idea about that being a problem? Has Woodman chewed away on this?
There must be a plethora of such documents somewhere. Wouldn't some archive hold them? State or national? I think it would be worth while to have a look at some of the very early ones--before the Civil War.; June 5, 2012 at 8:27 PM
John Woodman said...: Look, I've already addressed virtually every point you've made, in the article. People can read it for themselves.

Hence, “children born on US soil of non-citizen parents” could not inherit the “civil right” to be elected President because if they became “citizens” at all, they were naturalized “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.”

Pure fallacy, as shown by the fact that St. George Tucker commented 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 simply and clearly noting that ALL of the important citizenship laws of both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States were "accordant," or IN AGREEMENT.

For any who might still, against all reason and evidence, doubt: There's further evidence today in the summary 1-page rejection by the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals of ALL of Mr. Apuzzo's arguments (presented in Amicus Brief) in the appeal of Tisdale v Obama.

The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court rejected Mario's arguments "for the reasons stated by the district court."

Among those reasons: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."

For those who want to know WHY it is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens, I've written the equivalent of an entire book on that topic, again, at my <a href="http://www.obamabirthbook.com>blog</a>.

I'll give you the last word.; June 5, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Unknown said...: 7From Leo Donofrio,Esq.:
"Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.

Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.

That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.

Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility."
The above is for those who may have missed this or forgotten the details as I had. It adds weight to what Apuzzo has stated. And detracts from Woodman's theories.; June 5, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Carlyle said...: John Woodman said...

@Carlyle: You ought to read and understand every single word of the 20 articles I've written over the past couple of months on the meaning of "natural born citizen." When you do, you will find yourself happily supporting Marco Rubio.

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

I have read what you have posted here. If your other 20 articles are of this ilk, I am not impressed and will not waste my time.

You seem to also fail to grasp that NBC being restrictive - very restrictive - is an extremely good thing. If I could figure out a way to tighten it, I would do that also.

I don't want some anti-American liar/cheat, foreign agent, or anchor baby being president. (oops - too late!)

Your definition opens up the door to all kinds of absurd possibilities.

Sure, good candidates like Marco Rubio are then 'collateral damage'. But even as much as I like him, that is a price I am very willing to pay.

I tend to be a libertarian, but some laws are good!; June 5, 2012 at 9:33 PM
Robert said...: Reality Check, John Woodman, et al:

If the classifications of "subjects" includes

subject,
native subject,
naturalized subject, and
natural born subject,
and any other "subjects"

and if, as you claim, subject = citizen,

then will all classifications of "subjects" be eligible to become, or even vote for, the next King of England?

Or does "=" not always equal "="?; June 6, 2012 at 12:02 AM
MichaelN said...: MichaelN said .....
"If the Framers wanted to say "native born Citizen" or "born Citizen", then why didn't they simply say so?"

John Woodman said...
"Because "natural born citizen" was perfectly clear to everybody of their generation, and especially so to lawyers, all of whom were trained in the English common law. Blackstone was the foundational text, for example, at our nation's first law school under both George Wythe and St. George Tucker. And for many American lawyers, Blackstone was the ONLY legal training they received."

Response:

John you are exaggerating again.

It was NOT "clear to everybody of their generation" at all, it was merely the legal minds that were interested and involved.

The Framers' unique "term of art" i.e. "natural born Citizen" had no precedent in English common law, it was unique to the US republic situation.

"Subject" and "citizen" were not analogous, as I have shown you.

The natural born subject of England was descriptive of a member of civil society, who had rights of inheritance and other civil privileges, it was not an eligibility criteria, where security of the nation was an issue.

I have also shown you that the word "natural" was inclined to mean by natural descent, both in English common law AND to the Framers, where the English common law held that natural descent from a "subject" was paramount and native-birth did not carry any weight to make a " natural born subject", as the court held in Calvin's case that a native-born child cannot be a subject unless born "under the ligeance of a subject".

So if you insist that "subject" and "citizen" were analogous, then for a native-born child in the US to be a "natural born citizen", the child would have to be born under the ligeance of a citizen, i.e. the alien parents would have to get themselves naturalized first.

It is without any doubt that the Framers were extremely conversant with Calvin's case and were fully aware of this English common law holding, which held natural descent as the paramount determining factor in the making of a 'natural born subject'.

This was reflected by the US Congress and Senate in the first naturalization act of 1790, where a child born non-native to US citizen parents was considered as a "natural born citizen".; June 6, 2012 at 2:47 AM
Andy said...: @Puzo1

Puzo1 said:
"So you want to use different numbers. Not a problem. The problem with your arguments is that YOU arrive at 2+3=5 by you saying that when the Court said 2+2=4, they did NOT mention anything about 2+3=5. Did it ever occur to you that the Court was not interest in 2+3=5 and only in 2+2=4?"

And you seem to think that since the court agreed that 2+2=4, that they were telling us that 1+1+2 couldn't equal four. Or that 3+1 couldn't equal 4.

Your problem is the court was working with the first half of the equation, not the last half. Just like natural born citizenship, there are multiple ways to come to 4.; June 6, 2012 at 6:46 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The Use and Abuse of Article II, Fourteenth Amendment, Minor and Wong Kim Ark

What lies regarding what Article II requires, the Fourteenth Amendment says, what Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) held and what Minor did not answer, and what United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) held.

(1) Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President. . . ” Nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause by showing he or she is a “Citizen of the United States, for he or she including Obama was not a “Citizen of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted. So, under the eligibility clause, one has to prove that he or she is a “natural born Citizen,” not just a “Citizen of the United States.”

(2) The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868. It reads in pertinent part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The text of the Fourteenth Amendment shows that it defines a "citizen of the United States," and not an Article II "natural born Citizen." From a simple reading of this text we can also see that a “citizen of the United States” cannot possible be the same as a “natural born Citizen,” for the text says that a naturalized citizen is also a “citizen of the United States.” A naturalized “citizen” is not and cannot be a “citizen of the United States” and also be a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, with the amendment not defining a "natural born Citizen," we need to determine how the Founders and Framers defined an Article II "natural born Citizen." Our search for that meaning has to be based on historical sources and case precedent.

(3) Minor confirmed the answer to the question of what is a "natural-born citizen." Saying that the Constitution, which included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a “natural-born citizen” and that its definition could be found in the “common law,” it said like Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758),The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) and Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856) (J. Daniels concurring), among other sources, that an Article II "natural-born citizen" is a child born in a country to parents who are “citizens” of that country. It can be readily seen that in Minor’s formulation of a “natural-born citizen,” at a minimum the parents are “citizens” and the children are “natural-born citizens.” A fortiori the terms “citizen” (without the qualifier “natural-born”) and “natural-born citizen” (with the qualifier “natural-born”) do not mean the same.

Minor left open the question of whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents is a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The open question was not whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is an Article II "natural-born citizen." Given that Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen,” the Court had no need to answer the question.

(4) Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a "citizen of the United States" by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not hold that Wong was an Article II "natural born Citizen." It made absolutely no reference to a "natural born Citizen" in either its question presented or its holding. Wong did, however, confirm Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

All this shows that the definition of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed since the Founding. It is a child born in the United States to "citizen" parents. A "citizen of the United States" is every other "citizen" who is not a "natural born Citizen."; June 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM
js said...: Read the book "Arguing with Idiots".

It doesnt pay. The libtard supporters of socialism will keep you repeating yourself until the sky falls Mario. Once you have answered the same issue, just one time...its enough. If the Idiots cant come up with a real rebuttal, just refer then to "the above answer". Thats enough for the rest of the world to understand.; June 6, 2012 at 9:25 AM
ksdb said...: It's important to emphasize that Wong Kim Ark affirmed the Minor definition of NBC in THREE different ways. It noted that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. It said the Minor court unanimously excluded the children born in the country of citizen parents from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. It gave the holding in Minor as being dependent on Minor having citizen parents:

"Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ..."

Why mention that Virginia Minor was born of citizen parents if not to affirm the exclusive definition of NBC?? From this point forward in Wong Kim Ark, the court never uses the NBC term again. The dicta continues for 25 pages and uses a completely different term for identifying birth citizenship through the 14th amendment: "citizenship by birth." There's a reason the court did NOT call it natural-born citizenship.

And Wong Kim Ark specifically cites a case that says children born of aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction UNLESS the parents are domiciled in the U.S. This excludes Obama from not only being an NBC, but it excludes him from being a 14th amendment citizen as well:

"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 same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens."; June 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman,

With all due respect to these court, like the Appellate Division in New Jersey, the Fourth Circuit in Tisdale surely did not demonstrate how it arrived at its decision that as you say I am mistaken on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” I ask you, Mr. Woodman, without such demonstrations, how can we reasonably conclude that I am mistaken? Again, I have commented before that our grade school teachers taught us that it is not just the answer that counts, but just as important how we get to the anwer.

So in default in the 4th Circuit demonstrating that I am wrong, maybe you can do it for us here.; June 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: ksdb,

That case that called for “domiciled” parents or no “jurisdiction” is the New Jersey Supreme Court case of Benny v. O'Brien, 58 N.J. Law, 29 Vroom 36, 39, 40 (1895), which I have discussed in previous comments in this thread. Wong Kim Ark did cite the Benny decision.

What is important about the Benny decision is also that it first admits that children born in the United States to alien parents were born “subject to a foreign power” but then is willing to excuse them and make them “citizens of the United States” (it did not say “natural born Citizens”) if they should be born to “domiciled” alien parents. Not that the concept of “domiciled” parents, rather than “citizen” parents, no where exists in any act of Congress defining who a “citizen of the United States” is. Nor has the U.S. Supreme Court ever defined a “natural born Citizen” as depending upon “domiciled” parents rather than “citizen” parents.; June 6, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman,

You continue to misrepresent St. George Tucker’s position on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” You continue to say that in Footnote 10, Tucker indicated that the law of Virginia and the United States was in agreement (“accordant”) with the English common law. Your interpretation of that footnote fails for more than one reason. First, Tucker told us that naturalized children “acquired” their “civil rights” and that such children were forever barred from having any right to be elected President. He said that the children born to “citizen” parents “inherited” their “civil rights” which included the “civil right” to be elected President. This clearly shows that only the children born to “citizen” parents could be “natural born Citizens,” who were the “citizens” who under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 are the only “citizens” who are eligible to be elected President. The English common law did not require “citizen” parents for a child born in the King’s dominions to be declared a “natural born subject.” Clearly, Tucker did not agree with the English common law when he required “citizen” parents for a child to be born a “natural born Citizen.” Second, the laws of Virginia (as applied first to “infants” and later to “children”) and the early naturalization acts (as applied to “children”) were jus sanguinis based, not jus soli based. Third, “accordant” in Footnote 10 means that the early naturalization acts of Congress were in agreement with the citizenship laws of Virginia which is what I have always argued, not that those laws were in agreement with the English common law which I just showed in First that Tucker said no such thing.; June 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 1b81e294-af09-11e1-ac8b-000bcdcb8a73

I disagree with you analysis of Wong Kim Ark.

Wong only needed to be a “citizen of the United States” to avoid deportation. He did not need to be a “natural born Citizen.”

There was no mention in either the question presented or holding of the Court that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.”

With Wong only having to be a “citizen of the United States” and not having “citizen” parents, Justice Gray did not construe the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II to determine whether Wong was a “citizen.” This was a different approach from Minor which did in fact construe the “natural born citizen” clause to determine that Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” Rather, he construed the “citizen of the United States” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which was the only means by which he could find that Wong was a “citizen.” Justice Gray never analyzed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” “in light of the corresponding phrase ‘natural born subject’ in English common law.” Rather, he resorted to the English common law only to show that under that law, “citizen” parents were not necessary to make one a “natural born subject.” Hence, he used that law to justify his decision to declare that Wong, being born in the United States to “domiciled” alien parents, which the Court found made him born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, was a “citizen of the United States” “by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Hence, your response not only does not at all address by also mischaracterizes what Wong Kim Ark actually held.; June 6, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Carlyle said...: Somehow in all the detail, a key consideration remains unsaid. So I am going to say it:

The Obama is EXACTLY the kind of person you want disqualified. If it is determined that the current wording does not exclude people like him, then it needs to be tightened.

The Obama is a perfect example of someone who has enough charisma to appeal to a lot of people (just like Hitler!) and with sufficient 'political clout' (read: corruption, threats, bribes, election fraud, etc.) that he can subvert a good democratic system and become president. Also of note is that the MSM paves the way for him.

Yet the anti-Americanism he continually displays is exactly what we do not want and do not need.

So instead of some of you whining that we need a liberal interpretation of the NBC requirement - otherwise we would exclude good candidates like The Obama - you need to think the other way around.

I don't think we can get rid of The Obama using this logic in the next few months. But assuming he loses the upcoming election - we sure as hell want to protect from that nightmare ever happening again.; June 6, 2012 at 2:19 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

I would think that you may very well be beating the proverbial "dead horse" as you try to elucidate some of the applicabe points of ancient Roman law to the various OOPS Troops (Obama Onager Posse Slugs) since they seem unable or perhaps unwilling even to grasp laws several hundred years more current but based upon similar principles.

These persons (aka obots such as "Woodman", "Check", "Kevin Davidson" and others) might instead more nearly understand the famous old Roman acronym "QQQQ" and some of them might be able to read (but not apply) what a famous Senator said that is surely applicable to the eligibility issue:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the carrier of the plague. You have unbarred the gates of Rome to him."

The Senator was, of course, Cicero about 70 years before the birth of Christ (ca 42 BC) but the words clearly have present day applicability as has een pointed out in detail by eminent commentators such as Millard F. Caldwell a Florida Supreme Court Justice in a speech in 1965 entitled "Cicero's Prognosis".

Look it and study it, obots, so you can see the part you play in the decay of present day America. Here's the link:

http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/cicero.htm; June 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Joe said...: Mario,
I have to say that I do not enjoy the posts on this blog by the obots. I have no desire to read their posts as they are usually full of it. But I can appreciate your desire to set the record straight.

Getting back to the case. Is the next step the NJ Supreme Ct and then the US Supreme CT ??

I hope you are receiving my monthly contributions for the case.; June 6, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

In the case of Taitz v. the Mississippi Democratic Party, the defnese has submitted a verification from Hawaii that says the information contained in the Whitehouse.gov pdf matches the information on the original BC on file at the DOH.

How does this impact your case, if at all?

Could you as an attorney in a legal proceding have obtained such a verification?

Here is what the MDP received from Hawaii and was submitted to the court:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss; June 6, 2012 at 5:33 PM
jayjay said...: Carlyle:

I believe our current laws do, indeed, allow removal of the person who has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

If you read Amendment XX which says in part:

"If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

Despite the BS claims of the OOPS Troops, Obama as President elect has never qualified since he has never shown conclusive evidence of meeting the Constitutional mandate for the office. In fact, such a lack of qualifying would invalidate the entire 2008 election for the two offices as it was clearly known by many in both political parties (and in all three branches of our government) at the time that the Presidential candidate of at least one party was not eligible. The two offices are no longer independent in voting as they were at one time but are voted for as a unit so that if one candidate office has been corrupted, both are.

And certainly this would not mean that Biden would be acting President but that the issue might be resolved by Congress under the Constitution (but perhaps with the guidance of the Supreme Court).

Obviously with Obama never having qualified he is not legally the President and cannot therefore be impeached ... but he can be removed under the XX Amendment and should be so that he may answer in a court of law for his crimes.

Of course, there's always the remedys that were popdular long ago - "riding them out of town on a rail" or, perhaps, "tar and feathering". I'd find the court of law more satisfying and more correct according to our laws however.; June 6, 2012 at 6:04 PM
jayjay said...: 4zoltan:

You poor benighted heathen; you've now declared yourself to be part of the OOPS Troops (see earlier posts) as what you are really doing is proclaiming (via the MS Democrat Party and the MS court involved) that the HI DOH supercedes the US Constitution and any pronouncements the DOH make is of legallt valid re proving Obama to be a Constitutional "natural born Citizen". It's not even certain they can declare him to be a legal "nbC" of HI - but let's say that they can. That makes him what amounts to a HI nbC but that has no merit for Presidental eligibility under the US Constitution. There's no valid proof at this point that he's even an American ... that's why a valid BC is needed - and will eventually be obtained.

One would think you'd be a bright enough bulb to have realized but obvoiously you'd rather join with the OOPS Troops doing what amounts to passing gas in church with such hot air and verbal flatulence.

You OOPS Troops seriously need to read about what "just" happened to Rome as outlined by a FL Supreme Court Justice not long ago. Read the link above to "Cicers's Prognosis" and ponder upon the damage you are doing or contributon to our country (which is, after all, presumably also your own ... or is it???; June 6, 2012 at 6:27 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

That verification, as probative evidence, is not worth the paper it's printed on.

