Friday, January 28, 2011

The Two Issues Regarding Obama's Eligibility to be President

The Two Issues Regarding
Obama's Eligibility to be President
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
There are two open issues regarding whether putative President Obama is eligible to be President. One is place of birth. Consider that in all the law suits filed against Obama and others on the place of birth issue, including the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress law suit (which also argued that regardless of place of birth, Obama is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen” because he was not born in the United States to a U.S. citizen father and mother), Obama never once produced any birth certificate (neither his Certification of Live Birth known as the COLB nor his long-form, hospital generated Certificate of Live Birth) for the court which would have put an end to the birth place issue. Why did he pursue a legal strategy (e.g. standing, political question, and other justiciability defenses) which only worked in the short term rather than just produce the birth certificate which would finally end the birth place controversy?

Why spend so much private and public money and resources fighting the same issue over and over again? Even now, over two years after the 2008 election, we see the same place of birth issue raised in various contexts. It has risen in the military context with LTC Terry Lakin, who is serving 6 months in federal prison for defending the Constitution by wanting to assure that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” We see it in ObamaCare litigation. Now some states are also moving to require proof of birth as part of a presidential candidate's requirements to get on the ballot. Officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures report that 10 states already have some sort of requirement to prove eligibility. There is Arizona's HB2544, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529. With Texas' 34 votes, these states possess 107 Electoral College votes. .

Hawaii Governor Abercrombie has recently revived the birth place issue, vowing to find the birth certificate and put an end to the debate. But we have seen that he found no birth certificate.

So, there is no end to the issue of Obama’s place of birth. Should we not blame Obama himself for this issue still existing? After all, the Constitution says that he must be a “natural born Citizen.” Is not the burden on him to satisfy that requirement?

Why has Obama allowed this issue to continue unabated? Why have all the Department of Justice attorneys repeatedly taken the same approach in defending Obama, i.e., fighting jurisdiction (standing) and raising any other justiciability defense? Why have they fought so hard to prevent any litigant to have discovery so that a copy of the birth certificate could be obtained? Why have they to this day never produced a copy of any birth certificate in any court which would have put an end to the birth place issue not only in that court but in all other courts present and in the future?

While the courts have not been too kind to the "birthers," why has not one court even mentioned the fact that not one court in the whole nation has yet to see Obama’s alleged birth certificate?

We even have had an Indiana court in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), declare that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” But the court never even raised the issue that there was no proof before the court that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." In fact, the Ankeny court, while dismissing the plaintiffs' case, never ruled that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." Nor did it rule that he was a "natural born Citizen."

How can a modern and advanced nation such as the United States, a leader of the free world, a model for constitutional republican government, find itself in such a situation? We have been debating the issue of Obama’s place of birth publicly and in the courts for over 2 years and we as a nation still do not know with any reasonable degree of certainty whether Obama was born in the United States. The place of birth issue is not a conspiracy issue, but rather only one demanding conclusive proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.

But apart from the place of birth issue, we also have the question of whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." Assuming that he was born in Hawaii, does Obama meet the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen?" The Framers' constitutional scheme, historical evidence (e.g. Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, Section 212), and U.S. Supreme Court precedent (e.g. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) show that the American common law definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" has its basis in natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. That definition, which to this day has never been changed, is a child born in the country (or equivalent such as being born abroad to parents in the service of their nation) to a U.S. citizen father and mother.

There is no factual dispute that when Obama was born in 1961, wherever that may be, he was born to a father who under the British Nationality Act of 1948 was a British subject/citizen and that Obama himself by descent from his father was born a British subject/citizen. Not only was Obama's father not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born, but his father never became a U.S. citizen nor was he even ever a domiciliary or permanent resident of the United States.  These undisputed facts show that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

So, there are two open issues: was Obama born in Hawaii and if he was, is he an Article II "natural born Citizen." Assuming that Obama runs for re-election, how will our nation address these issues in the 2012 presidential campaign and election? Will Congress, other political institutions, the media, and candidates exhibit political and moral courage and tackle these issues once and for all or will they like so many others have done just turn a blind eye to the Constitution and the rule of law and continue with business as usual?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 27, 2011
Updated February 1, 2011


Dixhistory said...

Spot on!

Vincent Jappi said...

What are the legal consequences of the so-called "Obama"'s having been adopted by Lolo Soetoro for natural-born citizenship, and

what would the legal consequences be if the so-called "Obama"'s biological father was not Obama Sr but some US citizen ?

js said...

"Why have all the Department of Justice attorneys repeatedly taken the same approach in defending Obama"

This goes to the core of the issue...every single on of them swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Not one single attorney in the DOJ has risen to execute thier oaths. The did NOT take an oath to protect any person from the merits of all of those cases that they have been involved in, thier ultimate duty, which they have shirked...was to defend the Constitution.

js said...

This oath;

"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies
, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

(emphasis mine)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Vincent Jappi,

You ask: "What are the legal consequences of the so-called "Obama"'s having been adopted by Lolo Soetoro for natural-born citizenship"?

The answer to your question may be found in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Perkins v Elg 307 U. S. 325 (1939), which dealt with whether the Elg child lost her U.S. birth citizenship status because of the acts of her parents and not because of anything she elected to do or some treaty or Act of Congress.

Marie Elg's parents emigrated from Sweden to the U.S. in 1906. In that same year, Mr. Elg naturalized and became a U.S. citizen. Under the then existing naturalization laws (Act of 10 February 1855), his wife automatically became a U.S. citizen through the U.S. naturalization of her husband.

Under our naturalization laws, citizenship can be derived from a close relation. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). The 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and marital status for most women. So, Elg’s mother became a U.S. citizen under the then-existing citizenship laws.

When Marie Elg was born in the U.S. in 1907 both her mother and father were U.S. citizens. Marie Elg was therefore a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The Court found that “[o]n her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.” Additionally, the lower court found Elg to be a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this finding. The Court therefore gave a child born to naturalized “citizens of the United States” the right to run for President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Elg therefore once again affirmed the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was confirmed during the Founding by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758). On the other hand, no U.S. Supreme Court decision has found a child born to one or two alien parents to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

On the question of Elg’s dual nationality, the Elg Court said:

"First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the "inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 169 U. S. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. [Footnote 1] And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles." Id. at 328-29.

Hence, the Court said that a U.S-born citizen who later in life acquires another nationality through the parents (making that person a dual national) does not lose his/her U.S. citizenship by that act alone. The Court said that, in the absence of some qualifying voluntary affirmative act by the child, treaty, or Congressional Act, children do not lose their U.S. birthright citizenship simply because their parents in later years and when the children are minors cause them to acquire some other nationality. The Elg Court acted to protect a U.S. born child's right of election as to what nationality he or she wants to be, a right that it said belongs to the child upon reaching the age of majority. So, what the Court said is that a “citizen of the United States” who is a minor will not lose that status simply because the child’s parents might do some act causing that minor to acquire another citizenship. The parents causing that child to acquire some other nationality by way adoption would fall within that category of acts which would not cut off that child’s right of election to maintain his or her U.S. citizenship which right the child needs to exercise upon reaching the age of majority.

It is important to understand that Elg’s dual nationality came into being after her birth. In other words, she was born in the U.S. to citizen parents and so under the law of nations she was not born with any dual nationality. That she acquired another nationality after her birth because of the acts of her parents does not detract from her being born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States which makes her an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Based on the principles established by the Elg case, and in the absence of some treaty or Congressional Act, I do not conclude that Obama’s alleged adoption by Lolo Soetoro would have caused him to lose his U.S. citizenship if he in fact ever had any. But while the Elg case goes in favor of Obama regarding the U.S. citizenship consequences to Obama caused by Soetoro’s alleged adoption, it goes against him on the question of whether he meets the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The answer to this question could change if it is shown that some international treaty between the U.S.A. and Indonesia provides otherwise.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Vincent Jappi,

You ask: "what would the legal consequences be if the so-called 'Obama''s biological father was not Obama Sr but some US citizen?"

At this point, it has been legally established that Obama Sr. is Obama Jr.'s biological father. Obama has firmly established this fact. There was even a divorce in which it was stipulated to a court of law that Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham were Obama Jr.'s father and mother. Who is going to undue these legally established facts and status and under what factual and legal basis? I will not speculate on this unless it were first legally established that Obama Sr. is not Obama Jr. biological father.

jayjay said...


Something of note, I think, happened at the recent State of The Union speech by the Oborter.

There were 6 SCOTUS justices attending. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito did not attend (but note that Robertrs did). I believe this breakdown of attendees offers a very firm clue as to why the recent Kerchner et al case could not be heard by the court.

Since the two Obama-appointed justices refused to recused themselves ad clearly should have it meant that there must be 4 votes to hear a case, With 2 recusals there would only need to be 3 ... quite possibly the 3 who were nt at SOTU. As Charles Kerchner has speculated, the 2 Obama appointees NOT recusing gave cover to their mentor by non-recusal.

To think that Roberts was not cognizant of this fact belies belief and since a fourth vote was lacking with the full 9, it sems that Roberts is more of a RINO at best and certainly not a conservative or originalist.

I consider him to e the main stumbling block in getting Kerchner heard on merit.

bdwilcox said...

Dr. Kate's new post:
Constitutional Options for Removing Obama

cfkerchner said...

Why the three U.S. Supreme Court justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas did not attend the State of the Union address by Obama.

I believe that three U.S. Supreme Court justices did not attend the State of the Union address to send a message to the world in one of the few ways they can within their self imposed decorum of the court rules ... by voting with their feet and non-presence and not attending a state of the union message given by someone they consider and believe to not be constitutionally eligible. And my words on 29 Nov 2010 are as true today as they were when I wrote them in November as to who is blocking the resolution of the Obama eligibility issue on that court. In my opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts is the Neville Chamberlain of the court and has been the one all along preventing the U.S. Supreme Court from acting over the last 2 years to address the Obama eligibility issue.

Chief Justice Roberts is a RINO on the court when it comes to Obama. A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al | by CDR Kerchner (Ret) | @ Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions ...

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

Anonymous said...

The Elg case was prior to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act which, in §301, conformed with Elg, requiring a U.S. citizen at birth who acquires a foreign nationality as a minor to reclaim U.S. citizenship through five years of continuous U.S. residency between the ages of 14 and 23.

Elg did meet our standard of Natural Born Citizenship, which simply put is a child born without 'alienage,' i.e., 'dual nationality.'

In Family Law, Obama, Sr. is the putative father. If DNA determines that Malcolm X or Davis is the real father, that does not change the perception of Obama, Jr. of his familial loyalties and heritage. That is why such putative parentage must be challenged in a timely manner.

The concept of 'dual nationality' in Footnote 1 of Elg escapes my memory . . . I will have to look it up. One nationality can remain inchoate and revived when the minor reaches the age of majority, but that is another action of natural-ization law . . . which is why I call Obama, Jr. a natural-ized U.S. citizen at birth, for he required specific naturalization law to remove/subvert the British alienage.

As for the 14th Amendment, it came out of the 1866 Civil Rights Act which was written in mirroring language, a child born in the U.S. 'not subject to any foreign power,' versus 'under the jurisdiction thereof.' To merely interpret 'under the jurisdiction' as 'in the U.S. territory' is simplistic and redundant. (Children of diplomats and military is associated law.)

Obama was born subject to British law, all such laws first looking to the father, and automatically a British subject and citizen. 8 USC 1409 or 1401 made him a U.S. citizen upon abandonment of the father.

Anonymous said...

One more thing: Prior to the election, Obama entered the race with Unclean Hands. There were doubts to his birthplace and Article II status.

Now, since entering office and destroying savings of retired folk, and tens of thousands of jobs . . . his Unclean Hands are on the Scale of MacBeth.

He can never wash them clean, nor can those who decided not to speak up in a timely fashion, such as Senator McCain.

Carlyle said...

I have asked about this before but have received no reply from any of you. At a minimum maybe I could get some sort of "tempest in a teapot" response. But I would really like to know something more substantial.

As you may know I have posted a lot over at CW blog. Their focus - at least that of the deputy mouthpiece (i.e. the Robert Gibbs of that world) - has been on Citizen Grand Jurys as the only way through this quagmire - as opposed to more traditional approaches as undertaken here.

I have been critical of CGJs for various reasons - some of which I covered in recent posts here. But I am an engineer - aerospace (i.e. military-industrial complex) - and not a law expert.

The operative questions seem to be: Am I wrong? Are they on to something? Should you be joining forces with them and helping push and promote this idea? Or are they crackers? Or worse, actively engaging in misdirection or diversionary tactics?

Again, maybe my questions aren't worth answering - so just say "tempest in a teapot" - don't be concerned either way - neither helpful nor harmful. Then I will drop it.

Thank you.

jayjay said...


Tempest in a Teapot, I think.

Since the highest court in the land (as well as the lower ones) refuse to do anything but hide behine the judicial fictions of "standing", etc. it seems to be an absolute certainty that the entire Third Branch will NEVER cotton to a legal tecnhique such as the CGJ which they have gone great lengths to construct written and definitive "rules" for to allow their avoidance.

Those rules seem fairly hard-core and easy to invoke where the nebulous judicial fictions ("standing". etc.) are arcane and require much more legalistic twisting and turning to justify ducking an issue - but they still do it. With the CGJ idea they have some fairly specific guidelines to us to ignore and duck "unpleasant" cases such as Kerchner et al.

I think you'd best save your tea ... the party ain't over yet.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We should all be ecstatic that Hawaii might get a new law soon. HB 116, the proposed Hawaiian statute, would allow a member of the public after paying an additional $100.00 fee to obtain a copy of the birth certificate of a “person of civil prominence” who is defined as:

"'Person of civic prominence' means a person who is a candidate for, or elected to, a public office that requires the person to be a United States citizen, either natural born or naturalized, to hold the public office for which they are a candidate or to which they have been elected."

The proposed statute states in pertinent part:

"(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the department may issue, for an additional fee as described in section 338-14.5(b), a copy of the birth record of a person of civic prominence to a member of the general public who requests the record in a form and manner as prescribed by the department."

There is no doubt that Obama would qualify as a “person of civic prominence.” That means that any member of the public, after paying an additional fee of $100.00, will be able to obtain a copy of Obama’s birth certificate.

Let’s just hope that the certificate provided will be one that provides the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor.

Let us also hope that these legislators are acting for real and not just making believe that they are on the side of the People.

I am also happy to see that this new law has recognized “citizens of the United States” as being either “natural born” or naturalized, a position that I have taken and written about at this blog. This means that if a “citizen of the United States” is not “natural born,” he or she must be naturalized “at birth” or after birth.

The full proposed statute can be read at

cfkerchner said...

I see some weasel word "outs" for the Hawaii Health Dept in the wording of that proposed new law, HB1116. I see a bait and switch law in process in that one will not get what is really desired via this proposed new law. I don't see anything in the words that say the $100 fee would entitle the applicant to get a certified true and correct copy of the original long-form birth certificate or birth registration document. As I read that proposed law it would simply allow an applicant for the payment of $100 to get a copy of the birth certificate of the "person of civic prominence" which in the eyes of the Hawaii Health Department would simply mean the applicant would get a computer generated copy of the "Certificate of Live Birth" which is merely a renamed and slightly enhanced version of the "Certification of Live Birth" that were issued prior to Hawaii changing the law at the end of 2008. So people in the general public could now order a Certificate of Live Birth (aka Birth Certificate) for a person of civic prominence instead of just people with a "tangible interest". I do not read in that law the granting of powers to allow the public to get certified true and correct copies of the original birth registration documents and any amendments to the birth vital records file, if any.

Further contacts and inquiries to the Hawaiian legislators proposing this new law needs to be made to clarify exactly what type document they consider a "birth certificate" under this new law ... copy of the original long form or a computer generated newly developed "Certificate of Live Birth" printed out off the birth registration database by a computer. If that is the case we once again will be dealing with the Garbage in Garbage Out (GIGO) type document that is not a copy of a contemporaneously generated 1961 document with signatures and names of witnesses to a birth.

I see another "placebo" and diversionary law in the works to make it look like Hawaii is going to give the millions of people what they want to see ... copies of the original long form birth registration records to see who filed them and what they contain. JMHO.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Correction: I typed HB116. It should be HB1116.

Dixhistory said...

Charles said
"I see another "placebo" and diversionary law in the works to make it look like Hawaii is going to give the millions of people what they want to see ... copies of the original long form birth registration records to see who filed them and what they contain. JMHO."

Mine also Charles but I would love to be proven wrong.

bdwilcox said...

Hello Mario and Charles,

Miss Tickly also weighs in on the subject of the proposed HRS338-18(c). Her's an HDOH rope-a-dope.

s said...

The "law of Nations" was a document written in c1750 by Emmerich de Vittel and included as a reference in the U.S. constitution to lend authority and credibility to those principles set forth by the framers. As such, the term Natural Born Citizen as required in art. 2 sec. 1 is defined in art.1 sec.2 through the reference to Vittel's Law of Nations which defines NBC as being born on the soil to parents who are both citizens. There is no need for further court decisions, legal rulings or academic debate. By referencing the Law of Nations, the framers were acknowledging its definition of Natural born citizen; which clearly BHO is not!!

Carlyle said...

Thank you JayJay.

I am absolutely convinced that this is just another way to get to the "standing/jurisdiction" bridge - for which we know the way is already blocked.

But I also have two major concerns: 1) this is actually socially and maybe physically dangerous for amateurs (citizens) to try, and 2) it diverts people's efforts from other productive activities.

I think a major Obot/diversionary/Ailinsky tactic is to keep people chasing their tails while the "they" rape the nation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Please read, Hawaii Bill Would Charge $100 for Obama Birth Certificate, accessed at

How ridiculous! Some Hawaiian legislators are touting this new law as a way to shut the mouths of those who still do not believe Obama was born in Hawaii.

The article intimates that if people will have to pay the $100.00, they will no longer ask to see a copy of the birth certificate. How petty do they think we are?

Rep. Cabanilla says all these people do not want the birth certificate from Obama. They want it from Hawaii. Maybe somebody should wake Rep. Cabanilla from her sleep. Has she seen all the lawsuits asking Obama to produce his birth certificate?

The article claims that "Obama issued a certificate of live birth during his 2008 campaign, an official state document confirming that he was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu." What a lie. Anybody who knows the facts knows that Obama did no such thing. At most, someone released an image of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) over the internet which to this day Hawaii has yet to confirm to be anything authentic.

What is more ridiculous is that they are also saying that the $100.00 per certificate fee will help Hawaii reduce its budget deficit. Like millions of people are going to purchase these things when we only need one.

Also, this article also suggests that Gov. Abercrombie would have released the birth certificate if privacy laws did not prevent him from doing so. And the article states that is the reason this new law is needed. Sure, we all know about the birth certificate that Abercrombie found.

winnybar said...

That Obama, Sr. and Stanley Anne Dunham are Obama's father and mother are not undisputed facts. There are no unaltered photos or unaltered documents to support the parentage or marriage. If Obama was born out of wedlock the mother's citizenship mainly determines the Obama's citizenship.

winnybar said...

At this point, it has been legally established that Obama Sr. is Obama Jr.'s biological father. Obama has firmly established this fact. There was even a divorce in which it was stipulated to a court of law that Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham were Obama Jr.'s father and mother.

If you are referring to the Soetoro Dunham divorce case the document
is clearly altered.

You have to show the proof not base your argument on an assumption or faulty documentation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


You make your comments without any proof and expect me to have proof. We have enough problems just getting a birth certificate. Why do you inject the validity of the marriage, and who the real father is, and altered divorce documents in all this?

It is not enough that the Obots expect us to prove where Obama was born rather than he showing us that. Now the Obots also want us to prove that the marriage was valid, that Obama Sr. is really his father, and all the rest. Get real!

I let your comments through just so that I could respond to you and to tell you that I believe your only purpose here is to cause confusion and doubt and all else that comes with it.

Please know that the moderators of this blog are serious about commentators being serious here.

winnybar said...

The Soetoro Dunham divorce papers are here:
Soetoro didn't sign and their is no property settlement.
Obama is not mentioned by name. A reference is made to a child under 18 and a child over 18. The 1 in each space was made by different typewriters clearly. All of the Obama altered documents used a circa 1960 Royal Standard typewriter. I own one. The one number uses the letter l. The Dunham signature is a clear forgery.View:

Indeed the Kenya BC used a US Royal Typewriter!

js said...

in obummers own the 2 books he takes credit for...the events described in his own words are sufficient to give credence to the marriage and divorce...along with documents, which you say are altered...however...the only thing in dispute...if (a big “if”) you are telling the truth about altered documents...the divorce papers came from court records...not out of the patootie of a obot hating law have not provided sufficient proof that this is true…only a link to a conspiracy…so your accusations are that all ya got?...poor winnybar….just scratching away at another attempt at obfuscation of the truth…

Anonymous said...

We aren't going to win this in the courts, but in the streets. It's time to mobilize the people, organize marches on Washington to demand the birth certificate. Put a million people in the streets and we cannot be denied.

All of you have done a tremendous job only to be thwarted at the end by a corrupted court and legislature happy to feed from the public trough unchecked.

No violence, no injury, just good old fashioned protests. Let them call us racists, bigots, or nut jobs, but in the end the truth will come out, change we can believe in.

Robert said...

How is charging $100.00 for copies of a public figure's birth certificate going to overcome any right to privacy? One either has that right or one does not. Is Hawaii now claiming the authority to sell our rights?

When one voluntarily runs for public office he gives up the right to privacy pertaining to any information or documents that establishes or prevents his qualification for that office. A candidate is applying to work for the people. The people have a right to set the qualifications for office and to demand that those qualifications are met prior to a candidate assuming office. They have a right to see such documentation without paying a fee for it.

The people also have a right to change the requirements for office. However, this can only be done through the amendment process. No justice, senator, or congressman has the right unto himself to authorize such a change. Neither does any political party.

Any job applicant that refuses to provide the necessary and proper documentation for the job to which he applies can be rejected on that basis alone. Can you imagine an interview including the statement, "Yes, I have all of my credentials fully documented and will be happy to let you see them for $100.00."

Isn't that laughable? Also remember that submission of false documents is cause for refusal of employment or licensing and, in the case that such documents are discovered AT ANY TIME after employment/licensing, are cause for immediate removal and even court action against the applicant/employee.

Are doctors allowed to practice without a license? What about lawyers, teachers, plumbers, pilots, electricians, counselors, etc. We also need documentation to get a driver's license, marriage license, passport, join various sports teams, get a credit card, buy a house, etc. As one can plainly see, this list can go on and on. Documentation is a part of our everyday life.

Mr. Obama's decision/failure/inability to produce the required simple and common documentation for the office of POTUS demands his immediate removal. It was his job and responsibility to have such materials on hand and to present them (or officially certified copies) to all appropriate authorities prior to placement on any ballot.

In lieu of Mr. Obama's immediate removal it is up to the people to reject everything that he has done or will do in office. It is also up to us to seek the removal of any and all elected officials - senators, representatives, Secretaries of State and judges who have failed in their duty or refused to honor their oath of office and address this obvious and blatant treason against the constitution.

The Stacker said...

Mario and Charles,

We've got them. We need to focus our pressure on the issue and maybe get the National Enquirer involved. Recall that they were the only "source" that was willing to do the due diligence on the John Edwards story and got nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for it as well. This is shocking and is proven by the point that most Americans have no idea that this is in fact true.

WND is the only other news outlet that has people covering the issue, but you can tell it is difficult for them.

It is time to focus efforts toward unveiling the original records, or getting more people similar to Tim Adams to come out (surely MANY others know) and tell us what we already know. The wave has gone up and and down, but the tidal portion is coming.

Let's make it happen. The courts are not willing. We need to do it with PEOPLE. There are people in the know.

Are you with me?

The Stacker said...

Amen, Robert.

Dixhistory said...

All these Judges get trained to more or less think alike.

They are also picked for their job by people with a vested interest in a new world order.

That require us all to forget about the rule of law and where in it comes from.

Standing is nothing but made up crap to deny you the justice our legal system is supposed to provide.

The Foxes are now and for years past firmly in control and in place to call us a democracy and not a limited Republic. This was written into the Constitution of the United States and every state must provide a Republican form of government.

99.9 percent of people think a democracy and a Republic are the same thing but they are not the same. In fact they are opposite of each other.

None of it really matters anymore as men that truly want a government as set forth at the federal level are not in place that would be willing to keep their oath of office. I don't care what party was running none would step up. Ron Paul even said they will think I'm crazy and laugh at me.

Now George Washington might have had the same thoughts as he and his men set across the Delaware River that cold night but they didn't let that stop them.

They truly wanted a better system for men to live under. They knew that system was not perfect as if it was we would not have Obama in the White House today.

People like water will take the easy path. I don't have a clue as how a few people with no backing from the main stream media, elected people and appointed judges can set this right. No matter what party the people choose to vote in they will get the same results. Heard of one apple spoils the barrel. Just think what happens if you put just one or two good apples in that barrel that is rotten to the core.

Robert said...

A story titled, "Point in Case" or "Too bad she wasn't running for POTUS".

Today I had to drive (race) across town (23 miles @ way) to meet up with my wife and daughter to help my daughter get her passport. The passport offices close to home are only open when we can't get there.

My daughter had to provide:
* an original copy of her birth certificate - photo copies were not sufficient. Sorry, I forgot to ask about computer generated COLB's.
* special passport photos.
* some extra paperwork

What we didn't know was that, because of her youth, she would also need her Mom and Dad to verify their identity/citizenship with a legal drivers licenses or other prescribed documentation. Yes, it required both parents and that's why I was racing against the clock to get there before the offices closed. Just like the XX Amendment, the Post Office has a time schedule.

Finally, we had to pay an $80 fee and another $35.50 fee, in addition to the cost of getting the birth certificate, and photo. Then we had to swear an oath that what we submitted was true and accurate.

And this to LEAVE the country?

Well, the good news is - if my daughter ever runs for POTUS, she'll know where her papers are.

chuck said...

Does Hawaii have a physical place which commemorates Obama's birthplace? Why not? It would be a money-maker.

I also believe those aiding Obama's deception should be tried for treason, but I also think they planned a complete government takeover so no retribution would be possible.

Robert said...

According to, the conservative-leaning jurist (Scalia) said that he hasn't “gone to the State of the Union in at least 10 years, and I’m not starting tomorrow night either.” That being said, we cannot infer from his recent absence from the State of the Union that he was making any eligibility statement.

Justice Alito's absence could arguably be a response to his experience at last year's State of the Union address when he shook his head and mouthed "not true" when Obama said that the court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC would "open the floodgates" to corporate spending in campaigns. That would have had nothing to do with eligibility.

Now Justice Thomas' absence this year is the one that is interesting because I think he is just fed up with people behaving badly in Washington. Maybe he was fed up with Obama's refusal to show his original BC. That aside, there are still no facts to suggest that he has been concerned about the eligibility issue either.

And then there was Justice Roberts sitting there during the pep rally. Well, he had to show up because he is the Chief Justice. Not doing so would have reflected negatively on the entire Court, which includes the remaining five justices. Remember, these justices, all nine of them, have to work together for life.

In a nutshell, other than the three justices skipping the State of the Union address, there are no facts to suggest that any of the justices have ever been inclined to hear any of the eligibility cases. Perhaps that is the reason Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not recuse themselves. They felt that it was not necessary.

By the way, I was reading your SCOTUS brief and something troubles me about where it read, "Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan should recuse themselves from having any involvement in this case." My question to you is, 'if a "recusal" is actually a voluntary act taken by a judge, which means they decide it for themselves, wouldn't the proper motion (assuming one could be made under the Court's rules) have been to "disqualify" the two justices? Maybe that is why Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not step down. There is a legal distinction between recusal (voluntary - they decide it) and disqualification (involuntarily - someone else decides it).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Do you really believe it makes a difference whether we do a motion to disqualify or a motion for recusal? I think the Justices know the deal and are not driven by such distinctions on such a clear cut issue.

Also, recusal is all that is needed. It also gives the Justices the respect they deserve. Furthermore, you have not show why a motion to disqualify would succeed where a motion for recusal would not. Lastly, the Justices recused themselves in other cases on the same day. Did those parties file motions for disqualification?

I believe you are just trying to come up with these distinctions which really do not make a difference just to be argumentative and to show us that you know something others do not.

Robert said...

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I think that if judges can make such hair-splitting distinctions regarding standing when they "know the deal," then any judge is capable of making the same degree of distinctions regarding recusals/disqualifications. Sometimes they look for an out any way they can.

I understand that the Justices do deserve respect, but sometimes one needs to push the envelope to get them to respect the Constitution and the rule of law. Just look at how long it took for them to respect and recognize the Second Amendment (Heller, 2008 - 75 years after Miller).

Granted, the Justices recused themselves in other cases on the same day, but none of those cases would have had such a far reaching and lasting impact on this nation. It is easy to give up something voluntarily that doesn't mean much to you, but it is another thing to give up something that could shake the very foundation of your beliefs.

Now, as to your claim that I am just being argumentative, well, quite frankly, I didn't think a lot about the distinction between a recusal and a disqualification until I was taking one of my continuing legal education classes here in California last week. In the video seminar the expert on such matters made it a point to emphasize the importance of the distinction between a recusal and disqualification. And since lawyers make their living at making distinctions, I thought that it was worth mentioning. Sometimes it is those seemingly little things identified early in a case that turn out to be not so little in the end.

On a closing note, I applaud you and Commander Kerchner for your patriotic effort to enforce the Constitution. Perhaps one day all of the people of this great nation will recognize it too.

winnybar said...

Thanks for haveing an open discussion.
What is the legal basis for stating Obama Sr. is Obama's father?

jayjay said...


I hold quite a different view than you of the recusal/disqualification situation WRT the two Obama-appointed judges on SCOTUS.

Federal law also has some guidelines about it for example saying that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." If one considers the financial motivation alone of the two justicesss it is indeed clear that $150,000 per year for arguably 35 years would amount to $5,25 million dollars (for each judge) which most reasonable people would most likely consider to be millions of reasons why the judges impartiality might "reasonably be questioned".

That is not even considering the self-importance for the political and/or professional benes that are always hung upon such an appointment ... speaking fees, deferential and preferential treatment, honors, etc.

As for disqualification vs. recusal I think them to both be of the same practical effect WRT a single case such as the Kerchner et al action. All I can see is that recusal is basically self-disqualification for reason(s) the judge recognizes and surely the judges in this case realize the great financial benefits of not recusing themselves when it prevents the possibility of the court voting to take up Kerchner on merit. I'm quite sure that the justices among themselves know whether 4 votes can be obtained (no recusal; therefore no eligiility problem) vs 3 votes (with the 2 recusals; with a possible hearing on merit of eligibility) due to normal "coatroom" or "backchannel" chatter within the court entity.

With justices eing merely people, I beleve that a similar split applies for the attending of the SOTU sspeech.

Carlyle said...

chuck said...

I also think they planned a complete government takeover so no retribution would be possible.


As much as we tout The Rule Of Law and as much as legal theorists might pucker, perhaps there is really such a thing as "a crime too big to prosecute". Or at least The Conspirators are counting on this being true - for all practical purposes.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


You keep repeating what you say is a distinction between a recusal motion and a motion to disqualify and that the latter may have worked better in the Kerchner Supreme Court. Now you even add some authority to your position by telling us you learned about it during "continuing legal education."

But you fail to tell us how a disqualification motion would have worked any differently from a recusal motion.

So please englighten us.

Also, you do not have to tell me about the importance of making fine distinctions when it comes to the law.

First, you can read my arguments in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and in my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari on the amorphous doctrine of standing and how each case for standing needs to be judged on the particular facts alleged and legal claims made in each case.

Second, in case you do not know, I have been arguing that an Article II "natural born Citizen" is not equivalent to a "citizen of the United States" "at birth" by way of the 14th Amendment, treaty, or Congressional Act, which is the "official" Congressional position.

Mick said...

How could Kagan, especially, not recuse? She was the Solicitor General for Obama when a lot of the "Birther" cases came through!! Is there a way to protest and refile a case when judges are supposed to recuse and don't?

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

Always great to read your comments Mr. Apuzzo.
Thank you so much for all your efforts to fight for the Constitution of the USA.

What should we do to avoid a repeat at the next presidential election with this same usurper Obama?
We must contact each Republican Representatives and Senators at
and we must clearly tell them to do 3 actions:
1) to inform themselves on what is a "natural born citizen" by visiting Mr. Mario Apuzzo's site at and by reading the articles on what is the definition of a natural born citizen on Mr. Apuzzo's site?
Summary of the defintion of a "natural born citizen" must be stated to the person you contact. It is easy, there are 2 conditions required to be a natural born citizen:
1) the president must be an American born in the USA.
The long form birth certificate of Obama is needed. It apparently does not even exist!
2) the parents of the president must both be American citizens.
Obama's father was never ever an American citizen!
3) Conclusion: Obama is NOT a natural born citizen according to the Constitution of the USA and therefore Obama must stop immediately his activities that have been so far to bankrupt the USA by over-spending so much that we are now nearly officially bankrupt!!! I am not joking or dramatizing, I am stating the truth on our current financial situation!
2) to force the House of Representatives and the Senate to ask Obama to prove whether he is or not a natural born citizen as the Constitution of the USA requires (he is NOT!).
And if not, to remove Obama from Office to prevent further arms to the financial interests of the USA and of the American people!
3) to institute several bills in each state that will force at the next presidential election any candidate to prove that he is a natural born citizen according to the Constitution of the USA!
See "10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands" at

Save the USA from bankrupt at the hands of the Marxist and communist Obama (like his father was!) who has so overspent that we are now basically completely bankrupt!!


js said...

his right to privacy is a trojan horse...he declaired he was eligible...pelosi declaired he was eligible...when the electoral college voted...they declaired (by omission) he was eligible...yet..not one person...or agency...has been able to prove that he was eligible to the public at large...all we have is the "word" of his friends and allies...and a thumb in the eye for everyone who actually deserve to verify this information...

the historical significance of the person sitting in the oval office...precludes any right to privacy...but with the courts and the DoJ running interference for the man, and not upholding their oath of office...nobody has any right to sue...or file FOI on this issue...

The Stacker said...


Given that there truly is a problem with Obama proving he was actually born in Hawaii, would that be legally problematic?

Let's use this scenario:

The birth is registered after the supposed 8/4/1961 birth date.

I've always said, there IS SOMETHING MORE on there that makes everything look shadier than currently realized, because if he were midwife born or affidavit registered, etc. he would have just aid, "Too bad guys, Hawaii allowed it and you can't do a darn thing about it. According to them (a US state), I am born here." F-off.

But if that were the case, he would have done it long ago. FURTHERMORE, the whole lie and fabrication story about Kapi'olani or whatever hospital he ever claimed to be born at would have been meaningless. So they DID IT ALL FOR A REASON.

It is somewhat possible for them to have tried to make people feel better and just threw that story around to get people off their backs, then the web of lies spun out of control, but I find this less likely. Especially when someone like Lingle, supposedly having no knowledge of what happened (how can she, isn't that a privacy breach?) says unwittingly he was born at Kapiolani. That was grapevine, IMO.

Given the recent egg on face idiocy of Abercrombie, it almost certainly shows Tim Adams story to be absolutely true, there is no record.

In summary, if there is no hospital birth, why wouldn't a judge say, yes, He/Kapiolani/White House lied, it's time to order the documents for full inspection?

If it's clear someone else registered the birth and signed affidavits are all that exist, could there be a case against him definitively being an NBC?

It seems so, or else why all the continued hiding?

People have screamed previously, forget about the CERT, go for his dad wasn't a citizen angle, but the more information you get (beside the fact that they aren't changing the definition of NBC overnight) the more you realize that there really is a problem for him with these "birth documents," whatever they are.

MichaelN said...

Questions to the 'experts' at TheFogbow forum.

Is there anyone here that can refute the fact that (per Calvin's case - Lord Coke) to be a 'natural born subject' in England, one must be born in the dominion to a 'subject' father & that an alien, visiting England, in amity, is considered a 'subject' [noun]?

Can anyone here refute the fact (per Calvin's case - Lord Coke) that not all children born in the dominion, to alien fathers, are considered as 'natural born subjects'?

Can anyone here refute the fact that for one to be considered (per Calvin's case -Lord Coke) a 'natural born subject' in England, it is the condition of the father as a 'subject' [noun] that is of primary importance i.e. jus sanguinis & that it is not the soil that makes one a 'natural born subject'?

Can anyone here refute the fact that Binney's statement in the text of the WKA case "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." was not challenged nor brought to issue as regards the clear distinction made between 'the child of an alien' and 'the natural born child of a citizen'?

Save the ad hominem!

MichaelN said...

Dishonest, selective, political partisan, agenda driven 'reporting' on the part of Dan Nakaso of Honolulu Advertizer.

My e-mail to Frank Bridgewater
Vice President / Editor
(808) 529-4791

Dear Mr. Bridgewater.

Kindly read this article, posted on Honilulu Advertiser web-site & authored by Dan Nakaso

Mr. Nakaso states "Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage,...."

Would you be so kind as to provide the source of this 'confirmation' and/or cite the official Health Department text or speech that is supposed to bring Mr. Nakaso to this conclusion?

It is apparent that Mr Nakaso is on a mission, with a partisan political agenda to squash any questions by genuinely concerned US citizens as to the existence of a hospital or medical practitioner's generated birth certificate, to the point of preferential, selective, fabricated, creative, false and misleading articles & public ridicule of these US citizens.

Kindly have Mr. Nakaso either cite the specific official Health Department press release, official, speech or document that might confirm that in fact what he said is in fact true and unbiased, or have Mr Nakaso publish a public correction & apology, if in fact my suspicions are correct.

Yours truly.

chuck said...

While continuing the BC investigations, does anyone else think we should take up other issues, especially since SCOTUS, Congress and federal courts refuse to take up the matter? I mentioned earlier that Obama thought he would have dictatorial control by now like Chavez, through whom we bought crooked voting machines, and wouldn't have to answer. How did Obama manage a near-take over of our country by getting control of the three branches of government, voting irregularities and media control, etc.?

Several questions need answering.
What happened at the March 12, 2008 secret session of Congress besides some security issue? They were told to keep quiet, and some were weeping. I've read it was predicted there by Steny Hoyer that the economy was going to crash, etc. etc. There is something very strange about it and the run on banks in October.

How did Obama get nominated when Hillary won the primaries? Was that decided on Mar. 12, after years of preparing him?

It is obvious that schools and universities were bought off. Will it take water-boarding to make them confess, or is there another way to bypass the courts?

The IMF (Soros once led them) demanded we move from "market to delivery" accounting in 2007 to "mark to market" accounting which brought prices way down. Was it planned to cause a crash?

Considering the riots in so many ME countries, is that coincidental, or did Obama, Ayers, etc. play a part? Obama has invited a speaker from the Muslim Brotherhood to return. Obama worked with the CIA like his mother's family. He was mentored by David Rockefeller and Zig Brzezinski who were involved in the fall of the Shah of Iran. Isn't that one thing the CIA does?

Wasn't the BC investigation begun to save our nation? I think we are in more danger than any of us realize, and Congress and the courts refuse to help. Elections will likely come too late. Without remedy by the courts, we are no longer a nation of laws, and it may take patriots still remainging in the military to regain control when Obama goes too far. We must be vigilant and never give up.

chuck said...

I admire the intellectual and legal abilities of those on this forum, but reading all this is freaking me out. In keeping with my abilities, and about 80% of us, let's dumb it down a little.

How about a nationwide tourist ad:

Visit Hawaii and see Obama's
birthplace--IF YOU CAN FIND IT.

Visit Hawaii and see Obama's
birthplace--Hawaiins can't.

For my redneck friends, a bumper sticker:

Join the Obama Movement--EAT A PRUNE.

Let us move forward said...

Assume that Mr. O's Hawaii birth record was filed by affidavit.

Lame Cherry proposed previously and I arrived at nearly the same following conclusions independently.

If Born in Hawaii at home: there must have been a big fight and Stanley Anne was shipped off to Washington State before the registration process was completed. Several old high school acquaintances have placed her with child at Mercer Island about 2 weeks after August 4, 1961.

If Born in Washington State: there would have been no need to file for birth in Hawaii unless Stanley Anne gave birth to Barack under an assumed name.

If Born in Canada: to get US citizenship for the child with a British subject father, someone would have to register the birth in the US. Could the birth have been registered Washington State? Was anyone there willing to lie that he was born at home in Washington State? We know that the birth could have been registered in Hawaii, and surely either Grandma or Grandpa was willing to swear that he was born in Hawaii.

Once again a birth in the Seattle area makes the most sense.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Stacker,

We do not need to change the definition of a "natural born Citizen" to show that Obama does not meet it. The only definition of a "natural born Citizen" was already used during the time the Framers inserted the "natural born Citizen" clause in the Constitution as a means to assure the survival and preservation of the new nation as a constitutional republic. That definition was a child born in the country to citizen parents (meaning father and mother under unity of citizenship and allegiance in husband and wife). No U.S. Supreme Court case has ever changed that definition. The 14th Amendment also did not change that definition. Rather, what has changed is how we have defined a “born” “Citizen of the United States,” not how we have defined a “natural born” “Citizen of the United States.”

The Supreme Court has never changed this definition, not even in Wong Kim Ark which only dealt with the issue of whether Wong, born in the United States to alien Chinese parents who were domiciled and residing in the United States and not serving in any foreign diplomatic capacity when he was born, was a "born" "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment. It is important to understand that Wong Kim Ark defined using old English common law a “born” “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, meaning that person to be admitted as an initial member of American society. It did not define under the English common law an Article II “natural born” “Citizen of the United States,” but rather cited Minor v. Happersett and confirmed its American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

Note that the 14th Amendment also did not change the definition of an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States." The political and legal battles that raged during our history regarding citizenship (citizenship for blacks, Indians, and Asians) was never about who could be a "natural born" "Citizen of the United States." Rather, they have been about who could be admitted as an initial member of American society, i.e., who could be considered a "citizen" which Article II of the Constitution simply calls a "Citizen of the United States" and the 14th Amendment a "citizen of the United States" (the capitalization does not create any distinction between the words). Treaties and Congressional Act also call these members "citizens of the United States."

So under American federal common law as developed in cases of our U.S. Supreme Court and our historical record, today we still define a "natural born" "Citizen of the United States" as a child born in the country (or its equivalent) to U.S. citizen parents (father and mother).

Unknown said...

"We aren't going to win this in the courts, but in the streets. It's time to mobilize the people, organize marches on Washington to demand the birth certificate. Put a million people in the streets and we cannot be denied."
Please count me in. I'm more than willing to use my vacation time to be a part of this. I have no experience in organizing this type of thing but would gladly follow someone who can get something like this scheduled, organized, etc...

Mario and Charles,
Please keep me posted if anything like a march or protest is in the works. My email is

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Dan Nakaso of the Honolulu Advertiser said “Hawai'i's Health Department confirmed yesterday [July 27, 2009] that it has President Obama's original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage” and that “[t]he Health Department’s director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama’s birth records.” Note the quotes of Janice Okubu and Dr. Chiyome Fukino indicating what is on file in Hawaii refer to “'vital records'” and “'original vital records'” and not to “birth certificate.”

Unknown said...

Oh I was not advocating any type of violence... just that I would love to be part of a march or protest (in the vein of MLK, Jr, not of any violent nature).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Just so it is perfectly clear, this blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unknown said...

OK, guess there is a hint here that I am not getting. Sometimes I can be a little dense.
So to clarify from my prespective, if anyone ELSE (besides the authors here) were to put something together with regard to a peaceful demo (maybe similar to a "Susan G. Komen 3 day"), I would be glad to attend.

The Stacker said...


I gave the scenario to present another way of thinking about things. I am VERY CLEAR on your position regard what a true NBC is. I AGREE WITH YOU.

The problem is, and not many people seem to get this on boards like this, even AFTER ALL OF THIS TIME,


And they are the ones that matter.

So please re-read my post and answer the question, if you can.

phil stone said...

Would be interesting if you could file your case in Florida and get Judge Vinson - he appears to be honest - different from others. Think we need to put pressure on all our newly elected tea-party congresspeople to initiate an investigation of Obama eligibility. Phil Stone

MichaelN said...

Lord Coke - Calvin's case, which is heavily relied on by the anti-constitutionalists.

You will not that to be an English 'natural born subject' one must be born to a 'subject' father (albeit an alien in amity)
and 'it is not the soil nor the climate that makes a subject born'

It is the 'subject'(in US 'citizen')status that determines the 'natural born subject' quality of his child.

Another point to note is that 'legal allegiance' of a subject in England (which in US might be when an alien in US said to be 'subject to the jurisdiction')can only exist if the person seeking to be a 'subject' by this form of allegiance takes an oath of allegiance.

Read Calvin's case,

"legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the Torn or Leet"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Stacker,

Could you state your question so that I can see if I can answer it?

Anonymous said...

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson Rules Against Obamacare

This judge seems to respect the Constitution. Can a lawsuit be filed to this judge and hope to get a more favorable ruling. It has to go better than with these random judges. At least he has shown some respect for the Constitution and a willingness to stand up against the Obama dictatorship.

I would think things are mostly written already and it might be easy to file here. I would expect that a patriot in the area of the judge could be found.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Is this what we have reduced ourselves to,

"False more than true."

Anonymous said...

just hitting the internet. Claims that Kenya has signed off that this is a real authentic birth certificate. Not sure I have not read the entire thing yet.

Robert said...

The question was, "Is Obama eligible?"

The facts have been presented and it is clear that he is not.

The question now is, "Why won't those sworn to protect and defend the Constitution honor their oath?"

Logically, they are either unwilling or unable. We need to find out what is going on behind the curtains of Oz and why.

The Stacker said...


Let's forget his "real" NBC status.

Given the accepted current definition, which even the extreme left acknowledges, that of being born physically in the US makes you NBC, the question is:

If there truly is a problem with Obama proving he was actually born in Hawaii, would that be legally problematic?

That is, he was affidavit registered and that looks spurious to the most biased thinker.

Alternatively, if he were out of state born (or there were hints of it in the "original vital statistics") would that also put into question his NBC status, since he has a "Hawaiian" birth cert/registration?


js said...

so whats the chance of a lawsuit by a citizen of a state suing the DNC for proof that obieOne was vetted...can u sue for the state as one of its citizens to certify facts that the DNC stated (that OBL was a natural born citizen)

the historical significance of this whole issue is valid...the public's right to know valid facts overrides the mans right to privacy...he can not keep his shield of silence up forever...its not a matter of national security so that the State needs to continue to defend OBL's right to privacy when the publics right to know who the man is who is in the office of POTUS...

after all...its not a secret...OBL has written books on the topic...he has publicly stated what he represents are has the Atty Genl of the US...and several states...and the MSM...and the DOH in Hawaii...and the Gov of whats the problem...that the public has no rights to validate the expressed by our elected leaders...???...

so if its not a secret...and it is a historic event...why hide it...and what law actually supercedes the publics right to know...its not that difficult to fathom...after all...they tell hollywood stars that thier privacy from paparazzi was underminded when they became public figures...

chuck said...

Judging by what is happening in the ME, and here, it is obvious to me that the PTB are planning a takeover. It seems a concerted effort is being made by progressives/Marxists and Islamists. The UN committees are chaired mostly by Muslims. Obama chairs the UN Security Council (BTW is that legal?).

Is it possible to have a suit ready to file with the SCOTUS in case any patriots there realize Obama is a traitor and ineligible? Wouldn't that finding by SCOTUS make it easier for Congress to hold impeachment hearings/procedures? Could they go back and rule on an older one?

Obama has Gates and Mullen in his pocket. If impeached and uncooperative, what role would US Marshals, CIA (Obama is a member), the FBI or the Joint Chiefs play in his removal?

What are the signs that the president no longer believes in the Constitution and has become a dictator?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We have seen Obama's supporters including Congressional position papers argue that as long as one is a U.S. citizen "at birth," one is an Article II "natural born Citizen."

One problem with this "at birth" theory is that the Framers said "natural born Citizen" not "born Citizen." Those putting this theory forward do not explain the Framers' qualification of "born Citizen" with the word "natural?" This theory simply does not address the Framers' use of the word "natural" which of course is critical in understanding what they intended by the clause. In other words, these individuals do not explain why the Framers did not just say "born Citizen," but rather said "natural born Citizen."

Another problem with the “at birth” theory is that these persons have "natural born" citizenship status for in-country births as sufficiently emanating from soil (jus soli) with no need for two U.S. citizen parents or for out-of-country births sufficiently emanating from one or two U.S. citizen parents (jus sanguinis) with no need for an in-country birth. But they provide no support from the historical record or from any U.S. Supreme Court case law which shows that an Article II "natural born Citizen" (not to be confounded with an Article I or II “Citizen of the United States,” Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” or Congressional Act or treaty “citizen of the United States”) was ever recognized in any situation wherein the child was not born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. On the contrary, the historical record, U.S. Supreme Court case law, Congressional citizenship and naturalization acts, and treaties show that whenever an Article II "natural born Citizen" has been defined, that definition has always been a child born in the country to citizen parents.

MichaelN said...

From reading Lord Coke (Calvin's case)
The alien parent father, visiting England was considered a 'subject'[noun] of the sovereign by virtue of his presence in the dominion i.e. 'local allegiance'

Nothing to do with 'subject to the jurisdiction' as this would be descriptive of an alien who would have 'legal allegiance'.

Then because of the alien father's subject status, a child born in the dominion, (of that same sovereign) to the 'subject' father is a 'natural born subject' by 'nature and birthright'.

For the child, this 'nature' is because of the 'subject' father's allegiance & the 'birthright' is because the child is born in the dominion of the alien father's being a 'subjecct' of the sovereign.

'nature and birthright' therefore means jus sanguinis AND jus soli.

This 'natural born subject' has the qualities called 'alta allegiance, high allegiance, pure, natural and absolute'.

The alien father's allegiance can be either 'local allegiance', which is described as 'mean, small and extremely uncertain', or it may be by denizen, or by 'legal allegiance', but for an alien to be a 'subject' per 'legal allegiance, (i.e. subject TO the jurisdiction)he must swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign.

Sallyal said...

I just called in to Hannity and actually got through. I told the screener that even though I knew I would never get on the air, I wanted to say that if all the Sens, Reps, media, talk show guys and gals, etc had not blown off the eligibility issue, we would most likely not be in this situation today. And as unPC is this is going to be, I will be the first to go on record as saying that they all have blood on their hands for any civilians and journalists that are injured or killed in Egypt during this rioting. So go ahead, let me have and tell me where I am wrong.

chuck said...

Mario and Robert,

Those who represent us have an anti-Constitution, anti-America and anti-capitalism agenda. Obama promised to transform America, but he dared not say it was by overthrowing our government. Alan Keyes said Obama was a radical communist, but most ridiculed him like they do us on this blog.

Those in government know Obama is not eligible. That is obvious when they voted okay on McCain in HR 511 but did nothing about Obama. They don't want to hear the truth. I feel anger and contempt toward all three branches and the media. They have slapped us in the face. Mario has done everything possible to convince the courts and citizens. Why no outrage? I found nine predictions from the March 12, 2008 closed session at War is a Crime. Were they threatened, bought off or promised positions of power in the new order? We have been betrayed by the hands of those we trusted in both parties. The Interior Dept. has already been found in contempt in the oil-drilling scandal. Can Obama be found in contempt by pursuing Obamacare following the last ruling? Is he illegally interfering in the internal affairs of Egypt? Are those impeachable offenses? Are we to be encouraged by a few courts beginning to rule against the regime?

MichaelN said...

Here's some action at TheFogbow forum to liven-up the debate.

John Adams.
"Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected."

MichaelN said...

English common law per Lord Coke - Calvin's case:

"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: "

"The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the Torn or Leet.

Ergo: the alien Frenchman was a 'subject' of the sovereign by 'local allegiance' and NOT 'legal allegiance', hence the Frenchman was not 'subject to' [adj]

The point being that for USA to be consistent with English common law, for an alien in USA to be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of USA, (aka 'legal allegiance'), the alien would need to swear an oath of allegiance.

Bob said...

This is the British attitude toward 'natural born citizen' -- and, it is not the American view at all!

The Duke of Wellington was born in Dublin, the fourth son of the 1st Earl of Mornington.

He always denied being Irish, however, saying that being born in a barn does not make someone a horse.

He felt he was not truly Irish because he hailed from the Anglo-Irish aristocratic 'Protestant Ascendancy!'

And, obviously, we have a British-born play-acting President who has the same attitude toward being born in America that Wellesley had toward Ireland!

Bob said...

This is probably the best reason around why our 'Forbidden City' refuses to address Mario's perfect arguments -- and that reason has been around since the foundation of the Republic --

"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."

-- Thomas Paine

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

As we know, the States are now taking action to make sure that only a “natural born Citizen” is allowed to get on the presidential ballot of the respective state. Obama’s supporters are out and about screaming ex post facto law and bill of attainder.

First, why should Obama or any of his supporters not want to comply with Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause? Simply, if he is not a “natural born Citizen,” then he cannot expect to be confirmed by an honest Congress during the 20th Amendment confirmation proceedings.

Second, it they disagree with the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” they are mistaken that the state’s anticipated law would be an ex post facto law or bill of attainder. The American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" has existed in our nation since the Founding. Article II uses it for presidential eligibility. Our U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that definition as early as 1814 in The Venus (Chief Justice Marshall concurring) (1814), again in Minor v. Happersett (1875) and again in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). So the states are not passing any new law that did not exist before. They are only enforcing an already existing law and making sure that Article II is respected.

And that American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen father and mother.

MichaelN said...

Not to mention that per Lord Coke in Calvin's case, (English Common Law) it takes 'nature AND birthright' to make a 'natural born subject'.


"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances; the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta pura, et indefinite, and this originally is due by nature and birth-right"

jus sanguinis AND jus soli - even in English common law.

Robert said...

It's great to see signs of the States finally waking up to Mr. Obama and the threat he and his handlers (puppet masters) present to our Constitution and to the sovereignty of the People and the States.

Or, it's nice to see the States' leaders responding to the People who are fed up and ready to throw them out of office if they can't find a backbone.

Honestly, though sad to say, I'm putting more faith in the latter than in the former. Right now I don't trust too many state leaders any more than I do most of our federal leadership.

I wonder (sorry) if this State action might be just another red herring? Why do they need to pass new laws to allow them to perform an obvious duty. I mean really! How can a Secretary of State allow an ineligible candidate on a ballot without committing or abetting some kind of election fraud?

In any case, maybe the States are serious (Lets' hope they are.) and this gives them the proper motivation to do their duty. Who knows? They might start reading the Constitution for real and continue to discover and address a host of other unconstitutional federal laws and mandates that are infringing on our personal liberties and devastating our State budgets.

Regardless of what the States appear to be doing, please be persistent. Continue to pressure all of our elected officials, pursue the exposure of Mr. Obama's fraud and demand the complete nullification of the Obama presidency.

Also be aware of the risk of Mr. Obama's masters trying to trap us by throwing him under the bus while making up some excuse whereas Mr. Obama "decides" not to run for office. This gambit could enable the courts to then declare all cases against the Obama presidency "moot" just as they have manufactured the "standing" argument to separate the people from our right to redress. This would stick us with the bill - all of unconstitutional garbage that Mr. Obama, et al have thrust upon us.

Beware of celebrating the light at the end of the tunnel until you make certain it's NOT a train.

MichaelN said...


Maybe a 'Writ of Error' with the SCOTUS, or possibly in a Federal Court, to have the dicta in Wong Kim Ark corrected?

MichaelN said...

Or maybe a Writ of Error filed with SCOTUS to correct the error in Ankeny case in Indiana.

MichaelN said...

English common law.

Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

"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,"

Dixhistory said...

"Robert said...
It's great to see signs of the States finally waking up to Mr. Obama and the threat he and his handlers (puppet masters) present to our Constitution and to the sovereignty of the People and the States"

Ditto on Robert's entire post.

The laws are in place now. What is being enforced are crazy rules that are not in our laws.

That our laws are not being upheld is what is wrong. They need to be enforced!

phil stone said...

Thirteen states (interesting number) have initiated legislation to require proof of eligibility in order to be placed on their ballots in presidential elections. One would think that these state legislators would ask their congressional representatives to request the republican majority in the house to investigate Obama's eligibility - or lack of it. The state legislators should be easy to contact directly since they represent fewer people than federal legislators - and they should be able to talk to their congresspeople. Phil Stone