Friday, September 18, 2009

“Simply Saying Something Is So Does Not Make It So” — Judge Land, Rhodes v. Obama

On September 16, 2009, the Hon. Clay D. Land of the United States District Court in Georgia dismissed Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D.’s action against Obama and the military, finding that the court had to abstain (when a court declines to hear a matter because of comity and respect for the unique military decision-making process) from deciding the case because for the court to exercise its jurisdiction would be an inappropriate intrusion into military matters. In his opinion, Judge Land said that Obama’s “ ‘short-form’ birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. . . .” In deciding the abstention issue, even though there has not yet been any discovery allowed in the case, the Court commented on the underlying merits of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs on the question of Obama’s place of birth. In discussing what evidence the plaintiffs rely upon to show that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims, Judge Land address the Lucas Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate and said the following in Footnote 5:

“One piece of evidence Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying ‘a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy’ of the document. (Smith Decl. Para. 7, Sept. 3, 2009). Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.”

Obama wants to be President and Commander in Chief. He therefore has to show that he is eligible for the position. This means he has to conclusively prove, among other things, that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Given that his father was not a U.S. citizen and his U.S. citizen mother was too young when Obama was born and therefore could not transmit U.S. citizenship to him should Obama be born out of the United States, Obama must first conclusively prove that he was born in the United States and was subject to its jurisdiction when born, thereby making him a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen.” Once he conclusively proves that fact, he must then conclusively show that he is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, a showing that he cannot make because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen.

On the threshold question of place of birth, Obama has posted on the internet a computer image of an alleged Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) (not a Hawaiian long-form Birth Certificate). Regarding the place of birth issue, Judge Land said that he could not accept the Lucas Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate as reliable because plaintiffs’ counsel did not “produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.” But let us consider what Obama has produced to show that he was born in Hawaii. We know that he posted on his web site the image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) as proof that he was born in Hawaii. But we also know that numerous people have questioned the authenticity of this computer image. There have been allegations by some “experts” that the electronic image is a forgery. Many people have demanded that Obama produce to some official government authority for inspection an actual piece of paper which was used to produce the on-line image of the COLB. Many people have demanded to see the real long-form birth certificate so that conflicting information (including but not limited to statements made by Obama’s own family, Kenyan government officials, and African newspapers) regarding his place of birth can be put to rest. Numerous people have demanded that Obama release to the public the many other documents (education, travel, and employment) which can corroborate his birth place claim but he has refused to do so. Neither Obama nor the State of Hawaii nor any governmental entity or official has provided this information to the American public.

Judge Land found that because Obama overcame a “grueling” primary campaign and a “formidable opponent” [McCain] in the general election, “ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought.” But what Judge Land described is a political process that works well when a candidate does not hide virtually all his important papers (including his real birth certificate). Indeed, we must also remember that there is also a legal process to any election which must be respected for that election to have any legitimacy in a Constitutional Republic. Given our standard of what the rule of law means, are we to simply accept an internet image of a document that, given the existing contradictory evidence, does not in itself conclusively prove that Obama was born in Hawaii and which in no way erases the many doubts that still exist regarding the place of Obama’s birth?

I understand that when a party presents a document to a court of law as evidence, that party must satisfy the rules of evidence for that court to receive that document into evidence. A judge confronted with such a document is bound by the law to apply the rules of evidence when deciding whether or not to accept that document into evidence. I therefore cannot fault Judge Land for his decision to refuse to consider the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate. I am also not suggesting that this birth certificate has been shown to be authentic. But what Judge Land ruled regarding the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate raises a much more important point. Judge Land was not willing to accept the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate because as he said counsel did not “produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.” But he automatically and without question in effect accepted Obama’s on-line image of an alleged “short-form” birth certificate (the COLB) without Obama or anyone on his behalf producing the same “original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.” Why did Judge Land not apply the same evidence standard to Obama’s on-line COLB as he did to the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate? I understand that Obama was not attempting to introduce the internet image of his COLB or the paper version thereof into evidence and so Judge Land did not have to rule on the admissibility of that evidence. Nevertheless, if we are committed to learning what is the truth regarding Obama’s place of birth, should we not expect Judge Land in his comments to treat all documents equally until each document’s reliability can be sufficiently confirmed?

Should not the Court have been much more concerned with the question of whether a person occupying the Office of the President and Commander in Chief is truly born where he says he was than it was with the question of whether the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate was authentic and therefore admissible into evidence? Something is wrong when a Court does not accept the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate because there is no government agency certification as to its authenticity but it accepts an unconfirmed, on-line electronic image of a document that is not even a birth certificate as the only piece of hard evidence that allegedly shows that the President was born in Hawaii. Just like Judge Land rejected the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate because no one presented “an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document,” should he not also have reject Obama’s internet-posted COLB since he also never provided any such authentication document to the American people or to any competent government agency? Should we not be more concerned with making sure that the computer image of the COLB which Obama presented to the public and the actual paper version thereof and the long-form birth certificate are authentic than with making sure that the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate presented in a court proceeding is authentic? I believe the answer is obvious. In short, is Obama’s evidence as to where he was born any better or even worse than that of Captain Rhodes’ evidence?

Why have some allowed such a double standard to exist? Why should anyone protect Obama to the point that he or she is willing to risk the nation’s very survival? What is so wrong in confirming whether something is true, especially when one can suffer devastating consequences if it is false? Is the price for knowing the truth about Obama's birth place and whether he is an Article II "natural born Citizen" so heavy that we just have to accept things the way we are told they are? Let us hold Obama to the same Alice in Wonderland standard Judge Land used in the Rhodes case-“simply saying something is so does not make it so.” And let us also remember that the emperor could have no clothes.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831


Greg said...

Why did Judge Land not apply the same evidence standard to Obama’s on-line COLB as he did to the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate?

Did you not see the part about the absurdity of claiming to be protecting the Constitution while also shifting the burden so that the defendant has to disprove the allegations?

giveusliberty1776 said...

Taitz showed Land the wrong B/C. She should have used the internet COLB forgery team Obama was using to fool the American public.

How would have Land reacted to that piece of garbage?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

May I have the pleasure of one case citation that supports such an absurd proposition.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Today, Friday, September 18, 2009, at about 4:15 p.m., I telephoned the Chambers of Judge Simandle to inquire about the status of his decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint/petition and my cross-motion for leave nunc pro tunc to file the second amended complaint/petition. The defense motion and my cross-motion were scheduled for decision on August 3, 2009 and August 17, 2009, respectively. I spoke to Judge Simandle's law clerk, Emma. I asked her if there was any word on when we can expect a decision. She said that she was not able to give me any time line on when we can expect a decision. She said that it will take some time for the judge to get to complete all his outstanding obligations. She said that when the judge makes a decision, it will appear on the court's docket. She added that no more than that can be said. Finally, she said that no more from me needed to be done for the Court to rule.

I guess that leaves us still in the waiting mode. They said that patience is a virtue. Too bad they never told us how much.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

smrstrauss said...

In this case, the supposed Kenyan birth certificate was introduced into evidence. The COLB was not.

When the judge ruled that the supposed Kenyan birth certificate did not have any authentication from the Kenyan government, he was referring to the need to authenticate a document introduced into evidence. He did not ask for authentication of the COLB because it was not introduced into evidence.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


If you will read my article more carefully you will see that I have already covered your point.

Teo Bear said...

It is a very good assessment of the double standard the courts are placing on those who challenge the Usurper.

I never thought I would live to see the day when the federal courts were afraid to enforce the Constitution.

It is now starting to remind me of how the King, Parliament, his ministers and his judges acted towards are Founding Fathers in 1774.

Incredulous said...

Cheney entertained objections in the electoral counts in 2005, but not 2009. Wonder why?

Incredulous said...

Since you wrote: "Judge Land was not willing to accept the Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate because as he said counsel did not “produce an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.” But he automatically and without question in effect accepted Obama’s on-line image of an alleged “short-form” birth certificate (the COLB) without Obama or anyone on his behalf producing the same “original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document.”"

Why can't Obama's COLB be introduced as a piece of evidence by the plaintiff and thus be placed under the same scrutiny?

And insofar as the "double standard" such as Cheney not entertaining objections in 2009 (you can clearly see a member with his hand raised in the video who was IGNORED *applause applause applause*) but he did entertain them in 2005 (Stephanie Tubbs, about 'voting irregularities' ha)...and ALL he corrupt judges, including Roberts with his "oopsie" on the oath and then a secret oath given...
They have to be co-conspirators in this communist takeover. If they were true patriots they could never have betrayed the nation thusly even if there were dozens of severed horse heads left on their Sertas.
These people had to have been installed carefully over time, such that none of them would uphold their duties at the critical hours.
Clinton removed the question about communist affiliation from the background check form. None of Obama's cabinet, Czars, nor himself would have passed the old one. The unearned vilification of McCarthy has reached the popular media.
Obama himself with intense ties to a proven criminal organization ACORN should have his security clearance ripped away, which he shouldn't have ever gotten anyway with his British citizenship.

This is corrupt through and through, Obama is dismembering the USA systematically. At least people are awakening to the "preposterous" idea that this is what it is...a communist takeover, which is nefarious, transitioning from befuddlement and frustration to the realization that we are under attack from within. It's like the first 911 jet, "was that an accident?"...then came the second. Well in terms of what Obama's already done to the nation we are on the 5th or 6th jet and there's no more need to wonder.

Greg said...

May I have the pleasure of one case citation that supports such an absurd proposition.

You talking to me? The plaintiff generally has the burden of proof in a case. See Wigmore on Evidence: "The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion."

See Treatise on American Election by McCrary and McCune: "The presumption always is, that a person chosen to an office is qualified to fill it, and it is never incumbent upon him to prove his eligibility."

Unknown said...

Dear Mr. Apuzo,
Respectively Sir, I sense that the law clerk is in the way of the judge. Is there diligence on your part to seek just who the clerk is. Given the law breaker's in these days intentional take every opportunity to
thwart our good laws and ethics.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Candid Blogger,

Judge Land said "Simply Saying Something Is So Does Not Make It So." Hence, what Ms. Fukino SAID is not sufficient to prove that which she SAID happened or did not happen. Just like Judge Land wants to see OFFICIAL WRITTEN AUTHENTICATION regarding the alleged Smith Kenyan Birth Certificate, we also want to see THE SAME regarding Obama's alleged (1) computer-imaged "Certification of Live Birth" (COLB); and (2) original, long-form "Certificate of Live Birth"(BC), in whatever form it may be. Simply stated, we should not be operating by a double standard. Remember that the only thing that Obama has published to the world (which includes the Electoral College, Congress, and all the courts that have decided cases (not the merits of those cases) regarding Obama's eligibility is the computer-imaged COLB.

The two newspaper announcements standing alone have no probative value because they were generated from the same source that SAID the birth event occurred and which forms the basis of the alleged COLB or BC. We do not know who provided the information to the newspapers that forms the basis for the announcements. Hence, those announcements alone do not provide any additional corroborating evidence by which we can judge the veracity of the alleged computer- imaged COLB or some underlying, unseen, and unverified BC. That missing corroborating evidence (root evidence) would be, for example, (1) who provided the underlying birth event information that was used to generate the birth announcement (e.g. was it a hospital, doctor, nurse, government official, or was it a family member or friend), (2) the name and address of the birth hospital, (3) the name of the delivering doctor and nurse or midwife in attendance, (4) medical records confirming the birth event, and (5) any other reliable information tending to prove the facts alleged.

The key point is that there is a critical difference between what someone tells us happened or did not happen and what someone proves to us happened or did not happen by whatever standard of proof we as a community agree to apply in that particular case. In other words, we do not accept something to be real on the simple premise that someone told us it is real. Under normal circumstances, assuming we are being honest, and depending on the importance of what is being told to us (like that someone is eligible to be the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military), we would demand corroborating proof of what someone tells us happened or did not happen.

For example, a mortgage broker who wants to procure a mortgage for an applicant can either confirm with corroborating evidence (obtaining and examining reliable documents, interviewing people who may have pertinent information, or personally examining conditions alleged by the applicant to be true or not true that proves the underlying information that the applicant is telling the broker) whether that person truly qualifies for the mortgage and in doing so is being honest to the employer and the community, or the broker may simply accept everything the applicant tells the broker (SAID to the broker) without confirming whether it is true because the broker is more interested in receive a quick remuneration or some other intangible benefit than in knowing what the truth is and thereby properly doing his/her job. In a system that is honest and operates in good faith, which broker do we want, the first or the second? I say in such a system because in a system that is not so, whether we demand corroborating evidence or not (whether we turn a blind eye or not) will depend upon what is personally at stake for the examiner (e.g., money, political and social power, social standing, career, etc.).

Given that you are the "Candid Blogger," I hope this information will be of some use to you in your endeavors to continue to be so.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Greg said...

For example, a mortgage broker who wants to procure a mortgage for an applicant

We're not in that example any more.

We're talking about an applicant who has been living in the house he bought with that mortgage he applied for and got. Now, you want to have him thrown out of that house.

If you haul that guy into court, he's presumed to have gotten the loan lawfully. Just as Obama is presumed to be eligible.

That's why YOUR evidence has to be pretty good. More than hunches. More than deliberate misreadings of Wong Kim Ark. More than lies about travel bans. You need ACTUAL, REAL, EVIDENCE, which you simply do not have!

Incredulous said...

Then Barack should regularly "pay his proof" like a mortgage-holder has to make his payments each month. The presidency nor a mortgage are any gift, and either should be taken away if the recipient is unqualified.

Why can't Barack's forged photoshop COLB be introduced into evidence AS a forged document? Then wouldn't "he" have to prove that it's legitimate evidence?

cfkerchner said...

Posted on behalf of JustOnePeople of Country First Forum:

Hi Mario,

I just sent you the information I just found for SC Law for Primary Election Ballots it was revised 6/19/07 SC R108, S99

He had to be Certified as eligible no later than noon on November 1st,2007 to be in the SC Primary Elections, held on February 3,2008. On this site it says he was on the ballot. Here is the website I found on the SC Primary Elections.

Who certified him in 2007? The DNC didn’t do it until 8/28/08. This is something you may wish to look into for your lawsuit. Comments from you about this would be welcome.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


You have got to be kidding me. Is that the best you can do to respond to my comment.

First, you make absolutely no sense. Your analogy has no logical connection to the point of my comment. Simply stated, you have missed my whole point.

Second, do you have some truth machine, talking about "lies" on travel bans. Dr. Conspiracy and people like you are so fixated on that travel ban. Ok, we will say that it was not wise for a Christian American to travel to Pakistan in 1981 given that the country just some years earlier had suffered a military coup, it was under marital law, it was a dangerous place for Americans to visit, and the visa there was only good for 30 days. Why do you not address the real issues rather than parsing words. And by the way, if you know so much about Obama, why don't you tell me with what passport Obama traveled to Pakistan and for how long did he stay there?

Third, I guess my reading of Wong Kim Ark has your dander. In the law, the parties always present the law to suit their own purpose. I am doing no different from what you are doing. The court decides who is right. My point is a very simple one-Justice Gray declared Wong a "citizen of the United States," not a "natural born Citizen." Justice Gray acknowledged the distinction between the two types of citizens.

Fourth, talking about "deliberate misreadings," you attempt to excise "natural born" from and add "of the United States" to Article II's "natural born Citizen" clause so that it reads the same way the Fourteenth Amendment reads, "citizens of the United States. But do you not think that we would have heard something from the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment that what they were doing was going to so drastically impact Article II. We should have heard from them that they were amending the Constituion by redefining Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause through the Fourteenth Amendment. That surely would have been a strange undertaking since the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, in part, was to allow blacks to be “citizens.” Tell me whether you are able to find any mention of Article II in the Congressional debates on the 14th Amendment. You can even get your Dr. Conspiracy colleagues to help you out a bit on this one.

Bob said...

Mario --

Isn't the phrase 'lied on your application,' a major reason you might get in trouble -- maybe with your employer, with your mortgage lender?

In such a dispute, who has the burden of proof? The liar, or the victim(s) of the lie?

To me, this is the crux of the case against Obama.

jayjay said...


Greg and smrstrauss are both Obots (aka Flying Monkeys) from the Conspiro website as can been seen by their odd interpretation of many Constitutional things,

Perhaps they've never read the Constitution as they certainly have little understanding of it.

Keep up your good work and I think it will eventuyally help us to get a proper formal legal definition of the NBC clause. It might even help SCOTUS revisit the WKA fiasco.

Anonymous said...

Both your analysis and the comments here are educational and enjoyed greatly, my thanks! There seems also an assumption that Obama has provided the daCOLB but I've not see the chain-of-evidence listed as to how daCOLB came to be printed, delivered, scanned and posted. How can anyone pass this image file off as evidence given its strange lack of origin and officials in HI refusal to confirm its authenticity? Curiouser and curiouser.

cfkerchner said...


I believe you are correct. These Obots travel in troupes, descend on a blog like the plague, and simply try and post the same old obfuscations over and over again to try and confuse people, scroll blogs, and waste time and try to engage the blog owners and moderators into fruitless discussion with them of the same old false arguments. They are classic internet trolls. But also, some are pros and some are well trained, clever but devious psychologists trying to manipulate people minds, imo. These folks are probably screwed up themselves which is why they chose their field. But for fun and games they go online to try and screw up other people. These mind manipulators have recycled the same phony arguments 100s of times already in various blogs. And they keep trying here. When I'm on moderator duty in this blog, I just delete them. Copies are kept and then Mario can review them if he chooses to, and can pick and choose items from those I have deleted if he wants to answer them. But in my opinion, they are not worth time of day and most violate one or more the rules of the blog, i.e., "disinformation campaigns", etc.


Incredulous said...

There has never been a legitimate "chain of evidence" for the online forged COLB.

The simplest denial of its existence is that one cannot even receive a duplicate from Hawaii of what's already been released on factcheck.

Factcheck said it held/touched it (ooh, wow), info from what is from now twice publicly spanked-for-lying (which had to retract its fabricated and non-fact-checked information it put out -- Donofrio cornered them handily), the same owned by Annenberg for whom Obama worked for 5 years with terrorist Billy Ayers developing brainwashing socialist programs for youth...THAT factcheck.

Hawaii has NEVER said that Obama was even born there:
Director Fukino never affirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961. What she affirmed was, " I have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Fukino only says she saw the document -- she never, ever said what was on it.

The online COLB was discredited by Ms. Lines and Dr. Polarik. Obama has spent millions and abused DOJ lawywer and taxpayer dollars and (FEC) illegally used campaign dollars to not show a $12 birth certificate (actually free, I'll pay for it!). Obama's California lawyer, Fredric Woocher, who was named "Southern California Super Lawyer of 2009" and who gets $600 per hour (claims he's on the case pro bono) is working Keyes vs. California and to prevent the release the president's records from Occidental College which witnesses state show he went as a foreign student on foreign student grants.

"The obvious question must be asked: If Obama has an original "long form" birth certificate issued on the day of his birth by the state of Hawaii, why would he also have a "Certification of Live Birth"?

It would not be necessary.

Barack Obama was asked if he was eligible to become president under the Article II ‘natural born’ eligibility clause. Obama masked the truth by posting a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB). His supporters declared him a natural born citizen under the 14th Amendment and the issue was pushed back into the realm of conspiracy theories.

Upon further investigation, the mask of the C.O.L.B. started to be more and more revealing of the original 1961 certificate, made much of by Hawaii’s Governor Lingle and the state’s Department of Health official, Dr. Fukino, as more probably a Dept. of Health document and not a hospital long form. [See my recent post on the Hollister dismissal in which I quoted Endnote 12 of Mario Apuzzo's Kerchner et al vs. Obama et al case. Apuzzo's jurisprudence of challenging prima facie evidence is brilliant. If Obama was trying to promote his Hawaiian native born status, he would have willingly posted a hospital certificate as solid, best evidence. A C.O.L.B. is labeled as only prima facie evidence; the validity of its information open to inspection by a proper Hawaiian court venue.

If the C.O.L.B. referenced document was not a hospital birth certificate, what was it? Under Hawaiian statute, specifically §338-5,[7] it is compulsory for the Dept. of Health to register a newborn child of a Hawaiian resident, even if no documentation of place and time of birth is presented. Only the word of one parent is required by law.

If the hidden 1961 certificate is a §338-5 form, face down like a card in a poker game, the $800,000 Barack Obama ponied up to prevent its public release means Obama is not just bluffing, but covering up perjury and other violations of election law.

In the end, a §338-5 compulsory registration will be more probative of the direct testimony evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth,[8] than of his claimed Hawaiian birth."

Incredulous said...

Speaking of "unconstitutional"...

Obama has accepted to be President of the UN Security council, a Title granted by multiple foreign nations.

Congress never approved of this. He will speak and sit nearby Qadaffi and Achmedinejad.

Isn't he, in being effectively in total open defiance of the Constitution, entirely circumventing the document which he swore to uphold? Or did Roberts give him another secret cute oath?

If he so blatantly and openly (not that being a British citizen isn't blatant and open too but that needs to go to court to "prove" it's unconstitutional) violates the Constitution...what then?

A pen said...

If the Kenyan BC possessor should come to be charged with a violation of USC 18 1. 47. S1028 Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information a4. knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States. , will there be a defense by the defendant that the government must prove that document is indeed false? Would an "act to defraud" be the public display of such a document stating it is a contract between Obama and Kenya?

Can this guy get arrested today?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To Candid Blogger,

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Carlyle said...

It scares me spitless that Ozero is chairing the UN Security Council. But as a legal matter, it is just a committee chairmanship for a few days. I don't see how it is possibly illegal or unconstitutional. Can any of you wise folks enlighten me?

Incredulous said...


" draws out attention to this headline, "Obama To Preside At UN Security Council," and reminds us that the U. S. Constitution has a few words to say about this:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

"Chairman of the United Nations Security Council" clearly meets the Constitutional definition of both an Office and a Title bestowed by not only a foreign State but by a huge collection of foreign States. Since Congress has not given its consent, it appears that ONCE AGAIN, Obama ignores the U. S. Constitution, a document he described as, "a charter of negative liberties.""

Carlyle said...

Oh, come on. That is parsing words to the point of being ridiculous. Normally the US Ambassador to the UN would assume such chairmanship, in turn, with other countries. All that logic applies to him as well. This argument is very weak - - -

Greg said...

My analogy has no connection to the point of your comment? You're arguing that a mortgage applicant has to prove his bona fides and I'm saying that if someone wants to challenge a mortgage holder they have the burden to disprove their bona fides.

But do you not think that we would have heard something from the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment that what they were doing was going to so drastically impact Article II.

Really? You don't seem to think that the writers of the Constitution would have bothered themselves to write down that they were changing the meaning of natural born from what it had meant since the 1300s.

The 14th Amendment was declaratory of the Common Law - that those born here are citizens - natural born citizens. Wong Kim recognizes only two types of citizen - natural born and naturalized.

It was required because Dred Scott attempted to say that some people born in the United States were less than fully citizens.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I did not argue that a mortgage applicant has to prove his bona fides. You still do not get it. You are reading burden of proof into what I wrote because that is the new mantra and cling word since Judge Land's pronouncement. My point is about the mortgage broker turning a blind eye to reality, not about proving that the mortgage is not valid.

It appears from your answer that you did not find anything in the debates on the 14th Amendment that shows that the framers were intending to amend Article II. Next time, do not answer my question with one of your questions. Answer my question first, then ask your question.

It is irrelevant to our Constitution what "natural born subject" meant in England since the 1300s. The Founders simply were not interested. They looked at new ideas and had new ideals for the new nation. Why would they look to the nation against which they just fought and won a revolution? They looked to great minds like Locke, Vattel, Montesquieu, Grotius, Beccaria, Pufendorf, and Vattel, Vattel and his, The Law of Nations, was their favorite. Too bad that American historians have hid Vattel and denied him his place in American history. But those who look into things a bit more deeply find him and can see the impact that he had on the Founders and the making of the new America.

That the 14th Amendment may be declaratory of the Common Law does not mean anything for our purposes because for Presidential eligiblity we need to know what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, not what is a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment. We already know that the "citizens of the United States" were simply grandfathered in Article II to be President. But that category no longer has any relevancy. Today, you have got to be an Aricle II "natural born citizen" if you want to be eligible to be President.

You are mistaken that Wong Kim Ark only recognized "natural born" and naturalized citizens. You left out Justice Grays holding that Wong was a "citizen of the United States." Hence, Wong Kim Ark recognized "citizen of the United States, "natural born citizen," and naturalized citizen.

Dred Scott was about blacks not being able to be citizens at all, not about "some people born in the United States were less than fully [sic] citizens." I know what you are trying to do. You want to say that bad and mean Apuzzo wants to make Obama someone "less than fully [sic] citizen[]." Apuzzo is trying to take us back to Dred Scott. Is demagoguery and intellectual dishonesty all that you have?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

cfkerchner said...

Wonder why your comment is not released and posted? Read the Rules for this blog. The answer to your question will be found therein in the list of things not allowed in this blog. If you require a more detailed explanation, send a private email to the blog owner.

Blog Rules

Charles United States Marijuana Party said...

11 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Chapter 1, Subchapter A
Section 111.4
[2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(1)]
(a) Any person who believes that a violation of any statute or
regulation over which the Commission has jurisdiction has occurred
or is about to occur may file a complaint in writing to the
General Counsel, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20463. If possible, three (3) copies
should be submitted.
(b) A complaint shall comply with the following:
(1) It shall provide the full name and address of the complainant ; and
(2) The contents of the complaint shall be sworn to and signed in the
presence of a notary public and shall be notarized.

The Federal Election Commission oversees all the money spent
in campaigns for federal office.
11 CFR Ch. 1 Part 101 Section 101.2 CANDIDATE AS AGENT
OF AUTHORIZED COMMITEE [2 U.S.C. Section 432(e)(2)]

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN by providing their original
long form birth certificate?

11 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Ch. 1, Subchapter B
Part 200

11 CFR Ch.1, SubCh. B, Section 200.2 PROCEDURAL
(1) The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.;
(2) The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 9001 et seq.;
(3) The Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 9031
et seq.;
(4) The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; or
(5) Any other law that the Commission is required to implement and administer,

(1) Include the name and address of the Petitioner or Agent. An Authorized
Agent of the Petitioner may submit the Petition, but the Agent shall disclose
the identitify of this or her principal;
(2) Identify itself as a PETITION for the ISSUANCE, AMENDMENT, OR REPEAL of a rule;
(3) Identify the specific section(s) of the regulations to be affected;
(4) Set forthe the factual and legal grounds on which the petitioner relies,
in support of the proposed action; and
(5) Be addressed and submitted to the
(c) The petition may include draft regulatory language that would effectuate
the petitionser's proposal.
(d) The Commission may, in its discretion, treat a document that fails to
conform to the format requirements of paragraph (b) of this section as a basis for a
sua sponte rulemaking. For example, the Commission may consider whether to
intitiate a rulemaking project addressing issues raised in an advisory opinion request
submitted under 11 CFR 112.1 or in a complaint filed under 11 CFR 111.4. However, the
Commission need not follow the procedures of 11 CFR 200.3 in these instances.

Webmaster said...

Obamas Certificate of Live Birth data wasn't "Accepted" it was only "Filed".

Obamas Certificate of Live Birth says:

Date filed by Registrar August 8th 1961

A normal Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth says: "Date Accepted by State Registrar"


Therefore Obama has produced no officially accepted proof of birth in Hawaii.

Judge Simandle should be informed.

cfkerchner said...

The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.

The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.

It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."

Link to the treason quote in case context:

Link to Case Summary:

Link to Full Case:

The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al