1. It is not signed by Mr. Onaka. Rather, it looks like someone used his stamp or signed his name and initialled "gk."

2. It does not contain the official raised seal of the State of Hawaii.

3. It does not contain Obama's date of birth which is unbelievable given that it is supposed to verify a birth certificate.

4. It does not prove the authenticity of the alleged birth certificate on file.

5. It does not say that the birth certificate that Hawaii has on file is the same in every particular as the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that SOS Ken Bennett attached with his request.

6. It uses the word "matches" which is subjective in nature.

7. It does not explain all the other names that "Barack Obama" has used such as "Barry Soetoro" and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah."

If we want to work toward putting an end to the place of birth issue, let's see the original microfim which contains the original birth certificate, along with medical records pre-natal, natal, and post-natal, for both Stanley Ann Dunham and "Barack Obama," instead of such self-serving papers.

If Obama wants to rely on such flimsy evidence rather than on his certified true copy of his birth certificate, then the plaintiff should be allowed to subpoena Dr. Onaka and who ever siged his name to the document to establish the authenticity of the document and the information that it contains. In that process, the subpoena should command both of them to bring to court the documents upon which they relied in preparing the verification.

Finally, do not forget that a person has to show both birth in the United States and birth to U.S. "citizen" parents to be constitutionally declared a "natural born Citizen."; June 6, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

I believe you are talking about the verification to SoS Bennett. There is a new verification that has been introduced into the Mississippi court.

It verifies that the information contained on the whitehouse.gov pdf is the same as what is on the original BC in the DOH vault. Forget the layers and smiley face stuff - the baby's name, DOB, hospital, doctor, mother, father are the same as what is on the DOH original BC.

And it is initialed by Dr. Onaka and has a raised seal. He also include a copy of the whitehouse BC.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss; June 6, 2012 at 7:10 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I found this interesting piece of information. In looking through the laws of Virginia in this text, The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia, Vol. I (1819) http://books.google.com/books?id=JxdEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=7+Cong.+c.+28,&source=bl&ots=iJgVjlblLv&sig=N-IiIovkK6IcCbxp3T0g8ttUnlM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bObPT4r-A4Xk0QGd1ZHoDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=7%20Cong.%20c.%2028%2C&f=false . I looked at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which appears on page 22. It sets out the constitutional provision. Then in the left margin the editors provide a summary for the reader’s convenience. This is what is said concerning the requirements to be President: “The president to be natural born, a citizen in 1788, age 35; and 14 years a resident of the United States.” What is interesting in how the author provided the two citizenship standard, “natural born” and “citizen.” This use of terms shows that there was a pronounced difference between a “natural born Citizen” (in the text called “natural born”) and a “Citizen of the United States” (in the text called “citizen”). So being a “citizen” (“Citizen of the United States”) was not enough to be President, for one had to be “natural born” (“natural born Citizen”) if born after the adoption of the Constituion in 1788.

This information further supports my position that, with the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark defining who is a “citizen” (“citizen of the United States”), they are not and cannot be the basis for defining a “natural born” (“natural born Citizen”). Again, both the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark speak of persons being “citizens of the United States,” not “natural born Citizens.” These would be the Virginia’s code’s “citizens,” not its “natural born.”; June 6, 2012 at 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

It actually says "natural born, or a citizen in 1788...". I believe that is a reference to the grandfather clause.; June 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM
GreatGrey said...: @puzo1

You obviously didn't look at the file 4zoltan linked to. Because if you can't see that seal on the Verification the NJ DMV needs to be notified and your license revoked.; June 6, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Dingue Monde said...: Re Puzo_1's June 6, 2012 6:58 PM Post: I think you have the wrong document. You seem to be describing the Ken Bennett form.

1. The "new" Verification IS signed and initialed by DR Onaka. It does not have "gk" initials.

2. The "new" Verification DOES have the official raised seal of the State of Hawaii.

3. The "new" Verification refers specifically to the LFBC posted on whitehouse.gov and verifies that the (all) information in the LFBC is same as information in original.

5. The "new" Verification - DOES say that the one on file is the same in every particular (fact) as the one posted at whitehouse.gov - by verifying, without limitation, that the whitehouse.gov LFBC info is same as on original.

6. Re: "It uses the word "matches" which is subjective in nature." According to what dictionary?; June 6, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Dingue Monde said...: Puzo 1: "Finally, do not forget that a person has to show both birth in the United States and birth to U.S. "citizen" parents to be constitutionally declared a "natural born Citizen."

The "new" Verification conclusively proves that Obama was not born to two US citizen parents.; June 6, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Kevin Davidson said...: Apparently in reply to 4zoltan, you confused the Mississippi verification and the Arizona verification. Your 7 objections are largely inapplicable to the verification in Mississippi.

Rather than attempting to deny the document, you might actually address what it means.; June 6, 2012 at 11:07 PM
GreatGrey said...: Seriously, if you can't see the raised seal you're in total denial.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss; June 6, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

I see that Dr. Onaka was very accommodating of Mr. Obama when it pertains to coming to his aid.

Dr. Onaka received a letter dated May 26, 2012 from the attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Party. Dr. Onaka provided his verification which is dated May 31, 2012. That is a mere five days between dates of the two documents, not counting days for mailing.

Dr. Onaka also provided his verification when the attorneys did not establish a statutory right to receive it. Neither the alleged original birth certificate nor the alleged birth certificate that was published on the White House server nor its copy (the three documents which Dr. Onaka compares) was acquired by the attorneys or anyone during the course of litigation or for the purpose of legal proceedings. See Hawaii Revised Statutes Sec. 338-18(g)(4). We saw how demanding Dr. Onaka was with Arizona SOS Bennett, making him wait for months for his information, but here he rolls over dead in a few days and without any legal obligation to do so.

The verification is also suspect given that Dr. Onaka, heading a State Health Department which has been accused of aiding and abetting in the fraud, has himself a personal stake in the matter.

What the attorneys and Dr. Onaka have done is an end run around having to present to the court the “real deal” (Donald Trump) birth certificate under the guise of presenting a Verification of Birth.

In support of her allegation of fraud upon the court, Ms. Taitz should be able to subpoena Dr. Onaka to court and direct that he bring to court the documents upon which he relied to produce his verification, i.e., all the original vital records which include the alleged original birth certificate. She should also subpoena to court the microfilm of the alleged birth certificate and any available pre-natal, natal, and post-natal medical records for Barack Obama and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Should Dr. Onaka refuse to honor the subpoena, then Ms. Taitz should move to strike the Verification from the record.; June 6, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

Yes, you are right, I left out the "or" which I failed to note given that it is is printed next to the main text. But the "or" does not change my argument. Actually, it supports exactly what I said, i.e., that the President must be either "natural born" OR "a citizen in 1788." This whole structure does relate to the grandfather clause in that it tells us that a "citizen" ("Citizen of the United States") in 1788 could be president, but for those born after 1788 one had to be a "natural born" ("natural born Citizen"). Again, as I have always maintained, these two types of “citizens” are distinct in their meaning and nature. They should not be conflated and confounded and mistaken for each other. What this means is that the “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark should not be conflated and confounded with an Article II “natural born Citizen.”; June 6, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: CORRECTED COMMENT

I found this interesting piece of information. In looking through the laws of Virginia in this text, The Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia, Vol. I (1819) http://books.google.com/books?id=JxdEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=7+Cong.+c.+28,&source=bl&ots=iJgVjlblLv&sig=N-IiIovkK6IcCbxp3T0g8ttUnlM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bObPT4r-A4Xk0QGd1ZHoDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=7%20Cong.%20c.%2028%2C&f=false . I looked at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which appears on page 22. It sets out the constitutional provision. Then in the left margin the editors provide a summary for the reader’s convenience. This is what is said concerning the requirements to be President: “The president to be natural born, or a citizen in 1788, age 35; and 14 years a resident of the United States.” What is interesting in how the author provided the two citizenship standard, “natural born” and “citizen.” This use of terms shows that there was a pronounced difference between a “natural born Citizen” (in the text called “natural born”) and a “Citizen of the United States” (in the text called “citizen”). So being a “citizen” (“Citizen of the United States”) was not enough to be President, for one had to be “natural born” (“natural born Citizen”) if born after the adoption of the Constituion in 1788.

This information further supports my postion that, with the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark defining who is a “citizen” (“citizen of the United States”), they are not and cannot be the basis for defining a “natural born” (“natural born Citizen”). Again, both the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark speak of persons being “citizens of the United States,” not “natural born Citizens.” These would be the Virginia’s code’s “citizens,” not its “natural born.”; June 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

"it tells us that a "citizen" ("Citizen of the United States") in 1788 could be president, but for those born after 1788 one had to be a "natural born" ("natural born Citizen")."

So James McClure's father who naturalized in 1785 or 1786, could have been elected President provided he met age and residence requirements. And under English law, he was still considered a British subject. Interesting.; June 7, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: GreatGuy,

With a name like that I would have expected something more intelligent from you.; June 7, 2012 at 12:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr Apuzzo,

"Neither the alleged original birth certificate nor the alleged birth certificate that was published on the White House server nor its copy (the three documents which Dr. Onaka compares) was acquired by the attorneys or anyone during the course of litigation or for the purpose of legal proceedings"

I believe that Dr. Taitz included a copy of the LFBC in her orignial pleadings while claiming that it was a forgery. The copy was illegible and the defense submitted a clean copy for the court. Dr. Taitz then filed a motion seeking sanctions on the defense for committing a fraud upon the court. The verification is in their reponse to the sanction motion.

"The verification is also suspect given that Dr. Onaka, heading a State Health Department which has been accused of aiding and abetting in the fraud, has himself a personal stake in the matter."

Is that rally fair. When he didn't inital the Bennett verification, people said he was distancing himself for deniablity sake. Now he initals it and he has a personal stake.

Heads I win, tails you lose.; June 7, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

John Woodman,

St. George Tucker states:

“Civil rights, taken in a strict and confined sense, as contradistinguished from natural and social rights, are such as appertain to a man as a citizen or subject, of this, or that, particular state or country; in his private and individual capacity as a free agent, and member of the body politic or state, in respect to the state or body politic; and contradistinguished from such as might be due to him as a magistrate, legislator, judge, or other public agent, character, or functionary. The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights.

These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.”

In discussing the early naturalization acts (L. U. S. 1 Cong. 2 Sess. c. 3; L. U. S. 3 Cong. c. 85; L. U.S. 5 Cong. c. 71; L. U. S. 7 Cong. c. 28), Tucker said:

“Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.”

You have been unable to explain what Tucker meant when he wrote: “These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.”

He states that “civil rights,” which included the right to be elected to public office (which included the office of President), are “inherited” by a child who is born to “citizen” parents. If any child was not born to “citizen” parents, at most he could “acquire” his/her rights which made the child a naturalized “citizen.” Hence, how can a child who was not born to “citizen” parents possess the right to be elected President if such child, being naturalized, was forever barred from being president? Such child could not. Rather, such child could “acquire” the “civil rights” through naturalization. But since that child was considered as having naturalized, such child was forever barred from being President. It only follows then that any child who is not born to “citizen” parents, being at most a naturalized “citizen” could not be a “natural born Citizen,” who alone had the “civil right” to be elected President.

So how a “citizen” obtained his/her “civil rights,” which included the right to be elected President, demonstrated if that “citizen” was either a “natural born citizen” or a naturalized “citizen.” If that “citizen” was born to “citizen” parents, he/she “inherited” his/her “civil rights” which showed that that “citizen” was a “natural born citizen.” But if that “citizen” was not born to “citizen” parents, then that “citizen” “acquired” his/her “civil rights” which showed that that “citizen” was a naturalized “citizen.” The inescapable conclusion is that only a child born to “citizen” parents, not being a naturalized “citizen,” could be a “natural born citizen.”

Continued . . .; June 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM
GreatGrey said...: @puzo1

You just proved my point about not being able to read/see very well.; June 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Note that James McClure was born in the United States in April 21, 1785 (after the Revolution) to a British father who naturalized almost one year after his son’s birth when his son was dwelling in the United States. The James Madison Administration found that James McClure was a naturalized “Citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802 (discussed by Tucker). Tucker said that anyone who may be naturalized under any of these naturalization acts is forever barred from being eligible to be elected President. This means that both James McClure and Barack Obama are at best naturalized “Citizens of the United States (the Fourteenth Amendment which would pertain to Obama if he was born in the United States, did not amend the “natural born Citizen” clause or convert a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth into a “natural born Citizen”) and not eligible to be elected President.

You have not been able to refute any of this in your articles. Do you want to try again?; June 7, 2012 at 12:32 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: GreatGuy,

What would this blog be without you?; June 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM
GreatGrey said...: putzo1 wrote:

"
What would this blog be without you?"

I dunno, what would it be like if you stopped creating straw man arguments and finally faced the truth?

You blew off the latest verification without even knowing it existed, even came up with 7 easily debunked objections.

What would this blog be if it was run by someone with some cognitive skills is the question you should be asking.; June 7, 2012 at 1:01 AM
MichaelN said...: 4zoltan said...

"Mr. Apuzzo, (said)
"it tells us that a "citizen" ("Citizen of the United States") in 1788 could be president, but for those born after 1788 one had to be a "natural born" ("natural born Citizen")."

"So James McClure's father who naturalized in 1785 or 1786, could have been elected President provided he met age and residence requirements. And under English law, he was still considered a British subject. Interesting."

George Washington, the first POTUS, was also naturalized around the same time. And under English law, he was still considered a British subject. Interesting.

I suppose the new citizens of the new republic had to be careful who they voted for.

Quote:
"There was no popular vote in the election of 1789. Instead, the electoral college chose from a group of candidates. Each college member cast two votes with the candidate receiving the most votes becoming president and the runner-up becoming vice-president. George Washington was elected unanimously receiving all sixty-nine electoral votes. John Adams came in second and became the first Vice-President."

Btw, what "common law" was it that the SCOTUS in the Minor court referring to that gave weight to the courts recognition of doubts as to whether native-birth in the US, alone was sufficient to ven make a citizen?

It couldn't have been the English common law, because according to the Obots, native-birth was all that was needed.

You still haven't responded to this question.

Interesting.; June 7, 2012 at 1:33 AM
bdwilcox said...: If anyone wants to understand the word games Onaka is playing with these bogus "verifications", read this.

The one glaring thing that Onaka still refuses to do is verify that the long form birth certificate posted on the White House website matches the one in their records. Onaka twice refused to do this with Bennett and then Tepper gave him the out because he knows as well as Onaka that the LFBC on the White House website is a forgery.

Tellingly, Onaka will also not verify the information on the White House LFBC, only verify that it matches the info in their records. The reason he can't verify the information is that he is legally barred from verifying the information on a birth certificate that is legally non-probative, most likely due to being late and/or amended (HRS 338-17 & HRS 338-14.3(b)).

A late and/or amended birth certificate is not only legally non-probative, but will have stamps on it saying such and will have references to supporting documents on its bottom. What better reason than this to modify the image of the document before posting it on your website as "proof" of your eligibility.

At this point, Onaka and Tepper are mincing their words to keep from going down with the ship when that ship inevitably sinks. It's only a matter of time. And they know it.; June 7, 2012 at 1:50 AM
TQA said...: @Puzo1:
"The verification is also suspect given that Dr. Onaka, heading a State Health Department which has been accused of aiding and abetting in the fraud, has himself a personal stake in the matter. "

Incorrect on multiple counts.

First, Dr. Onaka does not head the Hawai'i Department of Health. Dr. Fuddy heads the Hawai'i Department of Health. Dr. Onaka is the State Registrar, and reports to the Deputy Director, who reports to the head of the Hawai'i Department of Health.

Second, and far more importantly, the Hawai'i Department of Health has not been accused of "aiding and abetting in the fraud" (emphasis mine). The Hawai'i Department of Health has been accused of aiding and abetting in something that you (and a relative handful of others) claim is a fraud without having actually seen or examined anything more than a scan of the document that was posted on the internet.

Third, the accusations of "aiding and abetting" that have been leveled against the Hawai'i DoH are based on nothing more than the Hawai'i DoH's refusal to say that the LFBC is a fraud. While I lack your legendary legal acumen, I strongly doubt that a judge is going to agree that such non-specific and utterly unsubstantiated accusations would be sufficient to create some sort of conflict of interest - particularly given the potential chaos that could be caused if the:
(1) I believe the document to be a fraud.
(2) The state does not say it is a fraud
(3) Therefore the state is in on the fraud
(4) Therefore the state cannot be trusted and I must be allowed to examine the securely kept vital records for myself
chain of logic were permitted. Had you actual, acceptable evidence that the state was in on it, perhaps, and perhaps if you had actual evidence that a forgery had been committed. But not on mere assertion.; June 7, 2012 at 1:56 AM
js said...: Nice article at federalistblog.us on the 14th amendment "subject to the jurisdiction". It gives a good background on the reason common law was not included as the national law;
"Madison succinctly illustrates such dilemma to George Washington:
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."

Same basic stuff Leo Donofrio wrote. Bottom line, if you seek out the basis of citizenship under the 14th amendment, the child of an alien born in the US retained his/her parent’s citizenship, and by natural law, would not be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the USA. The argument that common law should be acknowledged on this point is a fraud in fact. English Common law could never have been the basis to determine NBC status because the Constitution never gave it that power, not the Original as written by the Founding Fathers, nor the 14th Amendment that was designed to secure the citizenship of the freed black men that the Southern States refused to acknowledge in their state laws. If it were to have been all inclusive, the term "subject to the jurisdiction" would not have been necessary.; June 7, 2012 at 7:25 AM
Teo Bear said...: Zoltran you wrote, " who naturalized in 1785 or 1786, could have been elected President provided he met age and residence requirements. And under English law, he was still considered a British subject. Interesting."

Actually no, the tracy of peace of 1783 freed those subject/colonists (and THEIR children) who fought/choose to side with the United States in the war of Independence from their allegiance to Great Britain.

What is interesting is that Britain did not do this for future British immigrants to the United States. Britain still considered them and their children subjects even after naturalization. Which is why we had to fight the second war of independence aka War of 1812.

Therefor those original citizens who were eligible to be President in 1787 were stripped of their allegiance to Great Britain in 1783 and only had allegiance to the United States. Considering that states required 4 years of residence prior to naturalization these so-called subjects were present in the US, choosing to be US citizens rather then British subjects.; June 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM
Mick said...: John Jay wrote 5 (#2-6) Federalist Papers on the danger of foreign influence. George Washington spoke extensively, and direly about foreign influence in his farewell speech. What an absolute liar Woodman is.

Wong Kim Ark CITED Minor's natural born Citizen definition twice. WKA also CITED Binney's quote TWICE:

""P. 20."The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. " WKA, 169 US 649, 666

The holding in WKA is that the children of resident aliens, born in the US, are citizens.

". The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory.” Id. 693

Then Gray quotes Binney again:

"...and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." Id. 693

He said directly that the child of resident aliens, born in America is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a Citizen-- separating the 2 classes. "By operation of the same principle" assents to the belief that both classes were born "subject to the jurisdiction". However, that the child of resident aliens is born of dual citizenship, and his allegiance may be "local and temporary" excludes him/her from eligibility. Gray said himself that the ONLY decision he was making was that the children of resident aliens were citizens. The 14th A is a "common naturalization act". Our "common law" is "law of nations" (A1S8C10), Those children are thus naturalized, not natural born. Case closed.; June 7, 2012 at 7:57 AM
ksdb said...: @ 4 zoltan, why didn't Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. just sign the form instead of "initial" it?? And why didn't the HI DOH tell poor Gov. Abercrombie in 2011 that he could get a letter of verification?? Why are they only doing this now, after thousands of people have tried to get a legal verification?? And why do they still not say in the MDEC pleading that Obama's PDF is authentic, true and accurate??; June 7, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Mike Dunford,

Obama told the world in 1991 that he was born in Kenya. See the Breitbart story. We do not know whether he lied then or now. This deserves a reasonable investigation.; June 7, 2012 at 12:14 PM
TQA said...: @bdwilcox:

If President Obama's birth certificate were either late or amended, it would not have been signed by Stanley Ann Obama on 7 August 1961, signed by the doctor on 8 August 1961, or accepted by the registrar on 8 August 1961. All of those items of information are found on the LFBC, and the Mississippi verification includes the verification of those items.

As far as verification of the information vs the document is concerned, I'd suggest you read Haw. Rev. Statutes 338-14.3. Hawaii verifies that they have certificates on file and verifies information about the vital event. That's what the statute permits them to do.

I'd also suggest you look closely at HRS 14.3(b): "A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."; June 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

4zoltan,

Your observation about McClure’s father being eligible to be elected President is an interesting one.

Tucker said that “[p]ersons naturalized according to these acts [the early naturalization acts], are . . . forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.” This is correct for those who were born after the adoption of the Constitution which occurred on September 17, 1787. But if someone was born before that adoption of the Constitution and became a “Citizen of the United Stated” by native birth in the colonies (before July 4, 1776) and adherence to the Revolution or by naturalization under a state’s naturalization act, then that person was eligible to be elected president under Article II’s grandfather clause.

I do not agree with the Pennsylvania law editors that the cut off date for one to be a “Citizen of the United States” and be eligible to be elected President was 1788. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's grandfather clause says one had to be a “Citizen of the United States” by the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution was adopted (not to be confused with “ratified”) on September 17, 1787. Hence the cut off year is 1787, not 1788.

Nevertheless, John McClure’s father, Cochran McClure, still would have been potentially eligible to be elected President had he satisfied the other requirements of 35-years of age and 14-year residency in the United States.

James McClure was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785. His father, Cochran McClure, was naturalized under the laws of the state of South Carolina on February 20, 1786, when his son was dwelling in the United States. The Naturalization Act of 1802, was given a retroactive effect and made those state naturalized “citizens” into “Citizens of the United States.” So, under the 1802 Act, Cochran McClure became a “Citizen of the United States” on February 20, 1786. Assuming that Cochran McClure came to the United States in 1785, his 14-year residency requirement would have been satisfied in 1789. Assuming he was also at least 35 years old, he would have been eligible in 1789 to be elected President. James McClure left the United States in 1795. His father also left the United States. Both father and son never returned to the United States. Hence, Cochran McClure lost all chance of ever becoming President.

As to the son, James McClure, he was derivatively naturalized as a “Citizen of the United States” under the same 1802 Act as of the same date that his father naturalized, February 20, 1786. So James McClure, becoming a “Citizen of the United States” before 1787, was also potentially eligible to be elected President. But as I have stated, he too, left the United States in 1795, and never returned. Hence, he also lost all chance of ever becoming President.

Continued . . .; June 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

What is critically important about the James McClure citizenship case as elucidated by the writings of St. George Tucker, is that it provides incontrovertible evidence that after the adoption of the Constitution and passing by Congress of the Naturalization Act of 1790, the United States no longer followed the English common law practice of jus soli citizenship (citizenship by birth in the territory). These naturalization acts (national law) now abrodated any existing English common law on the question of national citizenship. Now, only birth in the United States to citizen parents (a union of jus soli or citizenship by birth in the territory and jus sanguinis or citizenship by parentage) gave one “a state of perfect citizenship, under the Constitution and laws of the union” (St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference (1803) Vol. I, Note D, Part 5, Para. 4. http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/tucker/tuck-1d5.htm . There is no doubt that what Tucker referred to as this “perfect citizenship” was a “natural born Citizen,” or those persons who “inherited” the “civil right” to be elected President by being born to “citizen” parents. All other “citizens,” who were “Citizens of the United States,” did not enjoy this state of “perfect citizenship,” but rather just that of being a “Citizen of the United States,” made so by naturalization through any Act of Congress or treaty and later even by the Fourteenth Amendment.; June 7, 2012 at 12:40 PM
TQA said...: @Puzo1:
"Obama told the world in 1991 that he was born in Kenya. See the Breitbart story. We do not know whether he lied then or now. This deserves a reasonable investigation."

I'll assume, purely for the sake of argument, that President Obama was the one responsible for what the publishing agency flyer said. Even if that is true, it provides no evidence that the LFBC was forged or altered. It certainly presents no evidence that Hawaii would have been involved.

Given that Hawai'i has issued a document that "shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated" (Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-14.3), and were it to be proven that President Obama was responsible for the content of the 1991 advertising flyer, a reasonable person would have to conclude that the 1991 statement was the one that was non-factual.; June 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Andy said...: Mick Wrote:

"Then Gray quotes Binney again:

"...and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." Id. 693

He said directly that the child of resident aliens, born in America is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a Citizen-- separating the 2 classes. "By operation of the same principle" assents to the belief that both classes were born "subject to the jurisdiction". However, that the child of resident aliens is born of dual citizenship, and his allegiance may be "local and temporary" excludes him/her from eligibility. Gray said himself that the ONLY decision he was making was that the children of resident aliens were citizens. The 14th A is a "common naturalization act". Our "common law" is "law of nations" (A1S8C10), Those children are thus naturalized, not natural born. Case closed."

But of course, it's not. Mr. Binney nor none of the Justices ever separated those born of two citizen parents from those born of alien parents.

Notice he said "as much a citizen," not to those who are naturalized, nor to those who were born abroad, but to those born here of citizen parents. They are the same in terms of citizenship. The courts agree, and the history agrees.; June 7, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Andy said...: Puzo1:

You wrote:

"Obama told the world in 1991 that he was born in Kenya. See the Breitbart story. We do not know whether he lied then or now. This deserves a reasonable investigation."

The Breitbart story doesn't say that Obama told anyone he was born in Kenya. In fact, there has NEVER, in all the history of Birtheristan, been any evidence that Obama ever said he was born in Kenya. Please do provide some if you have any. er; June 7, 2012 at 1:10 PM
Andy said...: @KSDB

"why didn't Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. just sign the form instead of "initial" it?"

I believe the initials are put there for the person who puts the state seal on.

"And why didn't the HI DOH tell poor Gov. Abercrombie in 2011 that he could get a letter of verification?"

Because he couldn't do so legally. He would need to prove a need for it, as Arizona's SOS did, and as did the attorneys in the Mississippi case.

"Why are they only doing this now, after thousands of people have tried to get a legal verification?"

Because no one has asked for one yet. There is a process that has to be completed, and those on the birther side don't want a verification, because it disproves their cases.

"And why do they still not say in the MDEC pleading that Obama's PDF is authentic, true and accurate?"

Because Dr. Onaka is only allowed to verify information and the existence of the birth certificate.

The law is very clear on what he can and cannot verify, and how it should be done.; June 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo11:

It is truly humorous (and a bit sad) to see all of the "freshly minted" OOPS Troops come forward attempting to get their licks in by proffering oodles of misinformation, warped interpretations, and outright lies.

They are well named and seem completely incapable of understanding - or telling - the truth. All that is really necessary to end all of this waste of resources and damage to the ears is to finally get access to Obams's genuine natality documents and give them a good going over.

Surely the OOPS Troops would like nothing less to proove all of their ourtageous lies, radical misinterpretations, and claims of English Common Law being the guide to "nbC" when the term never appears in ECL as it is used in the Constitution. They merely HOPE that the claim are true (they ain't). But just think how happy they would be to point to a real judgement from a real court examining the real natality evidence rather that merely relying on misleading and partial misstatemebnts of fact from self-serving state politicials (not to mention similar acts for similar reasons by US judges).

That would mean they really were right all along and their hero is/was indeed eligible under our laws. As it is they can never do that no matter how hard they strain. So hey, Troops, why not jump in there and insist that your buds and your counterparts in HI pass along/allow valid access to the genuine natality documents.?? If they (the real documents) are kosher you have only worldwide recognition and fame to gain.

As it is, though, you're going to look mighty foolish and some of you will undoubtedly be snared in the felony criminal litigation that is bound to result. THAT must be your motivating force now ... but it won't help prevent the truth from coming to the fore. Sorry, guys.; June 7, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Bdwilcox

"The one glaring thing that Onaka still refuses to do is verify that the long form birth certificate posted on the White House website matches the one in their records."

Form the May 31, 2012 verification,

"The information contained in the “Certification of Live Birth” published at [whitehouse.gov link] and reviewed by me on the date of this verification,… , matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health."

So they forged a BC but put the same information in it as is on the original.; June 7, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Teo Bear,

That would not be the case if his father arrived after the Treaty of Peace. And since he naturalized after the Treaty of Peace, it is unlikely he would be covered by it.

There would have to be some research done to see if he was covered.; June 7, 2012 at 4:44 PM
MichaelN said...: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/verification-verifies-if-anything-that-obamas-record-is-legally-non-valid/; June 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM
James said...: According to Butterdezillion, the evidences suggest that Hawaii can only verify what is in Obama's birth certificate. Hawaii can't under the law says that Obama's BC is valid or legal because evidence indicates that Obama's BC has been amended or updated. If Obama's BC has been updated or amended, only a court can certify it has true, legal and accurate record of the facts of the birth. At this point Hawaii can only state if something exists or doesn't exist.; June 7, 2012 at 6:03 PM
James said...: In reading Dr. Fukino's past press releases, she has indicated that Obama's BC exists and she has seen the vital records. This means that Obama's birth records probably include a birth certificate and other documentation. If you recall, the Long Form Birth Certificate indicates that it is only an abstract of the complete record. We are not seeing Obama's complete record and Hawaii will never show it. Why? Because the other documentation they possess probably includes information submitted by the grandparents that Obama was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born in Kenya.; June 7, 2012 at 6:09 PM
TQA said...: @ksdb:
"why didn't Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. just sign the form instead of "initial" it??

If you look at the AZ and MS verifications side by side, you'll see that the signatures look identical and are in the same place on the form. I suspect that the verification form contains a pre-printed signature which is then initialed and sealed. Remember, verifications are one of the standard things done by vital records. The registrar has other things to do all day besides sign certificates.

"And why didn't the HI DOH tell poor Gov. Abercrombie in 2011 that he could get a letter of verification??"

Because Gov. Abercrombie wasn't eligible to receive one, and probably still isn't. The requirements for receiving a verification are found in HRS 338-18. AZ got a verification because they convinced HI that they needed one for official purposes. The MDEC lawyers got one because they were the lawyers on an active case where the birth certificate and information therein had been brought up.

"Why are they only doing this now, after thousands of people have tried to get a legal verification??"

Because the alleged thousands who have tried are not eligible to receive one. Again, see HRS 338-18.

"And why do they still not say in the MDEC pleading that Obama's PDF is authentic, true and accurate??"

Damnit, Jim, they're doctors, not forensic document examiners. Checking over documents (paper or otherwise) is not what they do. They take the information in the document and compare it with their records. They are competent to do that, and that is what the law (in this case HRS 338-14.3) allows.; June 7, 2012 at 6:10 PM
js said...: Seems like the State of Hawaii has established its laws above that of the Constitution.

The PoTUS is a High Office, and an elected official sits in that office. Under the Constitution, the qualification established for PoTus is the highest law in the land. If that qualification is based on the birth of the individual, and the situations surrounding that birth, then the individual has no right to claim privacy for the public broadcast of that qualification. There is no right to deny proof of eligibility, and you cant use privacy acts as a shield to prevent proof of that qualification. Hawaii has a national duty to fully certify the qualification by producing any and all documentation that it holds on Obama, who is now a historic figure in the US, which also removes privacy rights from the individual.

When Obama raised his hand, and took the Oath of Office, he forfeited any right to privacy about his qualifications to hold that office.; June 7, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Robert said...: Mr. Dunford,

Governor Abercrombie is most certainly eligible to receive full and complete verification of Mr. Obama's birth records. So is every other Governor and Secretary of State.

Our Constitution is a Treaty binding the States that the President must be a natural born citizen who must "qualify" prior to taking office.

How does one "qualify" if not by presenting verification of his Constitutionally required credentials and legally obtained and sufficient vote?

Each state is responsible to its citizens for the maintenance of vital records it is also responsible to our constitution to provide for the common defense of all the states.

How can any state justify withholding vital records (or, in Obama's case, the lack thereof) necessary to preserve the integrity of the office of the President? If this isn't "common defense" or "national security" what is?

How can any Governor or Secretary of State allow an undocumented candidate to appear on their state ballot without being themselves complicit in Treason?

How can a State or any Officer of a State aid, either by commission or omission, a candidate who has never presented sufficient vital records to qualify for the office of President?

What are they going on?
"He has a nice smile and glinting pecs."

"He never said he wasn't qualified."

"The other guys are putting him on their ballot."

"Don't want to upset anyone."

"His party says they believe him."

"He had some, but he ate the dog that ate it."

etc.
etc.
etc.

HORSE HOCKEY!!!!

Failure to Qualify and/or No presentation of documentation (whether one has any or not) = no qualification = no presidency.

If Hawaii has documents, they need to release the originals for complete forensic examination immediately. Their refusal to abide by their obviously implied Constitutional obligation is tantamount to an admission that they have no documentation supportive of Mr. Obama's claim to the office of President.; June 7, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of IV,

ballantine,

(1) ballantine: “Mario thinks he has won the McClure argument by re-defining “Citizen of the United States” to mean something no one in history has ever said it meant. Why would someone do such a thing? It has been pointed out the terms was used in a multitude of early statutes and treaties in a context where t couldn’t possibly mean what he says it means. He has no answer but rather just keeps repeating he is right.”

Apuzzo: The James Madison administration ruled that James McClure, born in South Carolina after the revolution to a British father who naturalized after his birth and when his son was dwelling in the United States, was a “naturalized “Citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.”

(2) ballantine: “It has been pointed out that his definition would mean that in the Constitution that natural born citizens were literally excluded from the Congressional eligilbity and the grandfather provisions. Such interpretation is silly and he needs to then infer additional language in order have it make any sense at all.”

Apuzzo: Members of American society are called “citizens.” The “citizens” are made up of the “natural born Citizens” and the “citizens of the United States.” See Article I and II. Any “citizen” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty. Both “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” are “citizens.” Hence, anything that the Constitution, treaties, or Congressional statutes allow a “citizen of the United States” to do so can a “natural born Citizen.”

(3) ballantine: “In reality, no one ever said people born in the states prior to 1787 were naturalized as there was never any statute that naturalized them.”

Apuzzo: State statutes naturalized aliens prior to the first Congressional naturalization act which was passed in 1790. For example, Cochran McClure, was naturalized under the laws of the state of South Carolina on February 20, 1786, when his son was dwelling in the United States. The Naturalization Act of 1802, was given a retroactive effect and made those state naturalized “citizens” into “Citizens of the United States.”

(4) ballantine: “In addition, when the Congressional eligiblity provisions were written there was no NBC clause and hence no difference between naturalized and natural born citizens so even reading in an “At minimum” makes no sense. Mario can’t answer any of this.

Apuzzo: What in the world are talking about, no difference between a naturalized and natural born citizen?

(5) ballantine: “And, of course, if McClure was natuarlized, no one would have said that proof of his place of birth was sufficient to make him a citizen since place of birth would have been irrelevant. You really can’t make this stuff up.

Apuzzo: Publius stated:

“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.” The James Madison Administration adopted this rule and ruled that James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States” not by any birthright, but under the naturalization statutes of the United States (the Naturalization Act of 1802).

Continued . . .; June 7, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of IV

(6) ballantine: “And John has done a great job refuting Mario’s Tucker claims. John points out that when actually talking about who is natural born or eligible to be president, Tucker refutes Mario. Notice that Mario thinks it doesn’t count that Tucker approvingly quoted someone on the definition of Natural born citizen. When Marshall quoted Vattel solely on th issue of domicile, it somehow meant he was approving of Vattel’s definition of natural born. Howver, here, where Tucker is quoting someone on who is natuarl born, it doesn’t count. The dishonesty is breathtaking.”

Apuzzo: Yes, the dishonesty is breathtaking. I cannot believe that you are still peddling that “famous” Tucker quote (“Prior to the adoption of the Constitution. . . “) which he never even made. You are still trying to make people believe that Tucker said what someone else said. In Tucker’s Commentaries, Vol. 1, App. 254-59, Tucker comments on whether the states still had any power left to naturalize citizens after the Constitution was adopted. He gives some case law in which the judges said that they did. Then he gives another case which disagreed with those courts. Then he provides the quote from that “very respectable political writer” who Tucker said made “the following pertinent remarks upon the subject.” Tucker then quotes him. The reason Tucker quotes him is to show that there may still be a small area where the states did not give up their power to the federal government under the naturalization clause. That writer had taken the position that the states, while they gave up the right to naturalize aliens to the federal government, retained the right to make persons “denizens” (which had effect only in that state) and even to prescribe their own qualifications for holding state office. Tucker then concludes after quoting that writer at length:

“Now although the act of congress may operate to repeal this act, so far as relates to the rights of naturalization, or, a state of perfect citizenship, under the constitution and laws of the union; yet, as it respects the rights which the state hath power to grant, such as holding lands, or an office under the sole, and distinct authority of the state, I see no reason to doubt that the law is as valid at this day, as it was before the adoption of the constitution of the United States.”

Here, Tucker explains that the acts of Congress on naturalization abrogated any state naturalization statutes or laws. What is also most important is that Tucker said that only the federal government decided what “the state of perfect citizenship, under the constitution and laws of the union” would be. Here, there is not doubt that he is referring to one being a “natural born Citizen,” and calling that citizenship “perfect citizenship” which existed only under the constitution and national law. That national law would have been the law of nations and not the English common law. And that national law, as confirmed later by Minor v. Happersett (1875), defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Finally, Tucker explains that the states did retained the power to decide how titles to land and what state office qualifications would be.

So, all this talk that Tucker adopted jus soli citizenship, which is contained in someone else’s quote, is absurd at best and fraudulent at worst. Simply, Tucker never said what you say he said, i.e., that he accepted defining a “natural born Citizen” under the jus soli of English common law. On the contrary, all he did was quote someone else on an unrelated topic and then give his opinion on the matter. And that opinion contains that powerful quote on “perfect citizenship” which existed under the Constitution and national law, which was the law of nations and not English common law. Moreover, everything that Tucker wrote shows that he required birth to “citizen” parents in order for one to be a “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . .; June 7, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: III of IV

Again, he said: “The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights. These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.”

(7) ballantine: “And Tucker is clear the President must a native born citizen and he uses native and alien throughout his treatise when talking about both English and American law clearly indicating they meant the same think.”

Apuzzo: Yes, under the law of nations, “native” and “natural-born citizen” did mean the same thing. Here is Vattel on the point: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

(8) ballantine: “And if Mario was right, Tucker would define “alien” to include children of aliens when in fact he defines it only with respect to place of birth.”

Apuzzo: This is incorrect. Tucker said that “[a]liens by birth, are all person born out of the dominions of the United States, since the fourth day of July 1776, on which day they declared themselves an independent and sovereign nation, with some exceptions” which were in “favor of infants.” He then commented on Jefferson’s citizenship law of 1779 and 1783 and Congress’s early naturalization acts to show that infants followed the citizenship of their parents, showing that “the children of such persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,” also obtained the right to be “citizens of the United States.”

(9) ballantine: “Mario has never been able to find a single person that has said anyone born in the US is an alien, but he will go to his grave saying such was the law.”

Apuzzo: This is a blatant lie. See:

1. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (birth in the country would give citizenship only if parents were “citizens”);

2. Thomas Jefferson in 1779 (if one was an “infant” one had to be born to citizen parents in order to be a citizen, even if born in Virginia);

3. Founder and historian David Ramsay in 1789 (birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 reserved only for the children of “citizens”);

4. Our early Congress starting in 1790 (if born in the U.S. to alien, child himself an alien);

5. U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson in 1791 (citizen was the son of a citizen reaching age 21 or 22);

Continued . . .; June 7, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: IV of IV

6. The James Madison Administration in 1811 regarding 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. . . . A man must be naturalized to make his children such”);

7. Chief Justice John Marshall concurring in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (relies on Vattel’s definition of “natives, or indigenes” with the English translator of Vattel’s The Law of Nations in the 1797 English translation changing “indigenes” to “natural-born citizens”);

8. Speaker of the House Landon Cheves in 1814 (paraphrases Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”);

9. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (child born in New York after July 4, 1776 to British parents was an alien);

10. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court with Justice Story in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (children follow the citizenship of their parents no matter where born);

11. Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856) (cites and quotes Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”);

12. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875) (provided a paraphrased version of Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and said “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen”);

13. Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cites and quotes Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”);

14. United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (cites and quotes Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”);

15. The dissent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (found that Wong, who was born in the U.S. to alien parents, under the national law of the United States which was the law of nations, was an alien).

16. Finally, ballantine and all his supporters have not been able to cite one U.S. Supreme Court case that held that a person born on U.S. soil to one or two alien parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”; June 7, 2012 at 11:25 PM
James said...: It would appear that MS verification is not valid regardless of what it says. This is because the process in which lawyers got it does not conform to the rules of the Hawaii DOH. The Hawaii DOH rule states the following:

"Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies."

No request form was filled out. The lawyers simply wrote a letter. Hawaii DOH broke its own rules and responded to the request.

I suspect this was a deliberate act on the part of the lawyers. Had the lawyers tried to use the request form to verify the information they would have ran into problems like Bennett did.

In any event, the verification simply is not valid under the Hawaii DOH rules.

The willingness of the Hawaii DOH to break its own rules or regulations for Obot lawyers leads one to question the integrity of the Hawaii DOH.; June 7, 2012 at 11:34 PM
James said...: Gov. Abercrombie should have been able to get the record under provision #5 of Statute 338:

(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

Gov. Abercrombie is employed by a government agency. He certainly had a right to confirm the details on Obama's BC in preparation of press statements or reports he made regarding the birth certificate issue.; June 7, 2012 at 11:39 PM
bdwilcox said...: Spot on.; June 8, 2012 at 12:38 AM
ksdb said...: This is a hoot when Foggers claim that the guy who appoints the Director of Health AND the state's Attorney General wouldn't qualify for a letter of verification on Obama's vital records. And it ignores the state's Uniform Information Practices Act that says any and all documents can be released as a good faith disclosure when the public interest outweighs the privacy interest. Obviously there was no LFBC in early 2011 until the PDF was fabricated, which was then downloaded by the HI DOH to use as an "original" Certificate of Live Birth with information that matches itself. Third, the HI DOH has specific rules that allow the disclosure of non-certified copies of birth certificates to ANYONE who requests them. The state lied when it said it had no way to provide documents to Gov. Abercrombie. And if they can issue a letter of verification to the MDEC lawyers, then Orly Taitz has a legal right and expectation to subpoena and receive all official documentation pertaining to that verification.; June 8, 2012 at 2:24 AM
TQA said...: @James:
"According to Butterdezillion, the evidences suggest that Hawaii can only verify what is in Obama's birth certificate. Hawaii can't under the law says that Obama's BC is valid or legal because evidence indicates that Obama's BC has been amended or updated. If Obama's BC has been updated or amended, only a court can certify it has true, legal and accurate record of the facts of the birth. At this point Hawaii can only state if something exists or doesn't exist."

@James:
"No request form was filled out. The lawyers simply wrote a letter. Hawaii DOH broke its own rules and responded to the request."

The entry on the website that explains how to request verifications is not the same thing as a rule or a law. The Hawaii Department of Health has official rules (available on the same site) that do not specify that the use of the form is a legal requirement. HRS 338-13, which is the statute that governs verifications also does not specify that a specific form is required.

The failure to use a certain form to request the verification certainly does not invalidate the verification itself.

Hawaii verified all of the information that was contained in the LFBC. This includes the date that the certificate was accepted by the local registrar. That date was 8 August 1961. It's not a late or altered certificate.

@James:
"Long Form Birth Certificate indicates that it is only an abstract of the complete record. We are not seeing Obama's complete record and Hawaii will never show it. Why? Because the other documentation they possess probably includes information submitted by the grandparents that Obama was born in Hawaii when in fact he was born in Kenya."

Hawaii verified all of the information that was contained in the LFBC. This includes the date that the certificate was signed by the attending physician, as well as the signature of the physician.; June 8, 2012 at 2:39 AM
TQA said...: @Robert:
"How does one "qualify" if not by presenting verification of his Constitutionally required credentials and legally obtained and sufficient vote?"

I suppose one would qualify the same way that every previous candidate has - without presenting "verification" that he met the requirements. Birth certificates certainly were not required prior to their invention, which was well after the Constitution was ratified. Prior to the last election, no candidate had released a copy of his birth certificate. To the best of my knowledge, no candidate had even been asked to do so.

@Robert:
"How can any state justify withholding vital records (or, in Obama's case, the lack thereof) necessary to preserve the integrity of the office of the President? If this isn't "common defense" or "national security" what is?"

Hawaii has not withheld vital records from anyone legally entitled to receive them. To my knowledge, the only state elections official to request anything from Hawaii was Bennett, and once he demonstrated that he met the statutory requirements he was issued a verification.

@Robert
"How can a State or any Officer of a State aid, either by commission or omission, a candidate who has never presented sufficient vital records to qualify for the office of President? "

I suppose the same way they always have. To my knowledge, Bennett is the only official of any state at any time during any election who demanded official verification of vital records from the birth state of any major party candidate for president. No candidate before President Obama presented any vital records to anyone.; June 8, 2012 at 2:53 AM
MichaelN said...: George Washington was native-born, but prior to his involvement in the revolution he was an English "subject", more likely an English "natural born subject".

Was Washington a "natural born Citizen" AND a "citizen of the United States" or,

was Washinton a "natural born Citizen" OR a "citizen of the United States"?; June 8, 2012 at 2:54 AM
Anonymous said...: @ 4 zoltan, why didn't Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. just sign the form instead of "initial" it??

Exactly! And if this was a valid "official" verification, why is it even written on paper rather than parchment? Better yet, why not scratch this missive with a blood-dipped bone awl on tanned human hide? Answer me that, Obot!!!; June 8, 2012 at 7:19 AM
Anonymous said...: As it is, though, you're going to look mighty foolish and some of you will undoubtedly be snared in the felony criminal litigation that is bound to result. THAT must be your motivating force now ... but it won't help prevent the truth from coming to the fore. Sorry, guys.

No need to apologize. Being treasonous commie bastards, we knew our fate was sealed the minute you folks entered the fray. Now that you have us surrounded, we've reconciled ourselves to our doom. It was only a matter of time...; June 8, 2012 at 7:48 AM
Teo Bear said...: Zoltran

The treaty of peace was ratified April 9, 1784 and McClure was naturalized until 1786. Considering that in the 1776 to 1787 time frame 2 years was the minimum wait to be naturalized one can believe McClure was here when the treaty of peace was ratified.

Still men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison were all washed of their british subject hood by the blood of the American patriot and the scent of any doubt was covered over by the smoke of the cannon.; June 8, 2012 at 8:12 AM
James said...: Yes, If the MDEC lawyers want to stipulate to veracity of the letter of verification they are essentially allowing Obama's BC to submitted as evidence. Under federal rules of evidence, Orly would have the right to challenge such evidence by examining the original or examining the custodian of such records, namely the people at the Hawaii DOH.; June 8, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Andy said...: @KSDB

First of all, you have no proof, none, not even a little, that the certificate is a forgery. Every detail of the certificate has remained the same since you first heard of Barack Obama. No details have changed, and nothing even remotely points to suspicion.

Second, Mr. Abercrombie would need to meed the criteria of HRS 338-18. He never tried, as far as we know, so he never received any verification.

As for the UIPA, only one person has filed suit using that act: Orly Taitz, and she did such a poor job that she couldn't prove she even had a right to be suing, let alone to see a document.

Can you point to any rules that allow non-certified copies to be released? And more importantly, why would a non-certified record make any difference when two certified versions, as well as two verifications haven't made any?

Orly Taitz has many legal rights, but none of them pertain to any records in Hawaii. She has no reason to need those records, as she has no litigation that actually deals with those records (contrary to what she might think).; June 8, 2012 at 11:30 AM
jayjay said...: All:

It is truly MORE than amusing to see the OOPS Troops (aka obots) flail aout trying to justify the fact that a man who has never shown himself to be legally qualified to hold the office he now occupies should remain in that position - either now or in another election.

These people do not seem able to spell the term "sociopath" or "psychopath" nor have a clue at to what it means from a behavioral standpoint. Sadder still they also do not recognize the part they are unwittingly playing in supporting what will likely come to be judged as a criminal endeavor ... and they have become part of that.

Worse yet, perhaps, is the fact that when Obama is shown to be definitively not eligible to hold the office he now occupies, that means that not only are many of his acts, Executive Orders, etc. and unlawful but that he is actually a serious, big-time criminal. This has grave implications for all of us - not just the OOPS Troops (though some of them will most likely be sucked into proseution/punishment along with their Fearless Leader).

Take a step or so backward and a deep breath and consider the implications of the well-known "kill list" that Obama has complete power over and even not only dictates the order and timing of killing but after the drone strikes. which are all video recorded, he sits in a second floor office watching these videos over and over and over seemingly transfixed by their vicariously "thrilling" presentation. That's surely not "normal" in any regard.

If the man is indeed found to be legally not eligible it would mean that taking merely his "kill list" actions makes him nothing but a cold-looded murderer - doing so falsely under color of authority and in the name of 300+ million Americans. This by definition makes at least all who support and defend him guilty either morally or legally if not spiritually of the same crime.

I don't know about the OOPS Troops but I for one want no part of such a criminal acting supposedly on my behalf. It is mandatory that for the sake of history AND humanity that we move as a civilization to find out if this guy is or is not eligible to hold the office he now occupies which means that all he has done is part and parcel of that eligibility or lack thereof and should be dealt with accordingly.

Are all of you OOPS Troops up for some form of a murder investigation and charge? Or are you going to do the rational thing and join in insisting that his eligibility be thoroughly and definitively investigated??? If he's eligible; no problem and we can proceed to the coming elections but if not ......

Perhaps you've not stopped to consider the implications just outlined, but many believe that - even if he's eligible - the "kill list" operation by this single individual is not Constitutional.

If he's NOT elibible, it presents an entirely stickier wicket. How about joining in the demand this be cleared up??? Are you not Americans???; June 8, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The attorneys for the Tennessee Democratic Party have opened the door which will allow Orly Taitz access to all the original Obama records contained in the Hawaii Health Department. Those attorneys and Dr. Onaka have done an end run around the defendant having to provide a certified true copy of Obama’s birth certificate to the Court as true evidence that Obama, his attorneys, and the Hawaii Department of Health have not engaged in a fraud upon the court as Orly Taitz alleges. They have done that end run under the guise that the verification is needed for purposes of litigation. Well, Ms. Taitz also has litigation needs. She has to be able to access all available evidence that supports her allegation of a fraud upon the court. Since the defendants have introduced the verification into evidence for purposes of opposing her allegation, Ms. Taits also has the due process right to test the validity of that evidence by being able to subpoena Dr. Onaka for cross examination and subpoena the original documents upon which he says he relied in producing his Verification of Birth. As the old saying goes, what good for the goose is good for the gander.; June 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM
jayjay said...: All:

It is truly MORE than amusing to see the OOPS Troops (aka obots) flail about trying to justify the fact that a man who has never shown himself to be legally qualified to hold the office he now occupies should remain in that position - either now or in another election.

These people do not seem able to spell the term "sociopath" or "psychopath" nor have a clue at to what it means from a behavioral standpoint. Sadder still they also do not recognize the part they are unwittingly playing in supporting what will likely come to be judged as a criminal endeavor ... and they have become part of that.

Worse yet, perhaps, is the fact that when Obama is shown to be definitively not eligible to hold the office he now occupies, that means that not only are many of his acts, Executive Orders, etc. unlawful but that he is actually a serious, big-time criminal. This has grave implications for all of us - not just the OOPS Troops (though some of them will most likely be sucked into proseution/punishment along with their Fearless Leader).

Take a step or so backward and a deep breath and consider the implications of the well-known "kill list" that Obama has complete power over and even not only dictates the order and timing of killing but after the drone strikes. which are all video recorded, he sits in a second floor office watching these videos over and over and over seemingly transfixed by their vicariously "thrilling" presentation. That's surely not "normal" in any regard.

If the man is indeed found to be legally not eligible it would mean that taking merely his "kill list" actions makes him nothing but a cold-looded murderer - doing so falsely under color of authority and in the name of 300+ million Americans. This by definition makes at least all who support and defend him guilty either morally or legally if not spiritually of the same crime.

I don't know about the OOPS Troops but I for one want no part of such a criminal acting supposedly on my behalf. It is mandatory that for the sake of history AND humanity that we move as a civilization to find out if this guy is or is not eligible to hold the office he now occupies which means that all he has done is part and parcel of that eligibility or lack thereof and should be dealt with accordingly.

Are all of you OOPS Troops up for some form of a murder investigation and charge? Or are you going to do the rational thing and join in insisting that his eligibility be thoroughly and definitively investigated??? If he's eligible; no problem and we can proceed to the coming elections but if not ......

Perhaps you've not stopped to consider the implications just outlined, but many believe that - even if he's eligible - the "kill list" operation by this single individual is not Constitutional.

If he's NOT elibible, it presents an entirely stickier wicket. How about joining in the demand this be cleared up??? Are you not Americans???; June 8, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Mike Dunford,

We are not interested in what other past presidential candidates did or did not do. But we are interested in this candidate (Obama) complying with the Constitution which requires a presidential candidate who will be occupying the Office of President to conclusively show that he is a “natural born Citizen,” at least 35 years of age, and at least a 14-year resident of the United States.

Furthermore, I am not aware of any past president

1. having gone around saying he was born in some foreign country (query: did he lie then or now?),

2. having his wife say that he was going to return to his “home” country (not the USA),

3. having his publicist for almost 20 years say he was born in some foreign country without taking any steps to correct the record if that was not true,

4. with family members who said he was born in some foreign country,

5. about whom contemporaneous newspapers said he was born in some foreign country,

6. about whom the Congress of some foreign country said he was born in that foreign country,

7. whose USA hospital where he was allegedly born refusing to confirm that he was born there, and

8. who refused to release his life bona fides (documents regarding place of birth, education, travel, and employment) when requested to do so so that the people can adequately vet him.; June 8, 2012 at 1:40 PM
Andy said...: @Puzo1

The verification wasn't made to provide refutation of any allegations in the complaint, but to show Taitz's stupidity in her motion for sanctions.

Chances are, this will be dismissed for either lack of standing, or as a matter of settled law.; June 8, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: MichaelN,

A “citizen” is a member of a society. Historically, members of republics have been called “citizens.” A “natural born Citizen” of any given society is a member (“citizen”) that is born into that society by birth in its territory to parents who are already members (“citizens”) of that society. Clearly, one cannot be a member of a society until that society actually exists. The new American society (the republic) was not created until July 4, 1776. Hence, Washington, being born well before that time, could not have been naturally born into that new American society. Rather, he was naturalized by the Declaration of Independence and by his adherence to the American Revolution and by virtue of those conditions became after his birth a “Citizen of the United States.” President Van Buren was the first “natural born Citizen” president, having been born after July 4, 1776 in the United States to “citizen” parents.

So, members of American society are called “citizens.” The “citizens” are made up of the “natural born Citizens” and the “Citizens of the United States.” See Article I and II. Any “citizen” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty. Both “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” are “citizens.” Hence, anything that the Constitution, treaties, or Congressional statutes allow a “citizen of the United States” to do a “natural born Citizen” can also do.; June 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM
Andy said...: 1. having gone around saying he was born in some foreign country (query: did he lie then or now?),

Show once, just once, where he said that.

2. having his wife say that he was going to return to his “home” country (not the USA)

So if someone is of Irish descent, they can't claim Ireland as their "home country?" There will be a major loss of tourism to that country if that is the case!

3. having his publicist for almost 20 years say he was born in some foreign country without taking any steps to correct the record if that was not true,

Just because someone makes a mistake, for an author as minor as Obama (until around 2007-08), doesn't mean there is some conspiracy.

4. with family members who said he was born in some foreign country,

You're not still on the old debunked step-grandmother thing, are you? And you call yourself a lawyer?

5. about whom contemporaneous newspapers said he was born in some foreign country,

Cite one newspaper from 1961 that says he was born in Hawaii. Just once. Please do.

6. about whom the Congress of some foreign country said he was born in that foreign country,

So, since the government of Iran says the Holocaust didn't happen, that makes it true, right?

7. whose USA hospital where he was allegedly born refusing to confirm that he was born there, and

As a lawyer, you should know the law. HIPPA prevents any hospital from doing any verification. That's why we have birth certificates.

8. who refused to release his life bona fides (documents regarding place of birth, education, travel, and employment) when requested to do so so that the people can adequately vet him.

You don't mean like his birth certificate, do you? The one he released in 2008? And since when does one need to release their transcripts, passport, or resume to qualify under the Constitution of the United States? Which article is that?; June 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM
James said...: That would be true Mario. Since Orly is alleging that Hawaii DOH is engaging in fraud, she has the right to challenge anything Hawaii DOH produces. This would include the right cross examine Onaka and access the documents he used to make the verification.; June 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM
jayjay said...: Jay Bulworth"

Your selective quotations do you no good service. And I note you are admitting to being a "treasonous commie bastard" - but those are your words, not mine. But perhaps you self-evaluation is accurate.

All I would like to do is to get you shortsighted OOPS Troops to step back and consider what you are getting yourself into rather than rush headlong into the fray as you're doing.

No one has ever shown the man to be eligible and your bleatings are no better than those of the various state officials in HI or the various courts rushing to use any legal fiction to duck the issue. Genuine proof is needed - and will be obtained.

... oh, and also the "... sorry, guys ..." was not an apology but merely a word of sympathy to those who seem incapable of using their head for more than a hatrack and can't seem to grasp what is headed their way.; June 8, 2012 at 2:33 PM
jayjay said...: Andy:

Every single point you have highlighted is more of the same tired old "stuff" that has been roundly refuted several times.

If you want to find acceptance for such nonsense you'd best go back to the OOPS Troops sites. Posters here reaize that is just more of the Red Herring/Straw Man tactics that you guys seem to love (along with partial quotes or complete mis-quotes).

Obviously the simplest thing to do is to have the REAL bc and have it thoroughly analyzed by reputable experts - who do NOT include self-serving minor HI officials. All of the natality/early life records need to be made available so cross-checking may be done.

It is already known that mommy and daddy never lived togeether and no marriage certificate for them has ever popped up. I suppose you'd say (with a straight face) that "he wouldn't lie" ... right???; June 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Andy said...: @ JayJay

And what exactly of what I said has been refuted?

Is there any proof Obama ever said he was from Kenya?

Is there any proof his parents never lived together?

Is there anyone with any forensic training that has said his birth certificate isn't valid?

Is there any proof whatsoever, besides conjecture, innuendo, and insinuation that anything you claim is true?

If you're going to make claims, at least have the balls to back it up, JayJay.; June 8, 2012 at 5:25 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . .”

Clearly, this eligibility clause makes a constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.”

From this plain constitutional provision I have argued that members of American society are called “citizens.” The “citizens” are made up of the “natural born Citizens” and the “Citizens of the United States.” See Article I and II. Any “citizen” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty. Both “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” are “citizens.” Hence, anything that the Constitution, treaties, or Congressional statutes allow a “citizen of the United States” to do a “natural born Citizen” can also do.

Now, at John Woodman’s blog, both Reality Check and John Woodman accuse the “Birthers” of being racist for distinguishing between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.”

You just cannot make this stuff up.; June 8, 2012 at 5:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Andy,

"So if someone is of Irish descent, they can't claim Ireland as their "home country?" There will be a major loss of tourism to that country if that is the case!"

Reminds me of this photo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:President_Reagan_in_Ballyporeen_Ireland.jpg; June 8, 2012 at 7:28 PM
jayjay said...: Andy:

You, like so many of your OOPS Troops conterparts, show your almost complete lack of rational understanding. Each of those 8 or so items you put forth have been completely destroyed many times on a number of different sites.

There's little reason to keep harping o you total misinformation here bu, for example, Michelle Obama said in a public speech in FL in 2007 (or perhaps 2008) to a bunch of homosexual activists that her husband was "a black man, a Kenyan". Now perhaps you're arguing that she was lying (and certainly she's been known to) but nontheless words are words - and those were her words.

As for the "mistake" on his 1991 Bio that he himself gave his publicist, it clearly was NOT a "mistake" and her current attempt - like almost all of yours in the OOPS Troops - is merely a pathetic lie to do a hasty "duck and cover." There are also numerous statements in the public government records of the Kenyan Congress (or it equivalent) calling him Kenyan. I presume you all would just persist in the lie that all of these were lying since they don't agree with you.

As for the parents never living together, there is no proof at all that they ever DID live together. This has been documented in several publications since they always had separate addresses in HI and the faux BC even gives the parents' address, not that of Sr/Stanlen Ann. She even tok off out of HI 2 or 3 weeks after Jr. was supposedly born to attend school at the U of Washington - or perhaps you have proof that the University has forged records??? RIGHT!!!

There have been numerous people with exceedingly good forensic backgrounds (including some in law enforcement) that show the various BCs are fraudulent. There are no reputable experts that make definitive claims or are able to refute the other observations of the documents being fake And don't try the nonsense about only "court approved, certified experts are allowed". Anyone with any sensse knows that the various "certification mills" are just that and mean nothing technically.

There is a large body of documented fact that shows the man to be a fraud - you just don't wish to admit it for your own reasons.

And don't speak about "balls" since you've made a bad assumption there about me.

What will you claim when the man is found to be ineligible - that all of the "kill lists" he has personal complete control over were "OK"??? Even if he's not validly President is it OK to kill people under color of authority?; June 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy, John Woodman, Reality Check, Gorefan, Ballantine .....

What "common law" was the SCOTUS in the Minor court referring to which the SCOTUS recognized as acknowledging doubts as to if a native-born child to alien parents was even a US citizen?????; June 8, 2012 at 8:56 PM
TQA said...: @Puzo1:
"Since the defendants have introduced the verification into evidence for purposes of opposing her allegation, Ms. Taits also has the due process right to test the validity of that evidence by being able to subpoena Dr. Onaka for cross examination and subpoena the original documents upon which he says he relied in producing his Verification of Birth."

Would you mind explaining what statutes, rules, or decisions support this? The verification issued by the State of Hawaii is an official, state-issued document, with the seal and signature of the State Registrar. It's a self-verifying document.

Orly would probably be entitled to examine the original verification. That would be the one with the physical seal, which has apparently been turned over to the Magistrate. Absent evidence that the verification was forged, I'm not sure what would entitle Orly to go try to further verify the verified verification. I would expect that a Judge would want more than "I still don't believe them" as a reason to allow an intrusion into legally restricted, confidential records held by one of the 50 States - particularly since the sort of investigation that is being demanded would require exposing more than just the President's records.; June 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM
TQA said...: @Puzo1:
"We are not interested in what other past presidential candidates did or did not do. But we are interested in this candidate (Obama) complying with the Constitution which requires a presidential candidate who will be occupying the Office of President to conclusively show that he is a “natural born Citizen,” at least 35 years of age, and at least a 14-year resident of the United States."

It is obvious that you are not interested in what past presidential candidates did or did not do. That confuses me somewhat.

If no prior presidential candidate has "conclusively show[n]" that he meets the Constitutional prerequisites, why do you think there is some sort of requirement that President Obama show his credentials.

Further, assuming arguendo that there is such a requirement, what makes you think that President Obama needs to demonstrate his eligibility to your satisfaction.; June 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Anonymous said...: JayJay,

"There are no reputable experts that make definitive claims or are able to refute the other observations of the documents being fake."

Actually, that is not true. There is this from Dr. Neal Krawetz

"The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious."

He has a PhD in computer science and does computer foresnic research and develops computer security sofware.

Then there is Victoria Nicks one of WND's computer experts,

"The changes made to the original document by OCR software and image optimization have rendered it impossible to determine whether these inconsistencies are due to manual tampering, or are simply the result of the optimization and scanning process."; June 8, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman and Ballantine,

Both of you say I am a liar. John Woodman even says that I am an “absolute, bald-faced, disingenuous, unrepentant, morally-bankrupt, corrupt, shameless, dishonest, slimy, two-faced… (but presumably non-racist)… peddler of non-legal, non-historical fiction.”

Maybe both of you can show me where I have failed in my ways.

St. George Tucker said:

“Civil rights, taken in a strict and confined sense, as contradistinguished from natural and social rights, are such as appertain to a man as a citizen or subject, of this, or that, particular state or country; in his private and individual capacity as a free agent, and member of the body politic or state, in respect to the state or body politic; and contradistinguished from such as might be due to him as a magistrate, legislator, judge, or other public agent, character, or functionary. The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights.

These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.”

(1) Please reconcile your position on Tucker’s Footnote 10, which you say shows that St. George Tucker concludes that the Jefferson’s statutory laws of Virginia on citizenship and our early naturalization acts (1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802) were in agreement with Blackstone's jus soli English common law, with this part of the above quote from Tucker in which he tells us what the law “in the United States” is:

"These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens."

(2) After you are done reconciling your position on Footnote 10 with the referenced part of Tucker’s quote, then explain how Tucker could find a child to be a “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be elected president if that child was not born to “citizen” parents when Tucker tells us that:

a. “The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights.”

b. “These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens."

c. “The children of persons naturalized under any former law of the United States, or under the laws of any state, previous to the passing of any law of congress upon the subject, being under twenty-one years of age, at the time of the parents naturalization, if dwelling in the United States, shall be considered as citizens; and the children of citizens of the United States, wheresoever born, shall also be considered as citizens.”

d. “Persons naturalized according to these acts [1790, 1795, 1798, 1802], are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.”; June 9, 2012 at 1:02 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Ballantine says that I cannot read statutes. Well, let’s just see how well Ballantine can read those statutes:

In explaining our early naturalization acts and the U.S. law on citizenship, St. George Tucker said:

“The children of persons naturalized under any former law of the United States, or under the laws of any state, previous to the passing of any law of congress upon the subject, being under twenty-one years of age, at the time of the parents naturalization, if dwelling in the United States, shall be considered as citizens; and the children of citizens of the United States, wheresoever born, shall also be considered as citizens.”

So, tell us Ballantine, how do you get from “children of citizens of the United States, wheresoever born, shall also be considered as citizens” that Tucker was only talking about children born out of the United States? Do you want us to believe that Tucker, in telling us in his Commentaries what the U.S. law was on U.S. citizenship, forgot to tell us anywhere in his treatise how children who were born in the United States obtained their citizenship? If you contend that he did not so forget, then provide for us quotes from his Commentaries where Tucker informs us how children who were born in the United States obtained their citizenship.; June 9, 2012 at 1:13 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Mike Dunford,

Apart from all the existing evidence (although inconclusive) pointing to an Obama birth in Kenya (one example is the recent breitbart materials), Sheriff Arpaio has concluded that there is “probable cause” that both Obama’s internet birth certificate and selective service registration are forged. Hence, for Dr. Onaka to say that the information in the original birth certificate which is allegedly in the Hawaii vault and the internet birth certificate “match” is suspect. What is also suspect is that Dr. Onaka did not say that the two “documents” are exact mirrors of each other, i.e., that the internet birth certificate is a true and correct “copy” of the vault paper birth certificate. Again, Orly has also accused the Hawaii Department of Health of aiding and abetting in the fraud upon her clients and the court. Indeed, the veracity of Dr. Onaka’s self-serving Verification of Birth needs to be tested. The court should allow her the means to prove that fraud. Those means are subpoena of Dr. Onaka to testify in court under oath, which includes the demand that he bring with him the original documents upon which he relied to produce the Verificaiton of Live Birth, and his cross examination in open court.; June 9, 2012 at 1:58 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Mike Dunford 6-8-12 11:22 p.m,

It is evident from your comment that you believe that candidate Obama is entitled to some type of pass when it comes to Article II presidential eligibility.; June 9, 2012 at 2:02 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

Victoria Nicks, one of WND's computer experts, found:

"The changes made to the original document by OCR software and image optimization have rendered it impossible to determine whether these inconsistencies are due to manual tampering, or are simply the result of the optimization and scanning process."

So she found “inconsistencies” with the internet birth certificate. Why don’t these “inconsistencies” show up when this internet birth certificate is compared with the vault paper birth certificate of which Dr. Onaka speaks? How do we reconcile these “inconsistencies” with Dr. Onaka telling us that the two “documents” “match?” Are these “inconsistencies” just some insignificant electronic irregularity or more substantive?; June 9, 2012 at 2:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

Ms. Nicks is talking about pixel size, thresholding patterns, noise color variations and other artifacts introduced by the scanning and optimizing process.

Dr. Krawetz is talking about the effects of creating a pdf.

Dr. Onaka is talking about the actual information that is the pdfit lists Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital and so does the original birth certificate held by the DOH. Dr, Onaka compared box by box the information on the pdf with the same boxes on the original BC. It is those items that match each other.; June 9, 2012 at 2:50 AM
TQA said...: @Puzo1:
"It is evident from your comment that you believe that candidate Obama is entitled to some type of pass when it comes to Article II presidential eligibility."

I believe that President Obama is entitled to the same treatment - no more, no less - than was given to every one of the 43 people who held that office before him.; June 9, 2012 at 3:34 AM
Andy said...: @JayJay

You say:

"You, like so many of your OOPS Troops conterparts, show your almost complete lack of rational understanding. Each of those 8 or so items you put forth have been completely destroyed many times on a number of different sites."

But they have not done so with anything but innuendo, conjecture, and insinuation. Not with facts or with evidence.

You can claim that the publicist lied, but you have no evidence that they did. That would require finding the submission by Obama to the publishing house, which as I understand it, doesn't exist - which is wholly consistent with him NOT submitting it.

I don't care if his parents lived together or not. That matters not for presidential eligibility. The fact that you care whether his parents lived together shows an animus directed at this president not because of any eligibility question, but for some other, personal reason.

One person, name just one person with "exceedingly good forensic backgrounds" that show the various Birth Certificates are fraudulent. One.

Your standard that "anyone with any sensse [sic]" qualifies is not only preposterous, but probably showing a great lack of intelligence.

Show me one shred of evidence - again, not conjecture, innuendo, or insinuation - that Obama has ever committed fraud.

And I don't care if you are male or female, the "balls" term is used in accordance with your courage, knowledge (or lack thereof), and ability to defend your position.

You have thus far failed in all of the above categories.; June 9, 2012 at 4:00 AM
TQA said...: @Puzo1:
"Apart from all the existing evidence (although inconclusive) pointing to an Obama birth in Kenya (one example is the recent breitbart materials), Sheriff Arpaio has concluded that there is “probable cause” that both Obama’s internet birth certificate and selective service registration are forged."

Sheriff Arpaio is neither a judge nor a prosecutor. He has alleged that there is "probable cause" to believe that documents were forged, yet he has not involved a prosecutor, a grand jury, or any other law enforcement organization.

"Hence, for Dr. Onaka to say that the information in the original birth certificate which is allegedly in the Hawaii vault and the internet birth certificate “match” is suspect."

The only reasons you have given to suspect that Dr. Onaka's statement is suspect involve alleged "indications" of Kenyan birth that even you consider to be inconclusive (at my most charitable, I'd call them speculative, illusory, and/or wishful thinking), and "evidence" that the LFBC was forged based not on examination or analysis of anything that Hawaii sent the White House, but merely on examination of the pdf of a scan of that document.

At the same time, I'd note that Dr. Onaka appears to have a solid reputation within his field. He has been Registrar under Republican and Democratic governors. He is the State Registrar. The verification he issued is a legal document, it bears his signature and seal, was issued by one of the 50 states, and is self-authenticating evidence.

"What is also suspect is that Dr. Onaka did not say that the two “documents” are exact mirrors of each other, i.e., that the internet birth certificate is a true and correct “copy” of the vault paper birth certificate."

The Hawaii Department of Health is not in the forensic document examination business. The wording of HRS 338-14.3 does not provide for them to verify the documents. It provides for the verification of the information contained in the records.

"Again, Orly has also accused the Hawaii Department of Health of aiding and abetting in the fraud upon her clients and the court."

Orly has accused court clerks of sabotaging her suits, court reporters of deliberately tampering with transcripts, Judges of treason, unnamed miscreants of tampering with her car, and seems to be getting geared up to accuse the entire California elections system of rigging elections because the actual vote tally does not match the polls that she trusted. Orly accusing someone of something is hardly what I'd call weighty evidence of anything.

"Indeed, the veracity of Dr. Onaka’s self-serving Verification of Birth needs to be tested. The court should allow her the means to prove that fraud."

If she was going to accuse Dr. Onaka of fraud, she should have had some actual evidence before making the accusation.; June 9, 2012 at 4:07 AM
Andy said...: @Puzo1:

Tucker is speaking in a purely limited sense. He even references that in the next paragraph:

"Aliens, women, children under the age of discretion, ideots[sic], and lunatics, during their state of insanity, and negroes and mulattoes, though natives of the state, and born free, have no civil rights in Virginia, taken in this strict and limited sense. [emphasis added]

Now, we know that it isn't true that women and children had no civil rights whatsoever, so it would be reasonable that Tucker is making a rhetorical point in this section. (Though you couldn't tell that without the full quote of the subject, instead of cherry-picking it.)

Now, realizing that he is speaking only in a strict and limited sense, logic tells us that if I declare something true for one group, it does not necessarily make it untrue for another.

Stating that:
"These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens"

does not limit inheritance to only that group. What it does is affirm something which was already known: those with citizen parents, regardless of where they are born, usually receive the rights of their parents.

In Footnote 10, Tucker is demonstrating that for this particular set of laws (those establishing natural born citizens/subjects) that the laws of Virginia and the United States agree with that specific statement, which reads:

"The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges as 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." [emphasis original]

In this case, Tucker is speaking in the general sense, as we know from preceding text that there are exceptions to this rule: children of foreign dignitaries.

Your reading is either incompetent, or deceitful. It's up to you to choose which of those you'll take on as your mantle.; June 9, 2012 at 4:55 AM
James said...: It should be noted that MS and Hawaii have produced nothing. The verification itself is meaningless. If you read carefully the lawyer’s letter and Alvin Onaka’s response you will really see that it reveals nothing and proves nothing and is completely vague on point. At best it simply reveals Obama’s BC exists in Hawaii files. The lawyers asked Hawaii to verify the information on the birth certificate released by the White House with that of what Hawaii has. However, they failed to identify what information what they wanted verified and didn’t state that they wanted the BC to be verified in its entirety. This is a key point and argument because the lawyers failed to submit the proper and official form. In the official form found on the Hawaii DOH website, it identifies which elements of the vital record are to verified. In this case, certain information was asked to be verified by Hawaii and Hawaii verified that information. But we have no idea what that information was. The request in itself is too vague to be meaningful.

This might allow Orly to have cause to cross examine Onaka to determine just what information on the White House BC he verified. Orly can further argue that the White House BC lacks a seal and is a noncertified copy. Although it has been shown that White House BC does contain a seal, it requires special software to alter it to make the seal appear. Such alteration therefore would invalidate the White House BC. Any reasonable person can tell by just looking at the White House BC that there is no seal and is therefore a noncertified copy.; June 9, 2012 at 9:10 AM
ksdb said...: @4zoltan: The so-called Dr. Krawetz is a political hack. He has no proven expertise. He's simply a Fogger who resorts to the racism card after being debunked on his nonsense claims.; June 9, 2012 at 10:49 AM
jayjay said...: 4zoltan:

Actually, that IS true about the lack of recognzed experts defending Obama's documents and your desciption of a guy with a Computer Science degree who specializes in analysis of internal computer analysis of files that may or may not have been tampered with from the standpoint of computer viruses and other intentional discrepancies from a statistical, mathematical standpoint is idiotic.

Kraewitz - an Obama protector as are you - knows very little about fraudulent documents and has been soundly taken apart by people who DO know detailed aspects of document fraud and have worked extensively in that area of expertise. IOW he's a blowhard WRT the matter at hand, not the recognzed expert you hold him out to be. "Computer security" is quite a different thing from uncovering computer generated document fraud.

As for Victoria Nicks, I guess you mean THIS person whose words put the lie to your claim:

" Victoria Nicks, who holds both a Bachelor’s and a Master’s Degree in Information Technology, argues that the presence of “differently sized pixels” in the image released to the public April 27 by the White House indicates that it’s not “an exact duplicate of an original document scan.”

So you see, you're way off base on both counts. The OOPS Troops tactics of "I'll hold him while you hit him" are just not working, guy, since the truth puts the lie to your collective attempts. And your collective attempts at quoting partial inormation is also merely contributory BS.; June 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Carlyle said...: Here is an example of how desperate and disingenuous are the OBOTS. They get the cart before the horse and the process just backwards.

1. The burden of proof for eligibility of applicants for ANYTHING is ALWAYS on the applicant.

2. It requires an expert to definitively authenticate anything. But an amateur can de-authenticate. Consider the example of a counterfeit $20 bill. If the bill is almost perfect, it may take the deepest experts from the bowels of Treasury to determine that it is indeed authentic. But in contrast, even a junior trainee clerk at Walmart is able to spot simple forgeries. The point being that the Obama materials that Sheriff Joe has critiqued are so bad that even an amateur can tell that they have been doctored. Being doctored does not prove they are wrong - but it certainly raises questions and REQUIRES an enquiry. And, no doubt about it, they have been mucked with. Why? By whom? To what purpose? THOSE are the questions and yet some are still stuck on arguing something as clear as the nose on your face.; June 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM
jayjay said...: 4zoltan:

re the post where you tell us your notion of what 3 people are talking about:

"Ms. Nicks is talking about pixel size, thresholding patterns, noise color variations and other artifacts introduced by the scanning and optimizing process."

Dr. Krawetz is talking aout ...

Dr. Onaka is talking about ...
---------

Not only are your self-serving interpretations clearly incorrect as shown by Ms/ Nicks own statement for exampe, but they others are talking about information quite afield from demonstrating document fraud or lack thereof.

I'd say you need to sharpen your reading cognition considerably - or better yet just hang loose as we see the eligibility issue progress legally.

What would you say, 4zoltan, if the man who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies to be NOT ELIGIBLE???

How would that relate in your view to his personal manipulation and selection of both individuals and timing of those on the "kill list" - and to his repeated watching of the videos of these in private???

Would those ineligible acts speak for you? For all 300-plus million Americans???

What punishment should be meted out to such a person???

Interested Americans wish to know.; June 9, 2012 at 12:39 PM
James said...: Mario,

I believe Obama was born in Kenya - The evidence of a Kenyan birth is massive and compelling. In fact, when you looks at some the evidence, in most cases the evidence appears to cooborate one another.

I believe Hawaii is in on it and is covering up - I believe they have no choice but state that White House BC is their's because the White House BC contains Onaka's stamp of approval. I believe the Hawaii DOH has most likely forged a document for Obama using several birth certificates. They have also manipulated the Certificate numbering system to cover for Obama.

Why Hawaii refuses access to original is obvious. They are covering up. I found it interesting that Hawaii had spent so much time fighting Orly in court for what they deemed were frivilous suits rather than offer a compromise to Orly.; June 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM
James said...: Mario,

Regarding the verification sent to AZ SOS Bennett - I looked at verification form and find it very suspect that Bennett did not verify Obama's birth date. You would think that it would be the number #1 item Bennett wanted to verify. It is my understanding that when Bennett filled out the official form, he requested the birth date but Hawaii made Bennett "reword" his request thus removing the birth date from being verified. There is a reason for this and that reason goes into the very heart of the matter. Now in the MS case, the lawyers failed to fill out the official form and just wrote letter asking that "information" on the White House BC be verified. Alvin Onaka verified the "information" but we do know what "information" he verified because the request was too vague. That's why the official form exists. So applicants can request specific elements of a vital record. The official form is their prevent exactly what the lawyers in MS did; send something (a birth certificate, a piece or paper, and image on a computer screen or whatever) and ask that it be verified. The verification process does not work that way and is designed to verify specific elements cited in the request like the route Bennett took.; June 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM
jayjay said...: Mike Dunsford:

You seem to not recognize that Obama IS being accorded equal treatment as prior Presidents. Note that the "same" and "identical" are two different words (but you no doubt don't grasp that).

Unlike all prior Presidents (even the one most similar in the usurpation sweepstakes - C. A. Arthur) none of these men have ever had the massive heaps of evidence piled upon them pubicly(not even Arthur) showing that they have perpetrated a gross fraud upon the American people.

For this reason it is incumbent that all of America - even those of you who love this communist - join in insisting his natality and other early life records be made public for inspection and deliberation.

Please answer the question I posed earlier to 4zoltan about your determinations if the man who has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies should be found ineligible.

Certainly you are welcome to you opinion, and I truly wonder what it would be in this event especialy WRT the man's personal decisions/operation of the "kill list" which many presently argue is unconstutional as we speak.

What would his ineligibility mean to you in that event??? To 300 million plus Americans??? Inquiring minds want to know!!; June 9, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Andy said...: @James

Ironically, the law doesn't require ANY specific form for a verification in lieu of certified copy. Hawaiian law states:

"§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
     (b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
     (c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
     (d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
     (e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]"

So, you see, there is no requirement for a specific form. Onaka verified that all the information on the LFBC is correct according to the original record they have on file from 1961.

As per Mr. Bennett, the fact that he did not ask for the birth date to be verified is strange, but there is absolutely no proof, none whatsoever, that he was asked to reword his request for the purpose of leaving the birth date out.

As you can see from the emails, published at http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ken_bennett_birther_hawaii_arizona_emails.php, even Arizona didn't use the "official form" you are talking about. They sent an email.

The problem for Arizona was that they had to comply with the law as to WHO was allowed to receive it. Mr. Tepper and Begley easily fit that role, as a motion for sanctions in an active case was based around their resubmission (after Orly did so) of the LFBC. Mr. Bennett simply needed to demonstrate that he fell into the categories of people who needed a verification. The time wasted was on his part, for failing to show that need for so long.; June 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM
jayjay said...: Andy:

Your intended deflection words of "... innuendo, conjecture, and insinuation ..." are meaningless in the face of the ever-gowing piles of evidence against this man's eligibility. At some point there will be one single honest judge who is willing to face up to the fact that the law requires an actual hearing with physical evidence of things such as the actual natality documents, early life records, etc. and that the law must be followed rather than evaded by judicial fictions such as has been done so far ... things such as "... that court didn't have a hearing so we don't need to either; that court didn't need evidence to review, so we don't need to either ...".

Eventually the honest judge - no matter the political party - will have sufficient respect for the law and for the continued existence of our country as a constitutional republic and will step up to the plate and have a real trial. That will, indeed, be interesting.

As for those of you who use the defense "... all of the laws rulings, Executive Orders, etc. of the Obama Administration cannot be undone and would cause chaos ..." or words to that effect, I say - NONSENSE!! We've had Constitutional crises before in our history and have weathered them and this one will be weathered also.

As to the 1991 bio saying he was Kenyan almost every writer will tell you that the publicist has the author write the bio blurb or at the very least spprove its accuracy. Soon you'll be reduced to the argument that he merely lied about being Kenyan because it "sounded better" - but of course that implies that even in 1991 he knew he would run for President.

The not living together issue - which you seem to be admitting - doesn't matter a whit to me except that it is another piece of evidence in this massive chain of fraud. Your hint that I am somehow racist is also BS.

There are hundreds, including some in law enforcement, with adequate backgrounds in document manipulation determination and you're welcome to rebut each and every one of them in detail. I merely point out that this huge number of detailed descriptions of felony document fraud merely add to the stack of evidence against the man and that will not be cleared up by you and your ilk making spurious claims.

If you need "one shred" of evidence of a fraud committed by your communist hero you might start with his Bill Ayres-written book since, though not the first, it contains what seem to be hundreds of fraudulent elements.

As for your "balls" pejorative, it is you who will need them, not I, as the guy you attempt to defend goes down in the annals of history in flaming shame. The truth needs no "balls" - it is merely the truth.; June 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Mike Dunford,

You maintain that candidate Barack Obama has not been treated equally like all past Presidents.

Under equal protection, people similarly situated are to be treated equally.

The problem with your equal treatment argument is that you assume that candidate Obama is equally situated as all past presidents when it comes to the question of his place of birth. But the facts do not show that. I have demonstrated here that these facts put into doubt candidate Obama’s place of birth. Again, I am not aware of any past president

1. having gone around saying he was born in some foreign country. See breitbart.com. and the publicist 1991publication which says that Obama was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. Query: did he lie then or now?;

2. having his publicist for almost 20 years say he was born in some foreign country without taking any steps to correct the record if that were not true. See breitbart.com. Obama would have had to provide to his publicist his “resume.” A resume is pretty standard stuff in the “publicist” industry. A publicist just cannot print industry brochures saying someone is born in Kenya without having had gotten that information from the interested party. To say that the publicist just invented such information is absurd;

3. having his wife say that he was going to return to his “home” country (not the USA). I heard and saw her say it on video;

4. with family members who said he was born in some foreign country (Kenya). I heard the interview with the Kenyan grandmother with my own ears and read the translated transcript with my own eyes. A grandmother who loves her grandson would know where he was born. She said twice that she was present when Obama was born, which could not have been the United States which she had never visited at that time. She changed what she said (saying that Obama was born in Hawaii) only after being pressured by family members and others who were present during the interview;

5. about whom contemporaneous African newspapers and various American news accounts said he was born in some foreign country (I have read these newspapers with my own eyes);

6. about whom the Congress and the ambassador of some foreign country said he was born in that foreign country. I have read the official transcript of these Kenyan government proceedings with my own eyes and listened to the radio interview with the Kenyan ambassador with my own ears. The Minister of Lands of Kenya said Obama was born in Kenya. The Kenyan Ambassador said that President Obama’s place of birth in Kenya was well know and was going to be a tourist attraction;

7. whose USA hospital where he was allegedly born refused to confirm that he was born there. I have seen it with my own eyes. The hospital has publicly stated that it cannot either confirm or deny whether Obama was born there because Obama has not given his consent for them to make that information public. What a ridiculous position given that Obama has released to the public what purports to be his birth certificate which states that he was born in the hospital, Kapi’olani Hospital);

8. who refused to release his life bona fides (documents regarding place of birth, education, travel, and employment) when requested to do so so that the people can adequately vet him (this is well documented). For example, candidate Obama has refused to show how he was able to afford paying for his private education at Occidental College, Columbia, and Harvard. Also, he traveled to Pakistan in 1980 or 1981 but he has never publicly stated with what passport he traveled or provided the public with a copy of that document;

Continued . . .; June 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

9. who under the guise of privacy has refused to share with the people, who he is supposed to serve and whose consent he needs to be constitutionally elected, medical documents (pre-natal, natal, and post-natal hospital and doctor records) which would without doubt prove where he was born. If there is anything embarrassing in any of these records (I cannot imagine what that could possible be), he could simply redact that information. But he has never made any effort to produce to the public any such information;

10. who released to the public via the internet two birth certificates which various internet “experts” have demonstrated are of questionable authenticity;

11. who has released to the public his internet birth certificate and selective service registration causing a county sheriff of a country of one of our states (Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona) to conclude that after 6 months of investigation by his posse of former law enforcement officers and lawyers, there is “probable cause” that those documents are forgeries;

12. who is using a Social Security number issued from a state in which he never resided which when inserted into the E-Verify employment verification system is rejected for employment;

13. who has used so many other names such as Barack Obama, Barack Obama Hussein II, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah, and provided no explanation as to how those names originated or were created;

14. who has been sued in over 100 cases and in not one of those cases did he present a certified true copy of this alleged birth certificate;

15. who when challenged in New Jersey state court as to whether he has adequately shown himself to be eligible to run for the office of President concedes in a court of law that he has presented absolutely no evidence to the State of New Jersey as to who he is and where he was born and tells that court that he is not obligated to do so because he has no constitutional or statutory duty to prove who he is, where he was born, and that he constitutionally eligible for the office he seeks, and that in any event, even Mickey Mouse could run for president; and

16. who has accused people who inquire into who he is and where he was born as being racists.

I am not aware of the same circumstances existing with past presidents.

All of this does not conclusively prove that candidate Obama was not born in the United States or that he was born in Kenya. But what it does show is that more genuine effort should be made on his part to dispel the existing doubts regarding the place of his birth. There are millions of Americans who still doubt where he was born almost 4 years after his election. Do you think that should be or are these people just stupid?

From all of this it appears to me that the Obots have a conspiracy going in which they maintain that the Birthers have a conspiracy going.

For these reasons, it is not unreasonable to request of candidate Obama that he go just a little further and that he release to the public the requested documents and provide to the American public his bona fides (like the microfilm of his original birth certificate and pertinent and probative medical records) so that the question of his identity and place of birth may once and for all be answered.; June 9, 2012 at 1:59 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

Part 1 of 2

1. This is the second time that you've asserted that Mr. Obama said he was born with Kenya, and the second time to do so without evidence. Please provide some (and Breitbart doesn't work, as the publicist has specifically said that Obama never made that assertion.)

2. You make the assumption that he provided information to his publicist while the publicist specifically says otherwise. Either you are an incorrect, or she is lying, but their is no proof of the latter.

3. Many people claim heritage from another country via ancestors, and yet you insinuate this is somehow different for Mr. Obama? How is that so?

4. Have you ever listened to or read the ENTIRE interview? The one where she corrects the questioner and points out that he was born in Hawaii? If not, here's a link: http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2011/04/saraobama.mp3

Now listen to that and please admit that you were wrong.

5. Please provide sources to a 1961 newspaper who published that he was born in Kenya. A single one. Please. I've asked before, but you've proffered nothing.

6. Again, since the Iranian government has said the Holocaust didn't happen, that it didn't? Does the act of the Kenyan Parliament override the State Department's determination in Ms. Dunham's passport information stating that Obama was born in Hawaii?

7. Have you ever heard of HIPPA? I asked before, but you ignored it. I'm assuming it is because you KNOW that they cannot release any information of that nature.

8. Since when do presidential candidates need to release those documents. Please list other candidates in previous elections who did so. Is this a new trend, or historically based? If you're going to use this as an argument that he is being treated differently, you need to show the pattern that was established before.

9. Why would he need to? Have you seen any previous President's doctor's records? Again, you're arguing that he be treated the same, but can't provide any evidence that doing so would be treating him the same.; June 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Andy said...: Part 2 of 2

10. They have demonstrated the reason why internet "experts" aren't experts at all. In fact, some of those experts were ruled as "non-probative" in a Georgia hearing.

11. And he did what with that probable cause? Have any charges been filed? Has he accused anyone specifically of creating a forgery? Has he presented any of that to be examined by the courts or a prosecutor?

12. As you know, states do not issue Social Security Numbers. Only after your friend, Dr. Orly Taitz published his SSN dozens of times was it rejected by E-Verify. Can you demonstrate the she was not the cause of it's rejection?

13. There are plenty of explanations:

Barack Obama - Just first and last name. Common in Western Countries.
Barack Hussein Obama - Full name. Without suffix.
Barack Obama Hussein II - Full name. Incorrect order. (Never been shown to be used by Obama himself.)
Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah - Never been shown to be used by Obama in this combination.

14. There is no reason to present something that is not required. As you just learned from ALJ Masin and the Court of Appeals, there is no requirement for a candidate to present a birth certificate. Just because you want one does not the law make.

15. Yep. And you lost the case.

16. Find a single example of Mr. Obama saying this himself. One. Please.

You are working from innuendo and conjecture, just like the rest of the birthers. I expect more from you, Mr. Apuzzo. You are a lawyer, and an officer of the court.

You ask that he go a little further, and he has done so. He released his birth certificate in 2008. The birthers weren't satisfied, so he went the EXTRAORDINARY step of requesting a certified copy of the original birth certificate. That is above and beyond what any candidate has ever done.

At what point will you be satisfied? The goals are constantly moving, and I don't think that you will ever be satisfied. What is your real reason for pursing this, Mr. Apuzzo? Do you not like Democrats? Do you not like Mr. Obama personally? It isn't about the law, as you know full well what the courts have ruled in these 100 or so cases. What is the real reason?; June 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM
Andy said...: @JayJay

Thank you for not rebutting a single point, and for not providing any evidence.

The fact that you are unwilling to do so proves to me that you have absolutely no ground to stand on.

Have fun being crazy!; June 9, 2012 at 2:30 PM
James said...: Mario,

I should add:

The mailman's account that he was introduced to Obama as a "foreign student" is along the same time frame that a Marine stationed in Hawaii met Obama who told him was born Kenya and wanted to be president.

Tim Adam's account the he was told that no birth certificate existed for Obama seems to cooborate with Gov. Abercrombie's statement that he couldn't find the birth certificate but apparently found some unlisted state notation. Abercrombie told Mike Evans, a close friend, who then told dozens of radio stations his story. After the press started getting all over it, Evans suddenly backpedaled and the AG office ran interference for Abercrombie stating he couldn't release anything without Obama's consent.

May I further add that Kenya apparently dedicated a museum in Kenya in honor of Obama Jr. birth there.; June 9, 2012 at 2:39 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

You present your own spin (nothing but lame excuses) on what I have stated which is only expected.

The intelligent public can judge for themselves what I have written versus what you have written.; June 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM
Andy said...: @Mario:

Most of the intelligent public doesn't come to this site. Most people have no clue about the birther movement, and those that do think it's ridiculous. I do this simply as an academic exercise. It's nice to make a lawyer look stupid.; June 9, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

You just don't know how to tell one truth. You also have to lie about why you post on my blog.

You really are a pathetic human being, living in some fantasy world.

In any event, you really do need a lot more academic exercise to catch up.; June 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM
cfkerchner said...: The Marine again recently reported his statement of meetting Obama in Honolulu Hawaii in 1980 via YouTube. The Marine states Obama told him he was born in Mombasa Kenya, where the Marine had recently visited during a port call by his shp. This Marine's statement as well as the Ayers family postman's statement are both first hand experience with Obama circa 1986/1988 in Chicago IL and indications by the Ayers family to the postman that he Obama was foreign born. Add to these two first hand interactions with Obama and then the literary agent publishing the bio of Obama in 1991 through 2006 which facts therein undoubtedly came from Obama over a 17 year period clearly confirms that Obama was holding himself up to the world as a foreigner in the USA, Kenyan born.

Obama, as a foreigner, did not register for the draft and thus the need to back date and forge his draft registration when he decided to run for the Presidency. And thus his backers began their massive scrubbing and forgery campaign to hide the facts and statements of Obama made over decades. He was lying and committing ID fraud back in the 80s and 90s or is lying and committing ID fraud now. Either way Obama is a liar and has committed federal felonies and should be in jail, not in the Oval Office.
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/marine-1980-in-hawaii-obama-told-me-he-was-born-in-kenya-and-wanted-to-be-president/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org; June 9, 2012 at 6:04 PM
jayjay said...: Andy:

Well ... dipstrick ... where to begin? You seem so stuipd that you cannot recognize that all of your idiocy has been refuted - and by several people. I use the word "stupid" advisedly since to say "ignorant" would misstate the case as ignorance is merely temporary while stupid is forever.

Were you to enhance you cognitive dissonance, you might even come to realize (though that's unlikely) that in fact there is no "birther movement" NOR a "conspiracy theory" except in the lunacy ot those of you attempting to protect the unprotectable ... any such endeavors come solely from you.

Most rational people - and that obviously excludes the OOPS Troops - are merely trying to find out the truth about a man who has never shown himself eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

If he cannot do that he clearly is not eligible and his acts are an affront to all of us - you included whether or not you realize that.

I note too that you have not responded toe the question I posed about the man's actions with things auch as his personally directed "kill list" is he is not eligible. What is it a citizen called who kills others under color of authority when he has not that authority.

Perhas you don't care, EH??!!; June 9, 2012 at 6:11 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

You said:
"You just don't know how to tell one truth. You also have to lie about why you post on my blog."

Point out one lie I have told. One.; June 9, 2012 at 6:36 PM
js said...: Anyone ever try to dispute the fact that Obama was born a British citizen? Its a black and white issue.

Obama is a natural born subject of Britain. Natural born American Citizens are not born British Subjects.

End of story.; June 9, 2012 at 9:44 PM
James said...: Good Account Charles,

He have 2 first hard accounts from Obama...he's foreign born.

1. To a Marine - late 1980's

2. To Al the mailman through the Aryer's family - Late 1980's, early 1990's

3. To his publicist around 1991 or 1992.

The timing of all of these accounts seem well-placed and each account appears credible.

There is no doubt that in the late 1980's to early 1990's Obama was passing himself off as foreign born most likely born in Kenya.; June 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of VI

John Woodman,

You maintain that you have proven me wrong on St. George Tucker by making four points. Your points are 1. the Nicholas quote; 2. the meaning of “native-born; 3. who Tucker considered to be aliens; and 4. Footnote 10. I will now address each one of your points and show that none of them have merit.

1. The Colonel George Nicholas quote: The Obots, including you, John Woodman, have always snuck the Colonel George Nicholas quote in as though it were Tucker’s. But Tucker never adopted Nicholas opinion stated in the long Nicholas quote.

Here is the beginning of the quote: “A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. ‘Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.’”

Obama’s enablers have so abused this quote. They always left out the first part of the quote which shows that it was not Tucker’s position that he was stating, but rather only that of Nicholas. Tucker was only making reference to what Nicholas (if he is the reference as you contend) thought about state rights (states retaining power over local denization and setting qualifications for state offices) and not for any definition of who was a “citizen.” Only after I called them on it do they now start to give the full quote with the name of that “political writer” even being stated.

We can see from how Tucker defined citizenship, he did not approve of what Colonel George Nicholas said. He only repeated what Nicholas believed. Just like Tucker did not approve of Blackstone’s take on indelibility of allegiance. But he still states what Blackstone’s view was and then shows how Blackstone was wrong.

In Tucker’s Commentaries, Vol. 1, App. 254-59, Tucker comments on whether the states still had any power left to naturalize citizens after the Constitution was adopted. He gives some case law in which the judges said that they did. Then he gives another case which disagreed with those courts. Then he provides the quote from that “very respectable political writer” who Tucker said made “the following pertinent remarks upon the subject.” Tucker then quotes him. The reason Tucker quotes him is to show that there may still be a small area where the states did not give up their power to the federal government under the naturalization clause. That writer had taken the position that the states, while they gave up the right to naturalize aliens to the federal government, retained the right to make persons “denizens” (which had effect only in that state) and even to prescribe their own qualifications for holding state office. Tucker then concludes after quoting that writer at length:

“Now although the act of congress may operate to repeal this act, so far as relates to the rights of naturalization, or, a state of perfect citizenship, under the constitution and laws of the union; yet, as it respects the rights which the state hath power to grant, such as holding lands, or an office under the sole, and distinct authority of the state, I see no reason to doubt that the law is as valid at this day, as it was before the adoption of the constitution of the United States.”

Continued . . .; June 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of VI

Here, Tucker explained that the acts of Congress on naturalization abrogated any state naturalization statutes or laws. What is also most important is that Tucker said that only the federal government decided what “the state of perfect citizenship, under the constitution and laws of the union” would be. Here, there is not doubt that he is referring to one being a “natural born Citizen,” and calling that citizenship “perfect citizenship” which existed only under the constitution and national law. That national law would have been the law of nations and not the English common law. And that national law, as confirmed later by Minor v. Happersett (1875), defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Finally, Tucker explained that the states did retained the power to decide how titles to land and what state office qualifications would be.

So, all this talk that Tucker adopted jus soli citizenship, which is contained in someone else’s quote, is absurd at best and fraudulent at worst. Simply, Tucker never said what you say he said, i.e., that he accepted defining a “natural born Citizen” under the jus soli of English common law. On the contrary, all he did was quote someone else on an unrelated topic and then give his opinion on the matter. And that opinion contains that powerful quote on “perfect citizenship” which existed under the Constitution and national law, which was the law of nations and not English common law. Moreover, everything that Tucker wrote shows that he required birth to “citizen” parents in order for one to be a “natural born Citizen.”

2. The meaning of “native-born: You argue that since Tucker said that a “native-born” (which you contend means “born within a country”) could be President, he adopted the jus soli rule of English common law. But under the law of nations, “native” and “natural-born citizen” meant the same thing. Here is Vattel on the point: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). So under the law of nations (U.S. national law or federal “common law”), “native-born” meant born in a country to “citizen” parents, not only “born within a country.”

3. The definition of aliens by birth: Tucker said that “[a]liens by birth, are all person born out of the dominions of the United States, since the fourth day of July 1776, on which day they declared themselves an independent and sovereign nation, with some exceptions” which were in “favor of infants.” He then commented on Jefferson’s citizenship law of 1779 and 1783 and Congress’s early naturalization acts to show that infants followed the citizenship of their parents, showing that “the children of such persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,” also obtained the right to be “citizens of the United States.”

Continued . . .; June 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: III of VI

So, while Tucker explained that aliens were all those born out of the dominion of the United States,” he also explained how their minor children, born in the United States, became “citizens of the United States.” He showed that under the early naturalization acts, those children became “citizens of the United States” at the time their alien parents naturalized if they did so prior to the child reaching the age of majority and the child was dwelling in the United States at that time.

4. Footnote 10: Tucker 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. On the contrary, Footnote 10 can be read in two other ways which show that your interpretation is incorrect.

a. Condition A is accordant with condition B interpretation

What does “accordant” mean today. If we consult The Free Dictionary at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/accordant , we learn that the word is used to show that the stated matter is in agreement with what follows the state matter. Here is how the term is defined: “accordant”

“adj (usually postpositive and foll[owed] by with) in conformity or harmony.”

1. “[B]eing in agreement or harmony; often followed by ‘with’; ‘a place perfectly accordant with man’s nature’-Thomas Hardy.”

2. “[I]n keeping; ‘salaries agreeable with current trends’; ‘plans conformable with your wishes’; ‘expressed views concordant with his background’ . . . sometimes followed by ‘with’ . . . ‘testimony consistent with the known facts’; ‘I have decided that the course of conduct which I am following is consistent with my sense of responsibility as president in time of war’-FDR.”

Merriam Webster provides this example: “a decision accordant with previous policy regarding unpaid leave.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accordant .

Continued . . .; June 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: IV of VI

What did “accordant” mean when Tucker used in 1803? In defining the word “fair,” “alongside the meaning ‘according to custom, appropriate’ we find (as defined by the Middle English Dictionary [1100-1500]) ‘accordant with truth, reason, approved practice, or justice; right, proper, sound; equitable, impartial, just’ and ‘morally good and proper’, as well as ‘highly to be approved of; splendid, excellent; fine, good.’” http://keywords.pitt.edu/keywords_defined/fair.html . We can tell from the title of this book how the word “accordant” was used in England in 1857. Richard Ball, The Perpetuity of a Seventh-Day Ordinance, Accordant With Scripture Testimony and the Course and Constitution of Nature 36 (2nd ed. London 1857) (“And how accordant with the analogy of Scripture”). So we can safely presume that the word was used then the same as it is used today.

What this means is that when using “accordant,” the writer will state condition A and condition B and then say that condition A is accordant “with” condition B. Since the “with” follows the word “accordant,” condition A will be in agreement with condition B which follows it. But in the sentence, the compared condition (condition B) is stated after the antecedent condition with “accordant with” placed between the two compared conditions (e.g. condition A accordant with condition B).
What this means is that when Tucker in Footnote 10 first stated “10. L. V. Edi. 1794, c. 110. L. U. S. 1 Cong. c. 3. 7 Cong. c. 28” (condition A) and then “accordant,” we have to determine with what these cited laws were in agreement (condition B). In other words, Tucker had to cite some other thing after the word “accordant” to show with what the first cited laws agreed.

So Tucker first gave the Virginia law on citizenship and the two Congressional naturalization acts (condition A). Then he said “accordant.” The question then becomes with what are those cited laws in agreement. Since the thing with which those laws was being compared comes after those cited laws, we have to look to see what followed in Tucker’s explanation. In other words, we have to look for condition B. When we exhaust the reading of footnote 10, we have to return to the main text. The next thing that follows those cited laws is the sentence: “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.” So what Tucker says is that the Virginia citizenship statute and the two Congressional Acts (condition A) were in conformity, agreement, harmony with the French constitution and its jus sanguinis rule of citizenship (condition B).

We know that Tucker considered those U.S. laws to be in agreement with the principle that children followed the condition of the parents because earlier in his treatise, he discussed at length John Locke. He relies on Locke to show that William Blackstone was wrong in saying that a person could not expatriate. He shows through, among other sources, Locke, that persons did have the natural right to expatriate. His discussion of Locke also shows that Locke believed that children, during their years of minority, had no capacity to consent and that when they reached adulthood, they could make decisions on their own. In the area of citizenship, this meant that a child inherited the citizenship of his/her parents and could accept that choice by tacit consent upon reaching the age of majority or throw off that choice by expatriation.

Continued . . .; June 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: V of VI

This statement by Tucker also supports the idea that Tucker agreed with the French constitution: “These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens." Here we can see that Tucker consider all those who
were “citizen” and not born to “citizen” parents to have been naturalized. He considered those who were born to “citizen” parents to have inherited their citizenship by nature and not by naturalization. These “citizens” would have been the “natural born Citizens.”

This explanation by him informs that he rejected, not only Blackstone’s notion of indelibility of allegiance, but also his jus soli English common law rule of citizenship.

He accepted the French constitution’s (the law of nations) jus sanguinis rule of citizenship and the law of nation grant to individuals of the natural right of expatriation.

You have to date not been able to explain what Tucker meant by this statement. Please explain what Tucker meant by: “These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens."

More evidence that this is the correct reading of Footnote 10 is Tucker’s explanation of who were “[a]liens, in the United States . . . at present.” He included “all persons born out of the dominion of the United States, since the fourth day of July, 1776, . . . with some few exceptions.” He then explained how the citizenship laws of Virginia and the early naturalization acts naturalized the children of those persons born out of the dominions of the United States. In Virginia, for children “‘wheresoever born’” (meaning born in or out of Virginia) they could not be “citizens” unless born to “citizen” parents. Since the Virginia statute did not naturalize children born in Virginia to alien parents at the time their parents naturalized, he then shows how the early naturalization acts of Congress filled in the lacuna. He cited the Naturalization Act of 1802 and explained that that statute provided that “the children of such persons duly naturalized dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization” shall be considered as “citizens of the United States.”

What is interesting to note here is that in the James McClure case, the South Carolina naturalization statue, like the Virginia one, did not naturalize the children of persons naturalizing in South Carolina and so it was initially decided that McClure was not naturalized like his father. But then the James Madison Administration ruled that the Naturalization Act of 1802 filled the void by providing retroactively that any such child would be made a “citizen of the United States” under that federal statute. They then ruled that McClure was a naturalized “Citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802.

Continued . . .; June 9, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: VI of VI

So, your reading of Footnote 10 is backwards. The Virginia citizenship laws and early naturalization acts were “accordant” with what followed in Tucker’s writing, i.e., the French constitution and its jus sanguinis citizenship, not with what preceded Tucker’s writing, i.e., Blackstone’s jus soli English common law. My position is supported by both how the word “accordant” is used in the English language and also by what Tucker actually wrote in other parts of his treatise.

b. Condition B is accordant with condition A which immediately precedes condition B in the string citation (e.g., Condition A; Condition B. accordant)

Tucker cited the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Cong. c. 3) immediately followed by the Naturalization Act of 1802 (7 Cong. c. 28). He followed the latter with “accordant.” The other possible way that Tucker used “accordant” is therefore to show that the Naturalization Act of 1802 (7 Cong. c. 28) was “accordant” with the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Cong. c. 3), meaning that the 1802 act was in agreement with that of 1790.

As we can see, there is no merit to your four points of contention which you make against my position that St. George Tucker supports my position that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.; June 9, 2012 at 11:43 PM
cfkerchner said...: James: The event told by the Marine took place in the year 1980 in Honolulu HI, per the Marine.

The event told by the Postman is more variable as to what year. Best surmise is that it took place circa 1986/1988 in/near Chicago IL.

Then in 1991 of course the bio for Obama was presented to the world to try and sell O's first book.

All the accounts by Obama over several decades say Obama was foreign born and continued that way up until 2006/2007 when Obama was prepping for a run for the Presidency and he had to scrub the foreign born ID that he was living up until then.

Either he was lying then and committing felony ID fraud then or he's lying now. Either way he's a liar and a fraud and should be prosecuted and put in jail.; June 10, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Andy said...: @Mario

Your explanation of Tucker's footnote 10 is so off base as to be comical.

If Tucker is stating that the Virginia law and the Naturalization act agree with French law, why would he use the phrase "In which the constitution of France differs from ours"?

If they agree, who were they different?

That is, of course, simply ignoring the fact that he uses the same pattern (citation-accordant) throughout the book, and at no point does it make sense to follow the pattern you just described.

It would be inconceivable to put the footnote BEFORE the statement - it just isn't done. And, in fact, a cursory glance at Tucker's writing reveals that he puts his footnotes after text, not before.

You just twisted logic so much that I'm not sure you even understand how wrong you were. Wow.; June 10, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Andy said...: @cfkerchner

"All the accounts by Obama over several decades say Obama was foreign born and continued that way up until 2006/2007 when Obama was prepping for a run for the Presidency and he had to scrub the foreign born ID that he was living up until then.

Either he was lying then and committing felony ID fraud then or he's lying now. Either way he's a liar and a fraud and should be prosecuted and put in jail."

Can you provide one example of Obama, himself, actually saying that he was born in Kenya. Just one. If you cannot, you've just lied. Are you a liar, Mr. Kerchner?; June 10, 2012 at 3:20 AM
js said...: Why do you persist in lying John Woodchuck? You are just as bad as reality chuck, but twice as consitent (consistently WRONG...got that!!)

You never posted a SINGLE CASE establishing ANY PRECIDENT demonstrating that any court has ever ruled that a child born with foreign citizenship (with an alien father who NEVER intended to establish residency) was a NATURAL BORN Citizen. Dont pull the same BS and give us something that confirms CITIZENSHIP. The US Constitution identifies that an NBC and a Citizen are NOT THE SAME.

Your hogwash here is knee deep. You ignoring this issue will only confirm that you are nothing but a troll.; June 10, 2012 at 7:09 AM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

A very good treatise on Tucker!!

In fact it illustrates the "lacuna" that almost all of these OOPS Troops have at the top of their heads ... but I suppose that might be "lacunae" since there are, after all, a relatively small handful of them.

"John Woodman" seems to be like Sherlock Holmes in only one regard that is obvious when Holmes said:

"Malingering is a subject upon which I have sometimes thought of writing a monograph."

Thanks for your detailed St. George Tucker monograph. It makes sense on several levels.

Why is it, do you suppose, that these OOPS Troops are so fearful of the truth that they continuously try to hide, obfuscate, and conver up the finding out thereof???

Perhaps it is for the same reason they will not answer my question about the appellation of a man (who has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies) who takes delight in deciding and going ahead with the well-known "kill lists" should this man be found not eligible?

There's a word for it - these fans of his just can't seem to bring themselves to face up to reality and say what that word might be.; June 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM
Frank Bailey said...: It is hard to imagine that someone who claims to be an attorney can display such incompetence as Mario Apuzzo. He might be slightly more competent than Orly Taitz. However she has the excuse that she never really went to a law school and she is probably out of her gourd.

For example, Apuzzo attacked the latest verification statement from Hawaii on several ridiculous grounds without even bothering to read it. He couldn't even get the state where the court was located correct.

Next he makes this statement:

"What the attorneys and Dr. Onaka have done is an end run around having to present to the court the “real deal” (Donald Trump) birth certificate under the guise of presenting a Verification of Birth.

In support of her allegation of fraud upon the court, Ms. Taitz should be able to subpoena Dr. Onaka to court and direct that he bring to court the documents upon which he relied to produce his verification, i.e., all the original vital records which include the alleged original birth certificate. She should also subpoena to court the microfilm of the alleged birth certificate and any available pre-natal, natal, and post-natal medical records for Barack Obama and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Should Dr. Onaka refuse to honor the subpoena, then Ms. Taitz should move to strike the Verification from the record."

This statement reaches pure Taitzian level of BS. No serious attorney would make this claim. First, the verification was only submitted because Taitz accused the defense, who submitted a readable copy of the President's birth certificate, of submitting a fraudulent document. Taitz had already submitted the document as an exhibit. The court first will address the motions for summary judgment by the Mississippi Democratic Party and the State Attorney General. President Obama’s pace of birth is not even an issue in those motions. If the President’s place of birth becomes an issue at some point (possibly when the court takes up sanctions) the verification would establish the President’s place of birth as a self-authenticating document. Taitz’s nonsense claims of fraud base on the musings of self-appointed amateurs would not even be accepted in evidence. None of them court ever pass muster as a qualified expert witness.

When you read Apuzzo’s verbose misinterpretations of the writings of the founding fathers and the opinions of the Supreme Court it becomes quickly apparent why his has never won a single case and why he never will. He has not only lost in court but he has been embarrassed by non-attorneys like Frank Arduini , John Woodman, and others on multiple blogs and forums.

At this point Apuzzo probably has too much invested in this to ever admit he is wrong. He has to keep up appearances you know. If he continues to try out legal skills in the courts then judges, who have the final say in this, will continue to find his arguments, frivolous, without merit, and at some point will enforce sanctions.; June 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM
jayjay said...: Andy:

You and the others of the OOPS Troops here seem to delight in the tactic known as "I'll hold him and you hit him" by attempting to gang up on a poster you disagree with - a common technique used by other blog-terrorists who do not respect and do not have the truth on their side.

In this manner one of you can state a "maltruth" and the followup gangsta' can swear to it and insist that the BS is true and that the object of your attack(s) is either lying or a fool. Trouble is ... it is you collectively who are the frauds and your writings and tactics here make that abundantly clear.

Let's just stop all this and have an honest court review both the law and the genuine evidence (and, NO, that doesn't mean all the BS you and your pals have offered over the years; it means REAL genuine original documents of the actual hospital-generated BC and other natality and early-life documents).

A real court - as opposed to the various kangaroo court charades so far - will soon make short shrift of the eligibility matter and we can then take any appropriate action.; June 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Frank Bailey,

It is unfathomable the degree of incompetence that you display. For example, in your comment you make these statements:

(1) “President Obama’s pace of birth is not even an issue in those motions.” This is sheer incompetence. The whole world knows that there is no issue in the case regarding how fast Obama came out of his mother’s womb. The issue is Obama’s place of birth. Can you just imagine such stupidity.

(2) “None of them court ever pass muster as a qualified expert witness.” Here you are really confused. You think that Orly is trying to pass off the court as an expert rather than the persons she would call into court to testify on the reliability of the birth certificate. I doubt very much that Orly would want the court rather than her real expert to qualify as an expert.

I hope your next post does not display the level of incompetence that you have displayed so far.; June 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM
jayjay said...: Frank Bailey:

Being exceedingly soft-hearted I'll be overly generous to you and rather than accept your typo (which I judge it to be) of "... pace of birth ..." when you must surely have meant "... place of birth ...", I'll pass that unremarked.

It is quite clear that pace OR place you do not grasp the real issue involved here of eligibility. We have a man who has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies and we (the American body politic) are asking that he do that. You and the other OOPS Troops are valiantly battling against such exposure using every tactic of derision, personal smear, incomplete statements, and outright lies to try to keep this man from having to show that he IS eligible. THAT'S PECULIAR!!!

You're fighting a losing battle and one would think that by this time you would realize that ... but perhaps stupidity is its own reward.

There are millions of people who realize this man has been (and is) hiding his eligibility behind a phalanx of secrecy and all-too-pliant voters for him and officials in all levels of government who are frightened out of their wits by threats real or implied dire things made to them. This of course includes the "mainstream media" and its outsized commentators such as O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. All these folk are given to feel in no uncertain terms that they are sitting upon a powder-keg that (should they say anything untoward about eligibility) will explode under them and take not only them but their livelihood and their loved ones to eternity - or at least force them into honest and lower-paying work.

Why is it you all do not want to know the truth but rather insist on hiding it???; June 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM
Teo Bear said...: To Frank Bailey AKA Beetle Bailey,

While Mario was out putting his good name on the line for the Constitution, your Obama was hiding. Hiding like the theif he is, hiding like a petulent child who was called forth to tell the truth.

He is the first affimitave action pResident in history. He needs his threats of race wars to keep the justices from hearing the truth, I can go on and on with he needs, he needs, because he has nothing to show.

Here is the best part he still needs Hawaii to hide behind, because his forgers screwed the pooch. No typewriter can do what the forgery shows, he never show a real document even if the paper was from the 1960's, a microscope would show the letters are pixelated.

So what does you home-boy have? Only candidates for retroactive abortion like yourself and all the little obots.; June 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM
Unknown said...: For a fraction of the money Obama has spent protecting his records and the fees he has had to pay for attorneys to show up in court when his eligibility is challenged, he could have easily hired several document experts to go to Hawaii and verify his birth certificate. In fact he could have allowed a non-partisan group to chose these court approved experts. This would have been the sensible course of action; additionally it would have saved him a lot of trouble and explaining. To me it seems rather perverse to tease people about your origins. And to have t-shirts designed with your supposed birth certificate projected onto them. This seems like the behavior of a high school fellow who wants attention.; June 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM