Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the NJ Supreme Court

               Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the
                                               NJ Supreme Court


                                            By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                August 8, 2012




The candidate Barack Obama presidential election ballot challenge in New Jersey is proceeding forward. On July 2, 2012, I filed on behalf of my clients, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran, a Petition for Certification with the New Jersey Supreme Court. See my post entitled, Purpura and Moran File Petition for Certification With the NJ Supreme Court in Obama NJ Ballot Challenge , with 439 comments, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/07/purpura-and-moran-file-petition-for.html . The Petition for Certification may be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/98923880/Purpura-Moran-Petition-for-Certification-FILED-7-2-12 .

On July 16, 2012, candidate, Barack Obama, through his attorney, Angelo J. Genova, Esq., filed his Opposition Letter Brief which can be read here, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102405426/Purpura-Moran-Opposition-Letter-Brief-by-Obama-to-NJ-Supreme-Ct-7-16-12 . On July 19, 2012, the New Jersey Secretary of State, through the New Jersey Attorney General (by Deputy Attorney General Alan C. Stephens) filed her Opposition Letter Brief which can be read here, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102405496/Purpura-Moran-Opposition-Letter-Brief-of-SOS-to-NJ-Supreme-Ct-7-19-12 .

Today, Wednesday, August 8, 2012, I filed with the Supreme Court petitioners’ Reply Letter Brief. A copy of the Reply Letter Brief can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/102405635/Purpura-Moran-Reply-Letter-Brief-to-NJ-Supreme-Ct-FILED-8-8-12 .

The New Jersey ballot challenge case is now ready for submission to the Chambers of the New Jersey Supreme Court Justices for decision on whether the Court will grant our Petition for Certification. A Petition for Certification shall be granted on the affirmative vote of 3 or more justices. If certification is granted, the matter shall be deemed pending on appeal in the Supreme Court and the Court would then decide the appeal on the briefs, appendices, and transcript filed in the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court may render a decision with or without oral argument.

In the Petition for Certification, we argue that our petition presents questions of general importance which have not been but which should be settled by the Supreme Court and that the interest of justice requires that the Supreme Court grant certification. A democratic majority does not have the constitutional right to elect a President who is not constitutionally eligible. Hence, whether a person running for President is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and constitutionally eligible for that office is a question of great public importance. What role the State of New Jersey through the Secretary of State (“SOS”) has in vetting candidates who are running for the Office of President is also a question of great public importance. Whether New Jersey is responsible for determining the eligibility of its presidential candidates is a significant question for the state to answer. For sure, how best to protect the integrity of New Jersey elections for the Office of President is a question of great public importance to the State of New Jersey, which is guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of our Constitution a republican form of government. These questions and their answers are special reasons enough for this Court to grant certification.

We argue that the Administrative Law Judge, whose opinion was adopted by the Secretary of State and affirmed by the Appellate Division, erred in allowing candidate Barack Obama to be placed on the ballot for the primary and general election and to run for office in New Jersey without providing any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing his identity or where he was born, when challenged to do so.

We argue that, in light of Obama conceding that the State of New Jersey has no evidence of his identity or place of birth, including the 2011 internet image of his alleged birth certificate, the ALJ had absolutely no evidence before him upon which to base his finding that Obama was born in Hawaii.

We also argue that the ALJ misapplied Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Fourteenth Amendment, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), all which he used to find that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that if one was born before the adoption of the Constitution, one could be a “Citizen of the United States” and be eligible to be President. But it also provides that for all those born after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President. That means that today, anybody who is just a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen” is not eligible to be President.

The Founders and Framers had good reason for including the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution and requiring that future Presidents have that birth status. St. George Tucker tells us why the Founders and Framers used the “natural born Citizen” clause as a requirement of presidential eligibility:

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.”

George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803), http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm . So we can see that the Founders and Framers used the “natural born Citizen” clause as a national security measure designed to make sure that the President worked only in the best interest of the United States and its republican principles and of no other nation. It was also put in place to keep all vestiges of monarchial rule and influence out of the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.” When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

Again, Minor v. Happersett confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which Minor said the Founders and Framers were familiar with and used when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause. That definition is a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” Id. at 167-68. Minor left open the question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. As we have seen, this is a different standard as that which applies to defining a “natural born Citizen.”

Wong Kim Ark answered the single question left open by Minor. It held that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents who were neither diplomats nor military invaders was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. The Court’s single task was to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The Court found that Wong’s parents being domiciled and residents (not “citizens”) was enough to give jurisdiction to the United States over them and Wong when Wong was born. Again, since the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” clause, Wong defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. In fact, Wong’s specific holding uses the phrase “citizen of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen.” Hence, using that amendment to find someone a “citizen of the United States,” regardless of whether that person is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, has no direct bearing on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” After all, Article II says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen,” and is applied for presidential eligibility. What the Fourteenth Amendment can do with reference to a “natural born Citizen” is increase the pool of parents who become “citizens of the United States” and give birth to “natural born Citizens.”

The clause “natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause, which has a very special meaning as confirmed by Minor. It is constitutional error to conflate and confound a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment with a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. A “natural born Citizen,” being the standard for the President and the Commander in Chief of the Military, requires allegiance and citizenship only to the United States from the moment of birth. A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from birth does not have the same allegiance requirement and can even be born with dual and conflicting allegiances, a condition which the Founders and Framers did not permit future Presidents and Commanders to have when born. They were very specific as is evident from the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that after the adoption of the Constitution, one had to be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “Citizen of the United States.”

There is no other U.S. Supreme Court case that has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as confirmed by Minor. That definition, which is the definition from the Founding, it therefore the supreme law of the land and stands today until amended by Constitutional amendment. And that definition is a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

We know that candidate Barack Obama was not born to “citizen” parents. His father was a British/Kenyan citizen who never became a “citizen of the United States.” Obama, even if born in Hawaii, cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Because his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born, Obama, who wants to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, while he could have been born a “citizen of the United States” if born in Hawaii, was also born in full allegiance and citizenship of Great Britain and at age two also of Kenya. He was not born within the full and complete allegiance of the United States, an indispensable birth condition for one wanting to be President and Commander of the Military. Hence, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” See David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) (citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6; St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803), http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm (“These civil rights [which included the right to be elected President] may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens”).

What this means is that since Obama is neither an Article II “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 he is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

I will update this post as soon as I receive new information.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 8, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Purpura and Moran File Petition for Certification With the NJ Supreme Court in Obama NJ Ballot Challenge

       Purpura and Moran File Petition for Certification With the NJ

                    Supreme Court in Obama NJ Ballot Challenge

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

July 2, 2012

Today, I filed on behalf of my clients, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran, a Petition for Certification with the New Jersey Supreme Court.  The petition may be read here:  

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/98923880/Purpura-Moran-Petition-for-Certification-FILED-7-2-12 .

In the petition, we argue that the Administrative Law Judge, whose opinion was adopted by the Secretary of State and affirmed by the Appellate Division, erred in allowing candidate Barack Obama to be placed on the ballot for the primary and general election and to run for office in New Jersey without providing any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing his identity or where he was born, when challenged to do so. 

We argue that, in light of Obama conceding that the State of New Jersey has no evidence of his identity or place of birth, including the 2011 internet image of his alleged birth certificate, the ALJ had absolutely no evidence before him upon which to base his finding that Obama was born in Hawaii.    

We also argue that the ALJ misapplied Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Fourteenth Amendment, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), all which he used to find that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”  Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that if one was born before the adoption of the Constitution, one could be a “Citizen of the United States” and be eligible to be President.  But it also provides that for all those born after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President.  That means that today, anybody who is just a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen” is not eligible to be President. 

The Founders and Framers had good reason for including the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution and requiring that future Presidents have that birth status. St. George Tucker tells us why the Founders and Framers used the “natural born Citizen” clause as a requirement of presidential eligibility:   

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.”  

George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of  The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803),  http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm .  So we can see that the Founders and Framers used the “natural born Citizen” clause as a national security measure designed to make sure that the President worked only in the best interest of the United States and its republican principles and of no other nation.  It was also put in place to keep all vestiges of monarchial rule and influence out of the United States.  

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.”  When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment.  Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.  And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.  

Again, Minor v. Happersett confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which Minor said the Founders and Framers were familiar with and used when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause. That definition is a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”  Id. at 167-68.  Minor left open the question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction”  of the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.  As we have seen, this is a different standard as that which applies to defining a “natural born Citizen.” 

Wong Kim Ark answered the single question left open by Minor.  It held that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents who were neither diplomats nor military invaders was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.  The Court’s single task was to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.  The Court found that Wong’s parents being domiciled and residents (not “citizens”) was enough to give jurisdiction to the United States over them and Wong when Wong was born.  Again, since the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” clause, Wong defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  In fact, Wong’s specific holding uses the phrase “citizen of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen.”  Hence, using that amendment to find someone a “citizen of the United States,” regardless of whether that person is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, has no direct bearing on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  After all, Article II says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen,” and is applied for presidential eligibility.  What the Fourteenth Amendment can do with reference to a “natural born Citizen” is increase the pool of parents who become “citizens of the United States” and give birth to “natural born Citizens.”   

The clause “natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause, which has a very special meaning as confirmed by Minor.  It is constitutional error to conflate and confound a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment with a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  A “natural born Citizen,” being the standard for the President and the Commander in Chief of the Military, requires allegiance and citizenship only to the United States from the moment of birth.  A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from birth does not have the same allegiance requirement and can even be born with dual and conflicting allegiances, a condition which the Founders and Framers did not permit future Presidents and Commanders to have when born.  They were very specific as is evident from the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that after the adoption of the Constitution, one had to be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “Citizen of the United States.”      

There is no other U.S. Supreme Court case that has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as confirmed by Minor.  That definition, which is the definition from the Founding, it therefore the supreme law of the land and stands today until amended by Constitutional amendment.  And that definition is  a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”  

We know that candidate Barack Obama was not born to “citizen” parents.  His father was a British/Kenyan citizen who never became a “citizen of the United States.”  Obama, even if born in Hawaii, cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”  Because his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born, Obama, who wants to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, while he could have been born a “citizen of the United States” if born in Hawaii, was also born in full allegiance and citizenship of Great Britain and at age two also of Kenya.  He was not born within the full and complete allegiance of the United States, an indispensable birth condition for one wanting to be President and Commander of the Military.  Not being a “natural born Citizen,” he is not eligible to be elected President.  See David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) (citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6; St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of  The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803),  http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm   (“These civil rights [which included the right to be elected President] may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens”).    

I will update this post as circumstances warrant.    

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

July 2, 2012

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved        

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

Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in Barack Obama N.J. Ballot
                                       Access Challenge Appeal  
                                        
                                       By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                              May 22, 2012
                                        Updated May 25, 2012
                                        Updated May 29, 2012

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

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

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

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

Important Update:

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

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

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

Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Purpura-Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Challenge Appealed to Appellate Division-Briefing and Oral Argument Scheduled

     Purpura-Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Challenge Appealed to Appellate     
                            Division-Briefing and Oral Argument Scheduled


                                             By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                   May 15, 2012

On Friday, May 11, 2012, I filed with the New Jersey Appellate Division on behalf of Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran their appeal of the New Jersey Secretary of State’s final decision to permit presidential candidate Barack Obama on the New Jersey primary ballot.

On Friday, May 11, 2012, I also made an application with the Appellate Division that the appeal be handled on an emergent basis. On Monday, the Court issued an order providing that the Court, sua sponte, accelerates the appeal. The Court has ordered that appellants file and serve their brief and appendix on or before Friday, May 18, 2012 and that respondent Barack Obama file and serve his responding brief and appendix on or before Friday, May 25, 2012. The Court also ordered that the New Jersey Attorney General file and serve his response on or before Friday, May 25, 2012. Finally, the Court scheduled telephonic oral argument for Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. The appeal will be heard and decided by a panel of three Appellate Division judges, Clarkson S. Fisher, P.J.A.D., Linda G. Baxter, J.A.D., and Philip S. Carchman, J.A.D. A copy of the Court’s Order entered by Hon. Judge Carchman on May 14, 2012 may be read here,

http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/93589363-Purpura-Moran-Order-on-Emergent-Application-5-14-12 .

In our appeal, we will be arguing that:

1. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and Secretary of State (SOS) erred in finding that Obama, because he does not have to consent to his nominating petition, does not have any legal obligation to provide any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State proving who he is, where he was born, and that he is constitutionally eligible to occupy the Office of President in order to be placed on the New Jersey primary election ballot.

2. The ALJ and SOS erred in finding that a “natural born Citizen” includes any child who is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” regardless of the citizenship status of the parents.

3. The ALJ and SOS erred in finding that Obama was born in Hawaii, for there is no evidence in the record supporting such a finding.

4. The ALJ and SOS erred in finding that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore as a matter of law he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 14, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Objection to Candidate Barack Obama’s Petition of Nomination for the Primary Presidential Election Filed in New Jersey

Objection to Candidate Barack Obama’s Petition of Nomination for the Primary
                                    Presidential Election Filed in New Jersey


                                      By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                              April 5, 2012




Battle of Trenton


Today, April 5, 2012, I filed with the New Jersey Secretary of State in Trenton, New Jersey, the Objection Of Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran To Petition Of Nomination Of Barack Obama, also Known As Barack Hussein Obama II, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah. That office reviewed the Objection and decided that it did merit a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

The Objection to Obama’s nominating petition is that he has not provided competent and sufficient evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing his identity and that he was born in the United States, and that even if he were born in the United States, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. The Objection therefore demands that the Secretary of State not permit Obama’s name to be printed on the primary and general election ballot.

There will be a plenary hearing on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey  08619. 

The Objection may be read at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88210603-Purpura-Moran-Objection-to-Obama-Nominating-Petition-4-5-12 .

UPDATE:  The hearing will take place not at 10:00 a.m., as we were initial told by the New Jersey Division of Elections, but at 9:00 a.m.  It will be before Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619.

I have been advised that there are reports on the internet that the court has already dismissed the case and that the hearing has been cancelled.  These reports are false. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 5, 2011
Update April 9, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved