Main Menu

Higher expectations

Dr. Conspiracy

I’ve been thinking about this article for a couple of days, and just now I found myself writing a reply to Mario Apuzzo in which I said:

I assume that folks who visit my site follow my links and read the background material.

While I do write tutorial articles, my “news” articles are typically very short and skeletal. They say enough to let the reader know what the news item is about and then link to a real newspaper article, or the opinion in the court decision, or the book.

While birthers read this site sometimes, I do not expect to “reach” them, my material excluded by their confirmation bias. I expect that other visitors are here to learn something. What IΒ  hope to bring in terms of value is a collection of links to information, with less throw-away material than a Google search. Do you know–when I want to research something on Obama Conspiracies, I most often use Google to search my own site because most of the time I have a link to the information I need, either my own or from a commenter.

I have higher expectations of my visitors. I assume that would rather think for themselves than take my conclusions on face value.


To search the site, append site:obamaconspiracy.org (no internal spaces) to your query.

152 Responses to Higher expectations

  1. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 29, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    I have higher expectations of my visitors. I assume that [they] would rather think for themselves than take my conclusions on face value.

    Unfortunately some of them choose neither, they just let someone else tell them how to adjust their confirmation bias…

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 29, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    Have you ever thought about adding a birther timeline to the site? It would be interesting to see the evolution of the various lines of argument. I can’t think of anyone who would be better qualified as a ‘birther historian’ than you.

  3. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 29, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Have you ever thought about adding a birther timeline to the site?It would be interesting to see the evolution of the various lines of argument.I can’t think of anyone who would be better qualified as a birther historian’ than you.

    Good suggestion. I have been thinking for some time that it would be nice to have the cases on a timeline rather than just listed alphabetically.

  4. avatar
    Daniel November 29, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Have you ever thought about adding a birther timeline to the site?It would be interesting to see the evolution of the various lines of argument.I can’t think of anyone who would be better qualified as a birther historian’ than you.

    It would certainly give a good overall perspective of the birther’s goalpost shifting over time.

  5. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree November 29, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    Personally, I come here to see if nincompoops are commenting, and to watch the resultant flogging. It’s really fun when one of those nincompoops is a NJ lawyer who specializes in DWI cases and embarrassing himself at SCOTUS. Alas, Apuzzo is stinking up the comment section at CAAFlog and getting his head handed to him. Perhaps when they stop laughing at him, he’ll return over here. Carry on.

  6. avatar
    James M November 29, 2010 at 11:42 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP:

    Good suggestion. I have been thinking for some time that it would be nice to have the cases on a timeline rather than just listed alphabetically.

    I think it needs to be more like a Gantt chart, to deal with the lifespan of the cases that enjoyed appeals, and also to represent the introduction of theories and when they were explicitly shot down (thinking of stuff like the Lucas Smith forgery, and the wonderful typewriter/plaid tablecloth episode, etc). I also have a morbid curiosity in knowing things like when and how Gerald Newton finally ended his alt.politics.democrats experience (suicide? liver failure?)

  7. avatar
    Black Lion November 30, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    Great Article…

    The Birther Movement is Going Through a Rebirth and Should be Aborted

    “Ultra-conservative website WorldNetDaily claims that it has succeeded in receiving confirmation from legislators in at least four states that bills concerning Obama’s birthplace and birth certificate will be considered in the upcoming legislative session, a development that pleases so-called ‘Birther queen’ Orly Taitz.” — Huffington Post

    This is the kind of trash that we will have to remain vigilant about through the 2012 Presidential election. These right wingers are systematically trying to destroy President Obama and we all need to do our part to make sure that this doesn’t happen. I have no problem whatsoever with people who challenge President Obama on his policies, governing ability, or job approval basis but we all know that this “birther movement” is code for “he’s not like us” — and we all know what that means.

    Everyone wants to pussy-foot around the issue but if we are all honest with ourselves, we will admit that the main reason (not only reason, but main reason) behind this sudden explosion of the tea-party/birther movement in the last 2 years is that President Obama is black. Period! If that wasn’t the main reason then the tea party movement (which says that their main concerns are government overreach and deficit spending) would have been champing at the bit to take a piece out of George W. Bush’s hide since he was the president who expanded government more than any president in recent history (remember illegal wiretapping?) along with ballooning the national deficit by trillions of dollars. So then what does it say that the vast majority of tea-partiers who are supposedly vehemently against all of these things still overwhelmingly “supported” George W. Bush and his presidency? I rest my case!

    It drives me absolutely crazy when I hear political pundits say that the reason that President Obama is not popular in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky and South Carolina is because of his policies. Give me a break! Obama could capture Osama bin Laden single-handedly, bring peace to the Middle East and cure cancer on the plane ride back home and he still would not be popular in some of those states…because they just don’t like him…Period!

    While we must admit that not everything is about race and that the vast majority of people in this country are fair and decent individuals whether they like President Obama or not, we must also admit that every now and then it is about race and there are some people in this country who truly are personally offended that Barack Obama is President of the United States and closing our eyes and pretending that this is not the case helps no one!

    Those in our community who have a larger microphone than most really need to stand up to make sure that this problem is fully understood by unprejudiced Americans — and that we all need to help to combat it! These heirs to the Confederacy are not playing for second place, they are serious and we should be too!

    http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/11993

  8. avatar
    Lupin November 30, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    Black Lion: http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/11993

    Couldn’t agree more.

  9. avatar
    HORUS November 30, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    Anyone see that idiot on Anderson Cooper last night?
    What a moron!

  10. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 30, 2010 at 11:07 am #

    Horus, here is the link again:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=14456

  11. avatar
    Judge Mental November 30, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Vince Treacy: Horus, here is the link again:http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=14456

    How ironic that a country with a political system which seems to regularly facilitate people of such mind boggling basic gullibility and ignorance finding their way into influential positions of governance wishes to export that same political system into Middle East countries such as Iraq in which the iexisting nherent culture renders such democratic systems patently unworkable and inappropriate even without such flaws. The lunatics seem to have well and truly taken over the asylum in a global sense.

  12. avatar
    G November 30, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    Lupin: Black Lion:

    http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/11993

    Couldn’t agree more.

    I second that!

    HORUS: Anyone see that idiot on Anderson Cooper last night?
    What a moron!

    Vince Treacy: Horus, here is the link again:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=14456

    Yes, that was an excellent story on CNN. Actually, they had two of them yesterday – both highly recommended watching. Here are the direct CNN links, where CNN spanks down the birther movement hard with facts:

    http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/11/30/ac.berman.birther.debate.cnn

    http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/11/30/ac.birther.movement.alive.cnn

  13. avatar
    Observer December 1, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    The birther ignorance of history just gets greater and greater as the debate goes on. Many seem to be uneducable.

    For example, at numerous sites, Paul Hollrah has written “At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country. And since the founders wished to exclude all those with dual citizenship (divided loyalties) from serving as president or vice president at any time in the future, they provided an exemption of limited duration for those who were officially U.S. residents at the time and who might wish to serve as president or vice president after reaching the age of thirty-five.

    “For example, George Washington was 57 years of age when he was inaugurated as our first president. But Washington, born and raised in Virginia, had been a British subject during all of his 57-plus years.”

    Can you imagine how totally ignorant of history all of this is?

    At the time of adoption of the Constitution, the colonies no longer existed. They were now “States,” not colonies, and made up the “United States of America.” Every citizen was a citizen of the United States, not of Britain or any other country. Washington was a United States citizen from 1776 on, not a British subject “during all of his 57-plus years.” The USA began with the Declaration of Independence and was legally named the USA in the Articles of Confederation.
    Paul has been corrected at McCarty’s site, but cannot recognize his error. In comments, Hollrah wrote: “At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country. This is to say that, the day before the Constitution was adopted, none of the residents of the thirteen colonies were U.S. citizens because the country didn’t exist. But the day after the adoption they were suddenly citizens of the U.S. and, I might add, dual citizens.”
    The “country didn’t exist”? What parallel universe is he talking about? Has he even heard of the Articles of Confederation?
    In addition, by the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, United States citizenship was even recognized by Britain: “Article 7: There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease.”

    He is ignorant of elementary facts of American history, and cannot even distinguish between the Declaration and the Constitution. He cannot figure out that the Constitution created a government, not a nation, or that it was ratified by the people of the “States” in conventions called for that purpose. He thinks that the American people were subjects of Britain at the time of adoption, not citizens of the United States.

    Since most of the essay is based on these incredible historical errors, its conclusions come to an erroneous end. His constitutional argument is wrong. The framers intended to exclude naturalized citizens from the Presidency in order to bar foreign princes, generals or other adventurers from coming in to seize power.

    Better get him a history book.
    http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/
    http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-memo-that-changed-america/#comment-5285

  14. avatar
    Black Lion December 1, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    That article is full of so many fallacies it is astounding….They attack the credibility of Jack Maskill and claim that the CRS memo was to give cover for all of Congress not to object to the President’s electoral vote certification….I especially like how he reintreprets the Constitution and tells us what the founders intended….

    “For example, George Washington was 57 years of age when he was inaugurated as our first president. But Washington, born and raised in Virginia, had been a British subject during all of his 57-plus years. Hence, as a means of qualifying a class of men for the presidency during the first thirty-five years of our nationhood, while preventing any man with dual or naturalized citizenship from ever serving as president, after a pool of “natural born” men had reached the age of thirty-five… limiting access to those offices only to those born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens… the founders included the words, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution…”

    Few Americans, not even our distinguished members of Congress, have ever stopped to consider what those sixteen simple words mean, or, more importantly, who they exclude from presidential consideration. That is why, after sitting silently in their chairs while the names of 365 Obama electors were read from the Speaker’s rostrum, not a single member of Congress rose to object… preferring instead to hide behind the legal skirts of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and their Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell.

    In the days immediately following Barack Obama’s unlikely election in November 2008, members of Congress began flooding the CRS with questions about Obama’s eligibility. Jack Maskell, a CRS Legislative Attorney drew the “short straw” and was assigned to provide members of Congress with legal cover.”

  15. avatar
    Black Lion December 1, 2010 at 4:22 pm #

    Darren Huff’s sister Renee says he pled nolo contendre to a misdemeanor and will serve no jail time. She says he’s on his way back to Georgia, leaving Walt on his own. Brave Sir Darren, in a real fight he tucked his tail between his legs and ran away.

    She confirms that Walt is defending himself pro se.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/True-Patriots/120386591345377

    Meanwhile, our Obot reporter on the scene says:

    In his [Fitzpatrick’s] opening statement he started ranting and raving that he couldn’t get a lawyer because had been in jail 36 days and was in a prison uniform for the same reason. Judge Blackwood sent the jury out and read the riot act to Walter. He made him acknowledge that he had an been given the opportunity to be driven home to get other clothes. Walter said that if he couldn’t wear his navy uniform he preferred to wear his jail duds. The jury was led back in and Walter calmed down. There seems to be no mention of a new lawyer other than the public defender that Walter fired and Pidgeon who stepped down.

    Walter went after Pettway in cross and had an agitated exchange. Jim Stutts [the prosecutor] lodged multiple objections that were sustained. Walter, of course, is pushing the corruption in Monroe County and the illegal grand jury meme.

    There are about 30 folks in the audience.

    More will be revealed.

    While over at the Post and Fail, Mrs. Rondeau is hawking as Huff being “exonerated”–which, of course, is not what nolo contendere means. It’s a guilty plea, but let’s not quibble. Fitzpatrick’s secret, third lawyer decided to remain a secret and did not appear at the opening day of the trial at all. Apparently, he expected to be paid. No word on any hoard of Oath Keepers, Militia or prayerful keyboard warriors crowding the courthouse square, though it’s always possible Eric Holder is in the coffee shop.

  16. avatar
    Majority Will December 1, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    Black Lion: . . . though it’s always possible Eric Holder is in the coffee shop.

    *spit take*

    NICE ! ! πŸ˜€

    (Isn’t Soros paying for the jury’s lunches?)

  17. avatar
    Observer December 1, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    The latest historical ignorance of Paul Hollrah: “There is no evidence that he [Obama] ever took steps to renounce either his British or his Kenyan citizenship.”

    The facts are different. The Obama campaign explained this in 2008:

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.

    “Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
    http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

    The historical fact is that Obama lost his dual citizenship when he took no action before age 21. That citizenship was conditional and contingent. He lost it when he did nothing to claim it.

    Paul cannot even read his own pasted-up source material. Here is what he posted: ““(1) A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”

    Crystal clear. He “ceased to be a citizen of Kenya” when he failed to renounce US citizenship and take an oath to Kenya. Sure, there is no evidence that he renounced Kenyan citizenship. He lost it when he failed to renounce US citizenship.

    There is nothing in the Constitution, in its history, or in the court cases that supports his theory. It is a crank constitutional notion.

    Who is going to listen to this guy Paul if he still thinks the United States did not exist as a country until adoption of the Constitution.

    He will not even learn some history and correct his mistakes.

    He does not like to be corrected. They just cut off comments at the McClarty site.

    Cowards.

    http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 1, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Have you ever thought about adding a birther timeline to the site? It would be interesting to see the evolution of the various lines of argument. I can’t think of anyone who would be better qualified as a birther historian’ than you.

    Sounds like a lot of work πŸ˜‰

    For something interesting, though, type “birther timeline” (including the quotes) in Google and scroll down to the link at the bottom of the page that says “Timeline results for ‘birther timeline’.” Check out the “100 per page” version.

  19. avatar
    G December 2, 2010 at 12:33 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Sounds like a lot of work πŸ˜‰

    Awww…when did you ever let that stop you, Dr. C! πŸ˜‰

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 2, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Sounds like a lot of work

    Yeah, but it will probably come in handy when you write your book on the birthers… πŸ˜‰

  21. avatar
    misha December 2, 2010 at 1:27 am #

    Here is my open letter to Mario Apuzzo:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo.html

  22. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 2:35 am #

    I left the following comment for Col. Dwight Sullivan at his blog, http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

    Col. Sullivan has taken some liking to attacking me for some unknown reason. I do not know him but nevertheless he feels as though he has to do what he does.

    “Mr. Col. Sullivan,

    You seem to have some special knowledge of how the Supreme Court decided the Kerchner Petition for Cert. Your opinion is that Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan did not have to recuse themselves because as you say the respondents waived their right to oppose the Petition and the Court did not ask for any response which you then say converts to the case never making it to any discuss list and therefore the Court not even discussing and voting on the case. You then add that all this means that there was no need for Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan to recuse themselves because they had no type of involvement in deciding the Kerchner case.

    First, I find all your information rather interesting because what you are basically telling me is that none of the Supreme Court justice decided the Kerchner case but rather it was decided by the law clerks.

    Second, may I ask you for your insight on how you would distinguish the Kerchner case from other cases decided by the Supreme Court and appearing on the same order list of 11-29-10 which had basically the same procedural posture as the Kerchner case (respondents waived their rights to oppose the petitions and there was no call for responses by the Court) except for Justice Kagan and/or Justice Sotomayor recusing herself/themselves in those cases. These cases are: 10-560 (Kagan), 10-7129 (Kagan), 10-7163 (Sotomayor and Kagan), 10-7231 (Kagan), and 10-7268 (Sotomayor). I will appreciate hearing from you.”

    I will be anxiously waiting for Col. Sullivan’s response.

  23. avatar
    Keith December 2, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: First, I find all your information rather interesting because what you are basically telling me is that none of the Supreme Court justice decided the Kerchner case but rather it was decided by the law clerks.

    Which part of the denial didn’t you understand?

    There was no decision on the “Kerchner case” from SCOTUS. There was no “Kerchner case” before SCOTUS. Your Writ was denied. They declined to listen to you. That is not a decision in the “Kerchner Case”, that is a denial of writ to be heard.

    The lower court decision stands. That is the only ‘Kerchner case’ and the only ‘decision’.

  24. avatar
    G December 2, 2010 at 3:01 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I will be anxiously waiting for Col. Sullivan’s response.

    LOL! I’m sure you will be…

  25. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 2, 2010 at 5:16 am #

    Mario, your piece of crap case never made it to the discuss list.

    Your ignorance about Supreme Court procedure is appalling.

    No one said that Sotamayer and Kagen didn’t need to recuse themselves because there was no call for opposition — they said that there was no need for recusal because neither had any previous involvement or connection with the case. Lack of involvement / lack of opposition are two separate things.. The lack of call for opposition is simply the reason that everyone knew in advance that the petition for cert would be denied — it can’t be calendared for discussion unless there has been either an opposition filed or a request for one.

  26. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 7:15 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I left the following comment for Col. Dwight Sullivan at his blog, http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments
    . . . I will be anxiously waiting for Col. Sullivan’s response.

    Since you’re so anxious to hear the truth here is Col. Sullivan’s excellent reply to your steaming pile of fallacies, baseless speculation, blatant spin, deliberate half truths, unwillingness to take responsibility for the intentional lies and despicable, libelous rants from your worshippers on your blog and your denial of reality:

    (December 2, 2010 at 6:30 am)

    Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, you have once again entered your workshop to construct a strawman. I never offered the analysis you suggest concerning the non-recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Each has recused herself when dictated under standard principles of recusal. Thus, Justice Kagan has recused herself from cases she worked on as the Solicitor General and Justice Sotomayor has recused herself from cases she sat on as a Second Circuit judge. Your case fell into neither of those categories.

    I’m sure that both also have recused or will recuse themselves in other cases where they have an interest (such as stock ownership) that would be inconsistent with being a neutral arbiter of the matter under consideration. But in your case, applying standard rules of recusal, there was no need for either to recuse, in part, because the notion that their appointments and confirmation to the Supreme Court would be endangered had you prevailed is guano crazy.

    I claim no more information concerning Supreme Court practice than any reasonable person could discover online, as Rickey demonstrated so well. My point in raising the fact that your case wasn’t on the discuss list is that CDR Kerchner offered analysis on your blog that we know to be untrue — since we know that not a single Justice was intersted in your cert petition. I’m not saying that law clerks decided your cert petition; nor do I understand how you could infer such a proposition from anything I wrote.

    I’m saying that EVERY JUSTICE ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT thought your cert petition was insufficiently meritorious to even ask the Acting Solicitor General for his views. And some of your reported comments to the press about the case reveal that you either don’t understand that or you choose to ignore it. Given some of the truly disgusting comments by your followers about the case — whipped up by false conjecture on your blog that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan didn’t recuse themselves in order to defeeat your cert petition because three Justices might have been interested in it — I find it shameful that you haven’t educated yourself sufficiently and educated your followers so that they understand that they did no such thing. The cert petition would have been denied with or without their participation because no Justice was interested in it, it wasn’t dicussed at conference, and it wasn’t voted on at conference.

  27. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 9:15 am #

    Keith:

    Keith: Which part of the denial didn’t you understand? There was no decision on the “Kerchner case” from SCOTUS. There was no “Kerchner case” before SCOTUS. Your Writ was denied. They declined to listen to you. That is not a decision in the “Kerchner Case”, that is a denial of writ to be heard. The lower court decision stands. That is the only β€˜Kerchner case’ and the only decision’.

    I see that you are still trying.

    You have been truly blessed. May you live with the thought that your Obot brain will never fail you. You are true to Obot style. Clearly you have evaded my question, for you did not even mention the other cases in which the justices recused themselves. If the Court really made no “decision” in the Kerchner case, I want to know why the justices recused themselves in the other similarly situated cases in which following your logic the Court would have also made no “decision” but not in the Kerchner case. And please, spare me your irrelevant, nonresponsive, little talk.

  28. avatar
    Bovril December 2, 2010 at 10:13 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I see that you are still trying.
    You have been truly blessed. May you live with the thought that your Obot brain will never fail you. You are true to Obot style. Clearly you have evaded my question, for you did not even mention the other cases in which the justices recused themselves. If the Court really made no “decision” in the Kerchner case, I want to know why the justices recused themselves in the other similarly situated cases in which following your logic the Court would have also made no “decision” but not in the Kerchner case. And please, spare me your irrelevant, nonresponsive, little talk.

    Translation

    LALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU…..POOPYHEAD JUDGES ARE ALLLLLLLL WRONG…..I’M RIGHT, SO THERE…….LEAVE ME ALONE…..WAAAAAAAHHHHH THEY IGNORED MY STUFF, NO FAIR!!!!!!

  29. avatar
    The Magic M December 2, 2010 at 10:36 am #

    > If the Court really made no “decision” in the Kerchner case, I want to know why the justices recused themselves in the other similarly situated cases

    These two half-sentences bear no logical relation to one another. “If the moon really is not made from cheese, why did the Pope levy the ban on condoms?” is a similar sentence.

    The Court decided to deny your petition for certiorari. That is not a “decision in the case”. It’s a decision on the petition. Simple as that.

    Whether some judges took no part in some of the other decisions has no bearing on whether denying certiorari was a “decision in the case” or not.

    Besides, do you have anything but wild speculation to offer as to why some judges did not participate in all rulings that day?

  30. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 10:43 am #

    Bovril:
    TranslationLALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU…..POOPYHEAD JUDGES ARE ALLLLLLLL WRONG…..I’M RIGHT, SO THERE…….LEAVE ME ALONE…..WAAAAAAAHHHHH THEY IGNORED MY STUFF, NO FAIR!!!!!!

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! ! ! Great translation! In Mario’s narrow, little bigot world anyone who dares to challenge his insanity is labeled an Obot which is presumably his enemy. What a douche.

    Here’s the image the Justices might imagine when the name Apuzzo comes up.

  31. avatar
    Greg December 2, 2010 at 10:48 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: If the Court really made no “decision” in the Kerchner case, I want to know why the justices recused themselves in the other similarly situated cases in which following your logic the Court would have also made no “decision” but not in the Kerchner case.

    A tiny amount of thought is required to figure out how those cases were different from yours, so I am not completely surprised that you haven’t struck on the difference yet.

    Did Kagan or Sotomayor work on your case? Were they judges in an earlier iteration of your case? Did they take part in the discussions at the Justice Department about whether to issue a response or how the response should proceed?

    No?

    You’ve found your difference.

    Does their recusal require that the cases be discussed? Hardly. Kagan and Sotomayor need simply know the names of the cases to recognize that they were judges in a lower court for the same case or worked on the government’s response. Checking the names of the cert petitions against the list of cases previously judged or worked requires no discussion.

    You’re doing a fine imitation of an ostrich, Mario, with your head in the sand. Willfully ignoring the facts don’t change them. Unless something truly bizarre happened at the Supreme Court, and entirely unprecedented in its modern history, your case was not discussed.

    But, you’re welcome to pretend that something extraordinary happened. This time, the Supreme Court ignored its long-standing rule of not putting anything on the discussion list that didn’t have a response (and calling for a response for anything they wanted to discuss that didn’t have a response) and discussed your case. Happy?

    Pretending that your case is unique in the history of the Supreme Court would be of a piece with your practice. Everything you’ve argued relies on history jumping rails – example: for 450 years the words “natural born” meant X and suddenly without anyone noting the change, they mean Y.

  32. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 10:50 am #

    The Magic M: >If the Court really made no “decision” in the Kerchner case, I want to know why the justices recused themselves in the other similarly situated casesThese two half-sentences bear no logical relation to one another. “If the moon really is not made from cheese, why did the Pope levy the ban on condoms?” is a similar sentence.The Court decided to deny your petition for certiorari. That is not a “decision in the case”. It’s a decision on the petition. Simple as that.Whether some judges took no part in some of the other decisions has no bearing on whether denying certiorari was a “decision in the case” or not.Besides, do you have anything but wild speculation to offer as to why some judges did not participate in all rulings that day?

    Fallacies and baseless speculation (e.g., Obama’s passport) are all he’s got.

    I’m amazed he’s still allowed to practice law and hasn’t been sanctioned for frivolous filings or disbarred for unethical conduct by now.

  33. avatar
    Arthur December 2, 2010 at 11:03 am #

    Bovril:
    TranslationLALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU…..POOPYHEAD JUDGES ARE ALLLLLLLL WRONG…..I’M RIGHT, SO THERE…….LEAVE ME ALONE…..WAAAAAAAHHHHH THEY IGNORED MY STUFF, NO FAIR!!!!!!

    Bovril,

    Thanks for the translation! That’s what I thought he was saying, but Mario-speak is so often an impenetrable dish of word-salad, that one can’t follow the lines of his quarrel.

    Mario,

    In spite of your badgering, I wish you a merry Christmas. In terms of your loss, just (as they say in your part of the country), “forgetta bout it” and enjoy your family and the holiday season. And on Sunday, when it comes time for the Penitential Rite , perhaps think of what you and your fellows have done when you recite,

    I confess to almighty God,
    and to you, my brothers and sisters,
    that I have sinned through my own fault,
    in my thoughts and in my words,
    in what I have done,
    and in what I have failed to do;
    and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
    all the angels and saints,
    and you, my brothers and sisters,
    to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

  34. avatar
    Lupin December 2, 2010 at 12:03 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Clearly you have evaded my question,

    Speaking of which, will you publicly deny that your client(s) are connected with ultra right-wing white racist organizations?

  35. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Arthur:

    Arthur: Bovril,Thanks for the translation! That’s what I thought he was saying, but Mario-speak is so often an impenetrable dish of word-salad, that one can’t follow the lines of his quarrel. Mario,In spite of your badgering, I wish you a merry Christmas. In terms of your loss, just (as they say in your part of the country), “forgetta bout it” and enjoy your family and the holiday season. And on Sunday, when it comes time for the Penitential Rite , perhaps think of what you and your fellows have done when you recite, I confess to almighty God,and to you, my brothers and sisters,that I have sinned through my own fault,in my thoughts and in my words,in what I have done,and in what I have failed to do;and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,all the angels and saints,and you, my brothers and sisters,to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

    Arthur,

    Thank you for your good wishes and reflection. I also wish the same for you and your family.

    Mario Apuzzo

  36. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:

    I see that you are still trying.You have been truly blessed.May you live with the thought that your Obot brain will never fail you.You are true to Obot style.Clearly you have evaded my question, for you did not even mention the other cases in which the justices recused themselves.If the Court really made no “decision” in the Kerchner case, I want to know why the justices recused themselves in the other similarly situated cases in which following your logic the Court would have also made no “decision” but not in the Kerchner case.And please, spare me your irrelevant,nonresponsive, little talk.

    Since you are the self-proclaimed protector of truth and the American way, can you tell me why you would make such an unprofessional statement about the comments based on well documented facts of another attorney who respects the enforcement of the U.S. Constitution?

    That’s what I thought.

  37. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Majority Will: Since you’re so anxious to hear the truth here is Col. Sullivan’s excellent reply to your steaming pile of fallacies, baseless speculation, blatant spin, deliberate half truths, unwillingness to take responsibility for the intentional lies and despicable, libelous rants from your worshippers on your blog and your denial of reality:(December 2, 2010 at 6:30 am)Dwight Sullivan says:Mr. Apuzzo, you have once again entered your workshop to construct a strawman. I never offered the analysis you suggest concerning the non-recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Each has recused herself when dictated under standard principles of recusal. Thus, Justice Kagan has recused herself from cases she worked on as the Solicitor General and Justice Sotomayor has recused herself from cases she sat on as a Second Circuit judge. Your case fell into neither of those categories.I’m sure that both also have recused or will recuse themselves in other cases where they have an interest (such as stock ownership) that would be inconsistent with being a neutral arbiter of the matter under consideration. But in your case, applying standard rules of recusal, there was no need for either to recuse, in part, because the notion that their appointments and confirmation to the Supreme Court would be endangered had you prevailed is guano crazy.I claim no more information concerning Supreme Court practice than any reasonable person could discover online, as Rickey demonstrated so well. My point in raising the fact that your case wasn’t on the discuss list is that CDR Kerchner offered analysis on your blog that we know to be untrue — since we know that not a single Justice was intersted in your cert petition. I’m not saying that law clerks decided your cert petition; nor do I understand how you could infer such a proposition from anything I wrote.I’m saying that EVERY JUSTICE ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT thought your cert petition was insufficiently meritorious to even ask the Acting Solicitor General for his views. And some of your reported comments to the press about the case reveal that you either don’t understand that or you choose to ignore it. Given some of the truly disgusting comments by your followers about the case — whipped up by false conjecture on your blog that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan didn’t recuse themselves in order to defeeat your cert petition because three Justices might have been interested in it — I find it shameful that you haven’t educated yourself sufficiently and educated your followers so that they understand that they did no such thing. The cert petition would have been denied with or without their participation because no Justice was interested in it, it wasn’t dicussed at conference, and it wasn’t voted on at conference.

    Mr. Apuzzo, you have once again entered your workshop to construct a strawman. I never offered the analysis you suggest concerning the non-recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Each has recused herself when dictated under standard principles of recusal. Thus, Justice Kagan has recused herself from cases she worked on as the Solicitor General and Justice Sotomayor has recused herself from cases she sat on as a Second Circuit judge. Your case fell into neither of those categories.I’m sure that both also have recused or will recuse themselves in other cases where they have an interest (such as stock ownership) that would be inconsistent with being a neutral arbiter of the matter under consideration. But in your case, applying standard rules of recusal, there was no need for either to recuse, in part, because the notion that their appointments and confirmation to the Supreme Court would be endangered had you prevailed is guano crazy.I claim no more information concerning Supreme Court practice than any reasonable person could discover online, as Rickey demonstrated so well. My point in raising the fact that your case wasn’t on the discuss list is that CDR Kerchner offered analysis on your blog that we know to be untrue — since we know that not a single Justice was intersted in your cert petition. I’m not saying that law clerks decided your cert petition; nor do I understand how you could infer such a proposition from anything I wrote. I’m saying that EVERY JUSTICE ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT thought your cert petition was insufficiently meritorious to even ask the Acting Solicitor General for his views. And some of your reported comments to the press about the case reveal that you either don’t understand that or you choose to ignore it. Given some of the truly disgusting comments by your followers about the case — whipped up by false conjecture on your blog that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan didn’t recuse themselves in order to defeat your cert petition because three Justices might have been interested in it — I find it shameful that you haven’t educated yourself sufficiently and educated your followers so that they understand that they did no such thing. The cert petition would have been denied with or without their participation because no Justice was interested in it, it wasn’t dicussed at conference, and it wasn’t voted on at conference.

    Mr. Sullivan,

    I cannot say that you, like others addressing my question, have totally evaded my question, for you did at least mention the other cases in which the justices recused themselves. But now you, like you have done in other responses to my questions, are re-writing history. You first said that there was no need for the justices to recuse themselves because, not having to decide anything, they had no involvement in the Kerchner case. You explained how the respondents filed a waiver of their right to file opposition to the petition for cert. You said that the Court did not call for responses. You said that therefore the case was not put on the discuss list. You said that therefore the case was never even discussed by any of the justices. With all that, you concluded that there was no need for any justice to recuse herself because no justice decided anything. All that clearly shows that you are also saying that since the justices decided nothing about the Kerchner case, only the law clerks could have.

    I asked you if the Court really made no “decision” in the Kerchner case, why the justices recused themselves in the other similarly situated cases in which following your logic the Court would have also made no “decision” but not in the Kerchner case. To answer my question, now you offer the argument that the justices did not have to recuse themselves because they did not work on anything to do with the Kerchner case in their prior government work (Sotomayor as former 3rd Circuit judge and Kagan as former Solicitor General). As you presented your former analysis, the issue was never the merits of my recusal application. Rather, you argued that there was never any need for the justices to even reach the merits of my application because they had no personal involvement with the Kerchner case. So as you see, by setting up a strawman (and a failed one at that) you really have evaded answering my question. Additionally, now you even take the inconsistent position that “EVERY JUSTICE ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT thought your cert petition was insufficiently meritorious to even ask the Acting Solicitor General for his views.” So which one is it, the justices had nothing to do with the Kerchner case or none of them thought it has any merit?

    You now for the first time you raise the issue of the merit of the recusal application. If you would have simply contested the merit of my recusal application from the beginning rather than say that the justices had nothing to do with the case, you would not be in this conflicting position. You probably thought it was an absurd position to take that my recusal application had no merit so you took the safer path and argued that there was no need for the justices to recuse because they really had no involvement with the petition. As you see, you really do not know which way to go and now resort to arguing the merits of my recusal application which initially you did not want to touch for obvious reasons.

    Now you also inform us that you really do not have any superior knowledge of the inner workings of the Supreme Court, telling us that you only went on line like any average Joe can do. So now you also plead selective ignorance regarding the inner-workings of the court because it suits you efforts to escape having to answer my question. But yet you persist with your bombastic writings telling us about what the court did or did not do and that my “followers” and I should educate ourselves in the intricate workings of the Supreme Court.

    That you find nothing ethically or morally wrong or contrary to natural reasoning with a judge sitting in judgment on a question which I adequately raised in the petition, involving the very person who appointed that judge to judicial office, which asks whether that appointing authority is legitimately holding the very same office that allowed the judicial appointment to occur is beyond comprehension.

    About your objection to accuracy of public comments on my blog, I guess all the attorneys who hold stock or some ownership interest in any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, or online news service better get to work making sure that no public comment made in news stories appearing in such sources is factually incorrect.

  38. avatar
    Daniel December 2, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    Mario:

    If you think the Judges should have recused themselves, I’m sure there’s a legal remedy for that. Why don’t you take it to court?

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

  39. avatar
    Greg December 2, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    I asked you if the Court really made no “decision” in the Kerchner case, why the justices recused themselves in the other similarly situated cases in which following your logic the Court would have also made no “decision” but not in the Kerchner case.

    You have not shown the cases were similarly situated. We know of obvious reasons why judges recuse themselves and specifically these two judges. We know that Kagan has recused herself on any case where she had even a tangential relationship to the case while solicitor general. Sotomayor recuses herself in any case where she was a judge in the case in a lower proceeding.

    There were 6 cases where the Justices recused themselves despite there being no response. Can you tell us which one did not fit into the obvious categories listed above?

    Which case is like yours, where neither Justice had any prior involvement, and recusal came about from an application of one of the litigants?

    Now you also inform us that you really do not have any superior knowledge of the inner workings of the Supreme Court, telling us that you only went on line like any average Joe can do. So now you also plead selective ignorance regarding the inner-workings of the court because it suits you efforts to escape having to answer my question. But yet you persist with your bombastic writings telling us about what the court did or did not do and that my “followers” and I should educate ourselves in the intricate workings of the Supreme Court.

    That you and your followers do not have the knowledge that is available to any “average Joe” on the internet seems more an indictment of you and your followers than Sullivan.

    (Of course, this is something that we have all always known. The average Joe could have used the internet to find out that there was no travel ban to Pakistan, and that the US embassy there was encouraging US tourism!

    One of the pleasures of the Foreign Service is being able to serve in cities like Lahore, and I would welcome an influx of Americans who might have been inspired to come by Barbara Crossette’s piece, ”Lahore, a Survivor With a Bittersweet History” (Travel Section, June 14). JOHN S. BRIMS, United States Consul General, Lahore, Pakistan published in Aug. 23, 1981

    )

    Sullivan has cited several sources that state that the current practice is that no case is put on the discuss list unless it first has a response.

    Do you have any evidence that the court has ever departed from such practice?

  40. avatar
    Greg December 2, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    That you find nothing ethically or morally wrong or contrary to natural reasoning with a judge sitting in judgment on a question which I adequately raised in the petition, involving the very person who appointed that judge to judicial office, which asks whether that appointing authority is legitimately holding the very same office that allowed the judicial appointment to occur is beyond comprehension.

    You had standing or not regardless of whether Obama was eligible or not. Even if you had won cert and then won your case in the Supreme Court, Obama would still be President! If you had won this appeal, the lower court ruling that you had no standing would be set aside, then you could try the case of whether Obama was eligible.

    An appeal of THAT case could, possibly, raise issues of recusal, although even then it isn’t clear you’d win, since there is nothing in the law that suggests a Supreme Court justice would lose his/her lifetime appointment because of a flaw in the qualifications of the person who appointed him/her (and hundreds of years of precedent suggesting the contrary).

  41. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    “About your objection to accuracy of public comments on my blog, I guess all the attorneys who hold stock or some ownership interest in any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, or online news service better get to work making sure that no public comment made in news stories appearing in such sources is factually incorrect.”

    What a ridiculous fallacy and cowardly, weasel words for not taking responsibility for people accusing the Supreme Court of treason and openly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government on puzo1.blogspot.com.

    From puzo1.blogspot.com:

    bdwilcox said…
    Do you think the Supremes would prefer a nationwide Civil War to maybe a few inner-city riots that could be easily contained?

    The last time I looked, the Civil War took 600,000 lives while the LA riots took 51. With today’s technology and armaments, I would conservatively multiply that Civil War casualty rate by 10 to give us 6 million dead. Now, which do you think is the more attractive option?

    A pen said…
    “Granting cert means Obama is gonzo” Well, there lies the real issue. Will the court bow to the fear that there may be rioting? If they do there will be worse than that. The difference will merely be time and even greater bloodshed. No one should take lightly the fact America is armed to the teeth and is on high alert for any who may challenge civil order.

    Robert said…
    The court has indirectly accepted that Mr. Obama is illegally seated. It has merely “not prescribed” a remedy. And, by not acting, it has left the remedy to the people and to the states.

    Call your state and federal representatives and senators and tell them this. Let them know that you expect them to honor the constitution and that you will hold them personally accountable.

    Also let them know that it is up to Mr. Obama to explain why he shouldn’t be immediately removed from office, arrested by any citizen or officer of the law, prosecuted, and imprisoned for his crimes.

    bdwilcox said…
    What Sotomayor and Kagan did some will call a conflict of interest while others will call it unethical. As for me, I call it high treason for aiding the usurpation of the commander-in-chief’s office during a time of war. With this action, the justices of the Supreme Court have added themselves to the long list of domestic enemies of the United States and our Constitution.

    Michael-Is-Great said…
    Mr. Apuzzo, thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately, you fight against evil and this evil is composed by most of the judges of the Supreme Court of the USA I am sad to say!! Why? They take their decisions not based on law but based on their political inclination!!!

    For this reason alone, most of these judges should be sent to jail for having acted completely dishonestly at their position of prestige. Nothing less.

    jayjay said…
    I think the Roberts Court will more properly go down in history not as the Chambberlin Court (He only helped start WWII) but rather the Treason Court since as a body SCOTUS – and the entire Justice Branch – have not only routinely committed treason by refusing to honor their Oath of Office and uphold and defend the Constitution.

    As if that weren’t enough, they have singlehandedly done away with our Constitutional Republic. In my book, all of that is treason of the highest order.

    bdwilcox said…
    As far as I’m concerned, unless one of the justices drops the dime on what happened here, they are all equally guilty of treason.

    Mario can hardly claim to have no knowledge since his own replies are on these threads.

    Is Mario supporting sedition, the suspension of due process and the Constitution as well as the overthrow of the U.S. Government?

    And no irony meter could withstand the unmitigated gall and hypocrisy of this:

    Puzo1 said…
    The gravest act of intellectual dishonesty committed by the Obots is that they, like so many others of their ilk, selectively read and report on history. They ridicule and scoff at those who say that Emer de Vattel is “in” our Constitution. Too bad for the arrogance- and snobbishness-loving Obots that our United States Supreme Court and the historical record clearly show that Vattel, along with his and others’ writings on natural law and the law of nations, are not only “in” the Constitution but they were a great catalyst for the Founders’ and Framers’ idea of revolution and republicanism. It is really telling of human nature and party spirit that the Obots would go to the extreme of re-writing our history to save one person’s place in political office.

  42. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

    Greg:

    Majority Will: “About your objection to accuracy of public comments on my blog, I guess all the attorneys who hold stock or some ownership interest in any television, radio, newspaper, magazine, or online news service better get to work making sure that no public comment made in news stories appearing in such sources is factually incorrect.”What a ridiculous fallacy and cowardly, weasel words for not taking responsibility for people accusing the Supreme Court of treason and openly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government on puzo1.blogspot.com.From puzo1.blogspot.com:bdwilcox said…Do you think the Supremes would prefer a nationwide Civil War to maybe a few inner-city riots that could be easily contained?The last time I looked, the Civil War took 600,000 lives while the LA riots took 51. With today’s technology and armaments, I would conservatively multiply that Civil War casualty rate by 10 to give us 6 million dead. Now, which do you think is the more attractive option?A pen said…“Granting cert means Obama is gonzo” Well, there lies the real issue. Will the court bow to the fear that there may be rioting? If they do there will be worse than that. The difference will merely be time and even greater bloodshed. No one should take lightly the fact America is armed to the teeth and is on high alert for any who may challenge civil order.Robert said…The court has indirectly accepted that Mr. Obama is illegally seated. It has merely “not prescribed” a remedy. And, by not acting, it has left the remedy to the people and to the states.Call your state and federal representatives and senators and tell them this. Let them know that you expect them to honor the constitution and that you will hold them personally accountable.Also let them know that it is up to Mr. Obama to explain why he shouldn’t be immediately removed from office, arrested by any citizen or officer of the law, prosecuted, and imprisoned for his crimes.bdwilcox said…What Sotomayor and Kagan did some will call a conflict of interest while others will call it unethical. As for me, I call it high treason for aiding the usurpation of the commander-in-chief’s office during a time of war. With this action, the justices of the Supreme Court have added themselves to the long list of domestic enemies of the United States and our Constitution.Michael-Is-Great said…Mr. Apuzzo, thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately, you fight against evil and this evil is composed by most of the judges of the Supreme Court of the USA I am sad to say!! Why? They take their decisions not based on law but based on their political inclination!!!For this reason alone, most of these judges should be sent to jail for having acted completely dishonestly at their position of prestige. Nothing less.jayjay said…I think the Roberts Court will more properly go down in history not as the Chambberlin Court (He only helped start WWII) but rather the Treason Court since as a body SCOTUS – and the entire Justice Branch – have not only routinely committed treason by refusing to honor their Oath of Office and uphold and defend the Constitution.As if that weren’t enough, they have singlehandedly done away with our Constitutional Republic. In my book, all of that is treason of the highest order.bdwilcox said…As far as I’m concerned, unless one of the justices drops the dime on what happened here, they are all equally guilty of treason.Mario can hardly claim to have no knowledge since his own replies are on these threads.Is Mario supporting sedition, the suspension of due process and the Constitution as well as the overthrow of the U.S. Government?And no irony meter could withstand the unmitigated gall and hypocrisy of this:Puzo1 said…The gravest act of intellectual dishonesty committed by the Obots is that they, like so many others of their ilk, selectively read and report on history. They ridicule and scoff at those who say that Emer de Vattel is “in” our Constitution. Too bad for the arrogance- and snobbishness-loving Obots that our United States Supreme Court and the historical record clearly show that Vattel, along with his and others’ writings on natural law and the law of nations, are not only “in” the Constitution but they were a great catalyst for the Founders’ and Framers’ idea of revolution and republicanism. It is really telling of human nature and party spirit that the Obots would go to the extreme of re-writing our history to save one person’s place in political office.

    greg,

    Why not trying to argue what the issue is.

  43. avatar
    James M December 2, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:

    Why not trying to argue what the issue is.

    There is an issue?

  44. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    Majority Will: WWII

    greg,

    The last that I looked there is still a 1st Amendment in the United States (hopefully). Another problem that you fail to realized is that your on the wrong side of this battle to protect and defend the Constitution and nation. We are the good guys and you and your Company are the bad ones.

  45. avatar
    John Reilly December 2, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    During the Bush administration an issue arose which involved the Vice-Presdent. That case went to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia declined to recuse himself despite the fact that contemporaneously he went duck hunting in Louisiana with Mr. Cheney. Anyone who believes that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor should have recused themselves should be willing to cite to where they objected to Justice Scalia sitting in judgment on the Vioce-President’s case.

    That, of course, is separate from the issue that had these two justices recused themselves, no other justice seemed interested in granting cert.

    Incidentally, Justice Scalia, like the vast majority of the Vice-President’s hunting companions, did not get shot.

  46. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 2, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: greg, The last that I looked there is still a 1st Amendment in the United States (hopefully). Another problem that you fail to realized is that your on the wrong side of this battle to protect and defend the Constitution and nation. We are the good guys and you and your Company are the bad ones.

    Hahaha you are a complete and utter douchebag Mario. I think its time you stand before the judge and defend yourself you’ve obviously been drinking a little too much. The law is on our side and not on yours. The constitution is on our side, you’ve lost get over it.

  47. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Hahaha you are a complete and utter douchebag Mario.I think its time you stand before the judge and defend yourself you’ve obviously been drinking a little too much.The law is on our side and not on yours.The constitution is on our side, you’ve lost get over it.

    Luckily for the U.S. and all sane Americans, Mario is an insignificant, illiterate, crap stain of a bigot who will never be taken seriously by relevant authorities.

  48. avatar
    NBC December 2, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: The last that I looked there is still a 1st Amendment in the United States (hopefully). Another problem that you fail to realized is that your on the wrong side of this battle to protect and defend the Constitution and nation. We are the good guys and you and your Company are the bad ones.

    On the wrong side by consistently succeeding in defending the Constitution and our nation from those who want to remove a duly elected president based on some vague, poorly formulated ‘argument’? Yes, a horrible side to be on, especially when the side continues to win in court based on solid legal arguments that form the foundation of our Constitution.

    Bummer really…

    And sure the 1st amendment gives you the right to petition government, which of course should not be confused with a right to be taken seriously in your claims…

    Now what?

  49. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    Majority Will: Americans

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Hahaha you are a complete and utter douchebag Mario. I think its time you stand before the judge and defend yourself you’ve obviously been drinking a little too much. The law is on our side and not on yours. The constitution is on our side, you’ve lost get over it.

    History will judge your side as those who for party spirit or some other warped reason sought to keep the putative President in office even though he refused to exhibit to the public a simple birth certificate proving he meets the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution.

    You have a drink on that my Noisewater pompous friend

  50. avatar
    John Reilly December 2, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    I resent Mr. Apuzzo’s frequent, and just recently re-stated, position, that I and others who disagree with him are the “bad ones.” The implication is also that we are not interested in protecting and defending the Constitution. While Mr. Apuzzo was defending drunk drivers, I was a career military officer. In flying combat missions, I was protecting and defending this country in a far more concrete way. I firmly believe that the Constritution prescribes that the electors use their judgment in voting for President, and that in the event someone does not think they did their job, Congress can review that decision by one senator and one representative (per Congress’s rules) objecting. Not one did. That decision was made. Mr. Obama is President. Were I still in the military, I would follow orders, whether they originated from President Obama or others. It is time to move on rather than insult patriotic Americans who simply disagree with a position that has not found favor in the Courts or in the Congress.

    One can make a case that George W. Bush was not properly elected because the Supreme Court stopped the re-count of Florida ballots which might have led to Mr. Gore getting the Florida electoral votes. Or that he was not properly re-elected because of vote counting irregularities in Ohio. (Some Congressmen actually objected at the electoral vote count on that issue.) However, once that decision was done, and the electoral votes counted by Congress, it was time to move on.

    Mr. Apuzzo needs to move on as well, and stop castigating patriotic Americans with whom he disagrees.

  51. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    Says the putative crap stain who claims to be a legal expert but just keeps on losing. He must be a miserable sack of stupidity to keep trying while knowing that no one who matters cares about his irrelevant legal fantasies.

    Isn’t that how some have defined insanity?

    “he refused to exhibit to the public a simple birth certificate”

    Another lie from Putzy the fraud who maintains erroneously that dual citizenship is the issue and not the certified, self-authenticating proof of the President’s birth in Hawaii by the legitimate, legal authority of the state of Hawaii.

    The arrogant douche can’t manage to keep his many lies straight. How utterly pathetic.

  52. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    Majority Will:

    Majority Will: Says the putative crap stain who claims to be a legal expert but just keeps on losing. He must be a miserable sack of stupidity to keep trying while knowing that no one who matters cares about his irrelevant legal fantasies.Isn’t that how some have defined insanity?“he refused to exhibit to the public a simple birth certificate”Another lie from Putzy the fraud who maintains erroneously that dual citizenship is the issue and not the certified, self-authenticating proof of the President’s birth in Hawaii by the legitimate, legal authority of the state of Hawaii.The arrogant douche can’t manage to keep his many lies straight. How utterly pathetic.

    Majority,

    Why do you use so many Jewish words when you speak to me?

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 2, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: History will judge your side as those who for party spirit or some other warped reason sought to keep the putative President in office even though he refused to exhibit to the public a simple birth certificate proving he meets the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution.

    History will judge your side as people who couldn’t recognize a birth certificate even when it was staring them in the face.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 2, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Why do you use so many Jewish words when you speak to me?

    I got an email, by the way, care of this web site from someone that thought I was you. They called me (you) a “fellow Jew.”

  55. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    John Reilly: Mr. Apuzzo needs to move on as well, and stop castigating patriotic Americans with whom he disagrees.

    Here is a typical response of how Mario replies to anyone who dares to disagree with him:
    “May you live with the thought that your Obot brain will never fail you. You are true to Obot style.”

    Regardless of your actual political preference, he consistently labels all dissenters as Obots. That would include you, John, as well. It must also include the conservative members of the Supreme Court too.

    Isn’t that bigotry?

  56. avatar
    ballantine December 2, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: History will judge your side as people who couldn’t recognize a birth certificate even when it was staring them in the face.

    Or were not capable of admitting that the supreme court had rejected your arguments long ago. Yes, the good guys must be the ones getting people to question the legitimacy of the CIC in the time of war on a fringe theory rejected a century ago. They will certainly build statues.

  57. avatar
    Greg December 2, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Majority Will: WWII

    greg,

    The last that I looked there is still a 1st Amendment in the United States (hopefully).

    The last time I looked, Greg and Majority Will were two separate people.

    Mario Apuzzo: Another problem that you fail to realized is that your on the wrong side of this battle to protect and defend the Constitution and nation. We are the good guys and you and your Company are the bad ones.

    If you could come up with even a halfway decent legal argument for why Obama’s not a natural born citizen despite being born here, I’d give your chances of being on the right side more than a snowball’s chance in Hades. As it stands, Mario, your arguments are recycled detritus from long-ago decided battles. You’ve scrounged the losing arguments in WKA, twisted those to your own purposes and added a dash of misinterpretation of French law with a dose of historical ineptitude.

    Not only are you on the wrong side of this battle, Mario, but you don’t even realize the battle ended long before you were born.

    Mario Apuzzo: even though he refused to exhibit to the public a simple birth certificate proving he meets the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution.

    Dude, pick a lane!

    If you were right that NBC meant those born here to two citizen-parents, then no birth certificate could prove he met the requirement.

    If, on the other hand, it means simply born here in America, then Obama has shown his COLB, which shows he was born in Hawaii, and various Hawaiian officials confirmed that he was born there, too.

    History, Mario, will judge you more harshly than Dan Burton, the man who murdered watermelons to prove that Hillary killed Vince Foster.

    You’ll be lumped in with the sovereign citizens, Mario, and the tax-evaders, and the white supremacists for your attempt to parlay their long-discredited distinction between 14th Amendment citizens and “true” citizens. And you practically demand the comparison by cribbing so mercilessly from Dred Scott, the losing side in Wong Kim Ark, and Nazi-sympathizers like Breckinridge Long.

    Adding in Minor v. Happersett, your best support comes from a case denying women’s equal rights, a case denying the very personhood of blacks, the losing side in a case to deny citizenship rights to Chinese people because they were Chinese, that losing side’s later attempts to remediate their position, and a guy who denied Visa’s to Jews fleeing Hitler! Great company you keep, Mario.

    If ever the day came that you were successful, Mario, it would represent a betrayal of all the values that America holds dear. But, since the chances of that happening are less than the chances of my wife spontaneously transmogrifying into Scarlett Johannsen, I don’t have much to worry about. (I would be heartbroken if my wife so transmogrified and I’d demand she change back to her more beautiful self.)

  58. avatar
    Bovril December 2, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    Having listened to all the cogent analysis from Mario, I feel I must re-iterate, the analysis is and remains……..

    LALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU…..POOPYHEAD JUDGES ARE ALLLLLLLL WRONG…..I’M RIGHT, SO THERE…….LEAVE ME ALONE…..WAAAAAAAHHHHH THEY IGNORED MY STUFF, NO FAIR!!!!!!

  59. avatar
    Greg December 2, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Why do you use so many Jewish words when you speak to me?

    Hey, Mario, was your website hacked? Is someone pretending to be you?

  60. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Majority,
    Why do you use so many Jewish words when you speak to me?

    Do you mean YIddish or is that just your way of showing how proud you are to be an anti-Semite? Are you accustomed to using only Christian words (whatever that means)?

    Your Stormfront klan must be so proud!

    And for the record, you arrogant speck of phlegm, I wasn’t speaking to you.

    You have this strange propensity to think all comments are a direct reply to you and your nonsense.

    Paranoia or just unchecked hubris? Both?

  61. avatar
    John Reilly December 2, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: History will judge your side as those who for party spirit or some other warped reason sought to keep the putative President in office even though he refused to exhibit to the public a simple birth certificate proving he meets the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution.

    Since I am a registered Republican, and voted for Senator McCain, that can’t be the reason why I don’t want to participate in Mr. Apuzzo’s quixotic quest. My “warped” reasoning was set forth above. It was the responsibility of the electors and Congress to sort out this issue, if they so chose. Moreover, I saw Mr. Obama’s birth certificate on the internet, and have read the verification of his Hawaii birth by the Governor and other Hawaiian officials. I have never seen any evidence that Mr. Obama abandoned his American citizenship. And I don’t care that his Father was British, since to me (and the Indiana court which addressed this issue), being born in Hawaii was sufficient. (That’s the one case that came close to the merits, and the case the “Birthers” chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court.)

    What I want to know from Mr. Apuzzo is why he keeps impugning my integrity and my patriotism.

  62. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    Greg: The last time I looked, Greg and Majority Will were two separate people.

    I just yelled, “Greg!” and I didn’t reply so I think you’re right on this one. πŸ˜€

  63. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    Greg: (I would be heartbroken if my wife so transmogrified and I’d demand she change back to her more beautiful self.)

    Good save.

  64. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 2, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: History will judge your side as those who for party spirit or some other warped reason sought to keep the putative President in office even though he refused to exhibit to the public a simple birth certificate proving he meets the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution. You have a drink on that my Noisewater pompous friend

    Mario you should crack open a dictionary and look up the word pompous. I’m sure next to it would be a picture of you that you have listed on your website. You are an unspeakable ass (credit to candide for that). You think somehow you know better than all the other non-drunk real lawyers in the country, judges etc. What I find funny is you call yourself a lawyer but are too stupid to realize the courts can’t give you the remedy you want of removing the president so your quest is a fool’s errand. Considering my party registration is listed as Unaffiliated I’d say you’re just a rather warped individual. This isn’t a party issue. No president in the history of our country has had to present a birth certificate to the public. What’s next do you want to have us test his DNA as well? You don’t understand the natural born citizen qualification in the constitution. So please keep drinking so your practice will be self-fulfilling.

  65. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 2, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    John Reilly: Mario Apuzzo: History will judge your side as those who for party spirit or some other warped reason sought to keep the putative President in office even though he refused to exhibit to the public a simple birth certificate proving he meets the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution. Since I am a registered Republican, and voted for Senator McCain, that can’t be the reason why I don’t want to participate in Mr. Apuzzo’s quixotic quest. My “warped” reasoning was set forth above. It was the responsibility of the electors and Congress to sort out this issue, if they so chose. Moreover, I saw Mr. Obama’s birth certificate on the internet, and have read the verification of his Hawaii birth by the Governor and other Hawaiian officials. I have never seen any evidence that Mr. Obama abandoned his American citizenship. And I don’t care that his Father was British, since to me (and the Indiana court which addressed this issue), being born in Hawaii was sufficient. (That’s the one case that came close to the merits, and the case the “Birthers” chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court.)What I want to know from Mr. Apuzzo is why he keeps impugning my integrity and my patriotism.

    Because he’s a jackass coward who gets all butt hurt when he gets called out for his warped reasoning

  66. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    Majority Will:

    Majority Will: Do you mean YIddish or is that just your way of showing how proud you are to be an anti-Semite? Are you accustomed to using only Christian words (whatever that means)?Your Stormfront klan must be so proud!And for the record, you arrogant speck of phlegm, I wasn’t speaking to you.You have this strange propensity to think all comments are a direct reply to you and your nonsense.Paranoia or just unchecked hubris? Both?

    Majority Will: Jew

    You want to know: “Are you accustomed to using only Christian words (whatever that means)?” I think it’s time for you to seek some counseling or take a break from all this. You do not even realize what comes out of your vile mouth.

  67. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: You do not even realize what comes out of your vile mouth.

    So explain what it means to “use so many Jewish words.”

    Is that your pathetic attempt at humor or just an admission of your racism?

    You have never publicly denied whether or not your client(s) are connected with ultra right-wing, white racist organizations.

    You are long past counseling. And you are in no position to give out advice, legal or otherwise considering your track record and your equally frequent use of ad hominem attacks.

    They’re not buying your incessant, hate motivated drivel over at caaflog.com either, I see.

    You insist on constantly impugning the integrity and patriotism of people you don’t know – a perfect example of bigotry.

    Vile? Evidently, you implicitly support the arrest and conviction for treason of the Justices of the Supreme Court since you haven’t objected to any of the commenters on your cesspool of a blog.

    Your desperate, persistent and losing effort to rewrite history and the Constitution and pitiful political smear campaign is truly vile and strangely sad.

  68. avatar
    John Reilly December 2, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo you have not responded to my question as to why you attacked my patriotism because I (and others like me) would not join in your quest.

    And you are the one who accussed someone here of using “Jewish” words. Frankly, I don’t know what a “Jewish” word might be, but, as you can tell, I’m no expert on the subject. Is there some Hebrew or Aramaic word someone used incorrectly? Or did you mean Yiddish, which, I am told, has many words which are the same as German? If not, the injection of religion into this debate is thoroughly inappropriate.

    If and when you get to the Suprene Court, you may try out your concept of arguing with the Justices that they use too many “Jewish” words. That should go over well.

  69. avatar
    Keith December 2, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    Greg: (I would be heartbroken if my wife so transmogrified and I’d demand she change back to her more beautiful self.)

    You shouldn’t be commenting here while she is looking over your shoulder. πŸ™‚

  70. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:

    greg,
    Why not trying to argue what the issue is.

    Col. Sullivan summed up the issue excellently:

    “Mr. Apuzzo, you also say I raise an “objection to the accuracy of public comments on my blog.” That’s not really the objection I raised, which I’ll discuss momentarily. But you proceed to analogize your blog to those run by a “television [network], radio [station], newspaper, magazine, or online news service.” There are many differences between their blogs and yours, one of which is your blog is moderated. I have attempted to post comments to your blog, including one to CDR Kerchner’s wildly inaccurate post about the denial of cert in his case. None of those have actually shown up on your blog. So someone made the conscious choice to allow those posts that are on your blog to appear while blocking other posts. In that scenario, the blog owner does have a bit more responsibility for the blog comments than in a situation where the comments more closely resemble and open forum. Something ugly doesn’t show up in your comments section unless you or CDR Kerchner choose to permit that ugly comment to appear.

    But here’s the real point, Mr. Apuzzo. People are making ugly (and potentially dangerous) comments on your blog because they believe in the truth of false information that appears on your blog. I suggested that it is shameful that you know or should know that those people are being whipped up to make such ugly statements on the basis of false claims. That’s unbecoming a member of the Supreme Court’s bar. And that’s unbecoming a member of the New Jersey bar.”

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

  71. avatar
    Keith December 2, 2010 at 5:17 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): So please keep drinking so your practice will be self-fulfilling.

    I am getting the stong impression that the guy is already deep, deep into a bender. He is even slurring his typewritten words. Perhaps he’s just noticed that his Paypal account has stopped growing and it isn’t going to cover his Coke bill, and Berg is ramping up to take the running for a while.

    Maybe its time to put Mario on mental ignore for a while so he can go sleep it off.

  72. avatar
    Greg December 2, 2010 at 5:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Majority Will: Jew

    You do not even realize what comes out of your vile mouth.

    Dr. C, can you check the IP address of Mario’s latest posts. I’m concerned that someone is impersonating him.

  73. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    Greg: Foster

    Greg,

    You are the one who has twisted and turned in this whole thing.
    You are the one who has argued

    1. that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is the same as a “citizen of the United States” even though the two terms are clearly distinct in Article II, in other parts of the Constitution, and all our statuory laws.

    2. that the Founders and Framers used a “natural born subject” to define a “natural born Citizen” when they were already using “natural born citizen” which has a different meaning under natural law and the law of nations.

    3. that despite compelling evidence showing that the Founders and Framers adopted natural law and the law of nations as part of the law of the land which also applied to citizenshp, that they rejected the English common law as applying on the national level, that the Founders and Framers used English common law to define national citizenship in the new nation.

    4. that “natural born Citizen” is in the 14th Amendment when it is no where to be found there.

    5. that the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, whose holding only dealt with a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment somehow determines what the Founders and Framers meant in 1787 by an Article II “natural born Citizen” when the issue before the Court was what is a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, and in making that argument ignoring or unreasonbly distinguishing what all the earlier Supreme Court cases said was a “natural born Citizen.”

    6. that there is no importance to what Founders David Ramsay and Chief Justice John Marshall told us was a “natural born citizen.”

    7. that the 14th Amendment amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 when it did not such thing.

    8. that Obama has produced his birth certificate when you know that the public wants to see his long-form birth certificate showing what hospital he was born in and what doctor delivered him and not a computer image of a COLB, because there exists contradictory evidence as to his place of birth.

    9. that Obama does not have to show his birth certificate because we also argue that he is not a “natural born citizen” even if he was born in Hawaii.

    10. that even though the Constitution says the President must be a “natural born Citizen,” that it is not important what type of allegiance the President was born with because people really do not care about that.

    11. that citizens do not have a right to go to court to make sure the President is who he says he is in light of serious circumstances involving false and numerous social security numbers and a refusal to release ordinary documentation showing identity.

    I could sit here and write more but I will stop here. So you see my friend, history will judge me much better than it will judge you.

    And I know that you are not proud of who you are or what you stand for because you only have an online anonymous existence. You have no accountablity. You have no real persona. You only exist on line. You are a nonperson who risked nothing in this game. So what value can you expect of yourself? How can you expect history to judge your work as having any credibility when you were not willing to put your real name on it? And think that you hide who you are when you have the power of the establishment on your side. Can you just imagine if you had to fight a real fight?

  74. avatar
    Daniel December 2, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: History will judge your side

    You know if I had a nickle for every time I’ve been told “You just wait, you’ll see” by some niutcase that couldn’t make his case and so depended on some nebulous future vindication, that never came, and never will…..

    Really Mario, do you honestly think those kind of threats ever do anything but make the threatener look the fool?

  75. avatar
    Daniel December 2, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Greg,

    You are the one who has twisted and turned in this whole thing.

    And yet….

    You’re the one who keeps losing in court.

  76. avatar
    Daniel December 2, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Can you just imagine if you had to fight a real fight?

    Some of us depend on the shrapnel scars in our shoulders to answer that question. Most of us prefer not to let chasing a delusion and a fool’s errand all the way to the SCOTUS, only to be slapped down repeatedly like an unruly child, and rightfully so, be our example of a “real” fight.

    You want a real fight, Mario? Get a grip on reality and stop being an idiot. You’ll have a long, hard fight to get back to the place where any reasonable person will ever trust you with a court case again.

  77. avatar
    John Reilly December 2, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo:

    You’re stil on this site, but you have not responded to me.

    Separately as to your most recent post, there are those of us who believe that there are two types of citizen, natural and naturalized. That’s what the government argued in the Wong Kim Ark case. That’s a far simpler explanation of the Constitution than the ones which seek to parse a meaning by which President Obama is not a natural born citizen, but that (pick’m) Gov. Jindal, Sen. McCain, Gov. George Romney, Gov. Agnew, Pres. Arthur, etc., are. I’ve attended a fair number of military funerals. We never made any distinction for the folks we buried along the lines of “He was a great soldier and loyal citizen, even if he could never be President.”

  78. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    John Reilly: Reilly

    John Reilly: Mario Apuzzo: History will judge your side as those who for party spirit or some other warped reason sought to keep the putative President in office even though he refused to exhibit to the public a simple birth certificate proving he meets the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution. Since I am a registered Republican, and voted for Senator McCain, that can’t be the reason why I don’t want to participate in Mr. Apuzzo’s quixotic quest. My “warped” reasoning was set forth above. It was the responsibility of the electors and Congress to sort out this issue, if they so chose. Moreover, I saw Mr. Obama’s birth certificate on the internet, and have read the verification of his Hawaii birth by the Governor and other Hawaiian officials. I have never seen any evidence that Mr. Obama abandoned his American citizenship. And I don’t care that his Father was British, since to me (and the Indiana court which addressed this issue), being born in Hawaii was sufficient. (That’s the one case that came close to the merits, and the case the “Birthers” chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court.)What I want to know from Mr. Apuzzo is why he keeps impugning my integrity and my patriotism.

    You left the best part out. You forgot to tell us who your best friends are.

  79. avatar
    BigGuy December 2, 2010 at 6:20 pm #

    Oh, Mario, get a grip. You ramble on and on with bad paraphrases of your opponents’ arguments while ignoring the fact that, on every point so far, your opponents have prevailed.

    You have not a single success to show. What do you think you’re accomplishing with a lame attempt to belittle the position of the consistently winning side?

  80. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    “8. that Obama has produced his birth certificate when you know that the public wants to see his long-form birth certificate showing what hospital he was born in and what doctor delivered him and not a computer image of a COLB, because there exists contradictory evidence as to his place of birth.”

    Like the rest that is utter bullsh!t. The public wants? Birthers are delusional, pompous idiots. Ignore the troll.

    No deranged birther fool has ever been able to explain when hospital name and doctor became a requirement for eligibility under any U.S. law or the Constitution.

    Birthers are flaming bigots and irrelevant crap stains not worthy of acknowledgement.

    “. . . because there exists contradictory evidence as to his place of birth.”

    Put up or STFU, lying freak.

  81. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Mario you should crack open a dictionary and look up the word pompous. I’m sure next to it would be a picture of you that you have listed on your website. You are an unspeakable ass (credit to candide for that). You think somehow you know better than all the other non-drunk real lawyers in the country, judges etc. What I find funny is you call yourself a lawyer but are too stupid to realize the courts can’t give you the remedy you want of removing the president so your quest is a fool’s errand. Considering my party registration is listed as Unaffiliated I’d say you’re just a rather warped individual. This isn’t a party issue. No president in the history of our country has had to present a birth certificate to the public. What’s next do you want to have us test his DNA as well? You don’t understand the natural born citizen qualification in the constitution. So please keep drinking so your practice will be self-fulfilling.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): practice

    If “Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)” is not the epitome of pomposity, I do not know what is.

    Also for you information, that picture of me was picked out by Dr. Conspiracy. If you do not like it, take it up with him. If you do not belive me, ask him.

  82. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 2, 2010 at 6:35 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    You are the one who has twisted and turned in this whole thing.
    You are the one who has argued

    Actually, no he hasn’t. But this is a standard starting for someone setting up a Straw-man argument.

    1.that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is the same as a “citizen of the United States” even though the two terms are clearly distinct in Article II, in other parts of the Constitution, and all our statuory laws.

    Actually, no he hasn’t. If you listen to Greg, he clearly states that “citizen of the United States” includes Naturalized citizens. This is a straw-man appeal that has no basis in actual fact.

    2.that the Founders and Framers used a “natural born subject” to define a “natural born Citizen” when they were already using “natural born citizen” which has a different meaning under natural law and the law of nations.

    Actually, we’ve argued that they took the adjective “Natural Born” from English common law, and then applied it to their form of person (aka citizen). You’re the one that’s the Founders jumped in a time machine to get a copy of an English Translation of the book that wasn’t published for another 10 years and used that book to define the term, despite the fact that they knew that they were using a term that had 400 years of English Common Law behind it, and knowing that most people would see “Natural Born” and equate it with the term in English Common Law.

    3.that despite compelling evidence showing that the Founders and Framers adopted natural law and the law of nations as part of the law of the land which also applied to citizenshp, that they rejected the English common law as applying on the national level, that the Founders and Framers used English common law to define national citizenship in the new nation.

    There is no compelling evidence. The only evidence that you’ve been able to come up with is a Supreme Court case that specifically said that they were not going to address the issue, and an concurrance on one of the most aggregous cases in the history of the United States that everybody agrees was decided rightly. Furthermore, if they wanted to adopt your standard of Natural Law, then why did they use a term that had 400 years of history in English Common Law to describe something exactly the opposite of what they meant? You are claiming that they were idiotic enough to try to redefine a term that had 400 years in English Common Law, and then not tell anybody and not explicitly define it, as they had with other terms when they were wanting people to specifically know that they were differing from the English Common Law definition. (See the definition of Treason in the Constitution.)

    4.that “natural born Citizen” is in the 14th Amendment when it is no where to be found there.

    The 14th Amendment was just asserting the Common Law that was already in place at the time. The entire purpose of it was so that the rights and privilages of citizenship could not be denied to the newly affected blacks. This is what the Supreme Court has held for the last 100 years. And you’re going against that precedent.

    5.that the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, whose holding only dealt with a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment somehow determines what the Founders and Framers meant in 1787 by an Article II “natural born Citizen” when the issue before the Court was what is a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, and in making that argument ignoring or unreasonbly distinguishing what all the earlier Supreme Court cases said was a “natural born Citizen.”

    Actually, if you’re referring to Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court never used “Natural Born Citizen” when discussing Minor’s citizenship. Under your own argument, you cannot use that one to define Natural Born Citizenship. And neither has any other court ruling.

    6.that there is no importance to what Founders David Ramsay and Chief Justice John Marshall told us was a “natural born citizen.”

    You’re the one that’s misinterpreting what they said.

    7.that the 14th Amendment amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 when it did not such thing.

    you’re right. The 14th Amendment held what the common law was already. In fact, the Citizenship paragraph of the 14th Amendment technically wasn’t needed, and is basically useless. It didn’t change a darn thing. People born on the soil, no matter their parantage, were Natural Born Citizens before the 14th Amendment, and they were after the 14th Amendment. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to remove the ability of States to deny citizens the rights and privilages of citizenship. They also provided that the states must treat all people equally under the law. That was the point of the 14th Amendment. the fact that it stated the common law of what citizenship is, is no consequence.

    8. that Obama has produced his birth certificate when you know that the public wants to see his long-form birth certificate showing what hospital he was born in and what doctor delivered him and not a computer image of a COLB, because there exists contradictory evidence as to his place of birth.

    I don’t care what “the public wants to see”. The “public” saw his birth certificate, a birth certificate that would be accepted as proof in any court of law, and guess what, the “public” accepted that birth certificate. They overwhelmingly elected him to the office. That birth certificate would be accepted in any court of law. The fact that a few wackos say, “that’s not a real birth certificate” does not diminish that fact.

    9.that Obama does not have to show his birth certificate because we also argue that he is not a “natural born citizen” even if he was born in Hawaii.

    So, you want Obama to show you his birth certificate, when you already agree that it would solve nothing? What exactly would Obama’s birth certificate prove? He’s shown you a document that would prove in any court of law that he was born in the United States, and if you ever get past Standing, guess what, all Obama will have to do is give you that birth certificate as proof of citiizenship.

    10.that even though the Constitution says the President must be a “natural born Citizen,” that it is not important what type of allegiance the President was born with because people really do not care about that.

    Are you actually arguing that it really depends upon what every other country does in determining who we can elect President or Vice President? That we have to search through all 300+ country’s citizenship laws just to make sure that some other coutry doesn’t call the President a citizen even for one day in his life? Are you really suggesting that the U.S. should give up the National Sovereignity of having their own laws, and not the laws of any other country, determine whether someone is eligible for the Presidency or not?

    11.that citizens do not have a right to go to court to make sure the President is who he says he is in light of serious circumstances involving false and numerous social security numbers and a refusal to release ordinary documentation showing identity.

    They don’t. Just as I do not have the right to sue you if your tree falls on someone else, you have no concrete damages that would be rectified through the court system. Furthermore, it wouldn’t matter anyways. If you ever got through standing, all that would happen is that it would entitle you to the exact same birth certificate that was put up on the Internet over 2 years ago, and checked through a reliable non-partisian fact-checking organization. Judges don’t like their courtrooms being used as a fishing expidition into someone’s past. And you’d be denied from requesting any other things that you could not show would have any information that contradicted this.

    I could sit here and write more but I will stop here.

    Please do continue. I so enjoy reading your incomprehensible rants that do nothing but diminish national sovereignty.

    So you see my friend, history will judge me much better than it will judge you.

    Isn’t that what everybody says? Face it. You have your conclusion, and work backwards from that conclusion to your arguments. If Obama wasn’t President, you would never have even been arguing that someone is ineligible because of parantage, despite us having previous Presidents who have had parents born overseas. You’d never be arguing the dual citizenship, despite us having at least 10 different Presidents who at one time in their lives had dual citizenship. You entertain me.

    By the way, what law school did you graduate from, what years, and who was your Evidence Professor? I’m just curious to know who actually taught you the rules of evidence.

  83. avatar
    ballantine December 2, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    1. that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is the same as a “citizen of the United States” even though the two terms are clearly distinct in Article II, in other parts of the Constitution, and all our statuory laws.

    Citizen includes natural born and naturalized citizens. Duh.

    2. that the Founders and Framers used a “natural born subject” to define a “natural born Citizen” when they were already using “natural born citizen” which has a different meaning under natural law and the law of nations.

    What framer ever distinguished between natural born citizen and natural born subject. i can site multiple authority saying they mean the same thing. You are just making stuff up. The fact is you cannot cite one person in such period defining NBC by Vattel. Not one.

    3. that despite compelling evidence showing that the Founders and Framers adopted natural law and the law of nations as part of the law of the land which also applied to citizenshp, that they rejected the English common law as applying on the national level, that the Founders and Framers used English common law to define national citizenship in the new nation.

    Coke and the english authorities said jus soli was natural law. The law of nations was relevant to the narrow field of international relations and disputes and no one in the founding period said otherwise. No one said it was relevant to citizenship outside the election between British and American nationality during the war. The English common law was incorporated into the constitution in many areas as many terms in the constitution have no meaning outside of english law. There is no evidence that any particular provision in the constitution was defined by the law of nations. The actual facts are the states all adopted the common law, nothing but jus soli was discussed in the convention and no framer ever said anything that can be remotely construed as adopting a different rule.

    4. that “natural born Citizen” is in the 14th Amendment when it is no where to be found there.

    Read the debates. They were simply clarifying the existing rule under the original constitution. Not one person said they were adopting a new class of citizenship. Not one.

    5. that the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, whose holding only dealt with a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment somehow determines what the Founders and Framers meant in 1787 by an Article II “natural born Citizen” when the issue before the Court was what is a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, and in making that argument ignoring or unreasonbly distinguishing what all the earlier Supreme Court cases said was a “natural born Citizen.”

    Yes, the first case to directly address the issue overrides any previous dicta, particularly cases you cite that in no way speak of citizenship at all. Sorry, it is a fact that Wong held the 14th Amendment to be declaratory of English jus soli rule adopted that was in the original constitution. If you can’t understand the majority opinion, read the dissent which summarizes the majority’s opinion very well. If you can’t understand that at this point, well go back to DWI cases as you are out of your league.

    6. that there is no importance to what Founders David Ramsay and Chief Justice John Marshall told us was a “natural born citizen.”

    Ramsey wrote a self-serving essay to try to get himself elected The Orly Taitz of his day. He was not a lawyer and was cited by no one and his argument was rejected in Congress by someone called the father of our constitution. Is that the best you can do. Great argument. Have you read any of the great early scholar[ship] that the court actually rely upon and who all say you are wrong? And, if you really still insist Marshall defined a natural born citizen when he cited Vattel on a subject wholly unrelated to citizenship and such passage didn’t even contain the words “natural born” you really are an idiot. An associate in my firm making such an argument would be fired on the spot.

    7. that the 14th Amendment amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 when it did not such thing.

    Duh, the supreme court said it was declaratory of Article II and hence they meant the same thing. Again, this is consistent with the legislative history.

    Sorry, the rest of your arguments are too lame to even address.

  84. avatar
    Daniel December 2, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    I doubt

    dunstvangeet: By the way, what law school did you graduate from, what years, and who was your Evidence Professor?

    I doubt he’ll tell you, if he even knows…

    Although it would be interesting to talk to his former Law Professors and ask them their opinions of their former student, Mario. I suspect that more than one of them fervently wishes they could go back in time and change his marks. Could you imagine the embarrassment of having Apuzzo on your conscience as a teacher of law?

  85. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 2, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: If “Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)” is not the epitome of pomposity, I do not know what is.Also for you information, that picture of me was picked out by Dr. Conspiracy.If you do not like it, take it up with him.If you do not belive me, ask him.

    Yes it is established you don’t know what is. Just as you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. It doesn’t matter who picked it out you still look like the pompous self-centered ass that you are.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 2, 2010 at 7:24 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Also for you information, that picture of me was picked out by Dr. Conspiracy. If you do not like it, take it up with him. If you do not [believe] me, ask him.

    Mr. Apuzzo speaks accurately. When I wrote my original articles on the lawyers filing eligibility cases, I looked for portraits to illustrate the articles. Someone pointed me to a publication containing a group photo which I cropped to create the image for the Apuzzo article, the image that later turned up on Mr. Apuzzo’s web site. (If memory serves me right Mr. Apuzzo’s version is slightly compressed from side to side.)

    I thought the photo looked quite dignified and as such was well suited for my purposes. You will note many anti-Obama web sites that pick distinctly unflattering (or altered) photos of Barack Obama. I don’t want to be like that.

  87. avatar
    bob December 2, 2010 at 7:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Someone pointed me to a publication containing a group photo

    You’re welcome!

  88. avatar
    Sinister December 2, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    Greg:

    History, Mario, will judge you more harshly than Dan Burton, the man who murdered watermelons to prove that Hillary killed Vince Foster.

    What really chaps Mario’s hide is not that history will judge he and his ilk harshly, but that history will not judge birfers at all. History will completely forget them, as an insignificant, failed bunch of kooks of no importance whatsoever, who had no effect on history except to amuse their betters with their unique blend of incompetence and stupidity.

    At most, they will be a footnote, even if someone at some point writes a multi-volume comprehensive history of imbecility.

  89. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen December 2, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    Apuzzo’s anti-Semitism is disturbing.

    But it also explains a lot.

    As I wrote on the CAAFlog blog, I have always thought Apuzzo’s twisted theories were grounded primarily in racism. Racism and anti-Semitism go hand in hand.

    I do thank Mr. Apuzzo for pulling back the curtain. Perhaps he can now join up with Andy Martin. (But he should probably stop letting Charles Kerchner write his losing briefs for him.)

  90. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    Majority Will:

    Majority Will: greg,Why not trying to argue what the issue is.Col. Sullivan summed up the issue excellently:“Mr. Apuzzo, you also say I raise an “objection to the accuracy of public comments on my blog.” That’s not really the objection I raised, which I’ll discuss momentarily. But you proceed to analogize your blog to those run by a “television [network], radio [station], newspaper, magazine, or online news service.” There are many differences between their blogs and yours, one of which is your blog is moderated. I have attempted to post comments to your blog, including one to CDR Kerchner’s wildly inaccurate post about the denial of cert in his case. None of those have actually shown up on your blog. So someone made the conscious choice to allow those posts that are on your blog to appear while blocking other posts. In that scenario, the blog owner does have a bit more responsibility for the blog comments than in a situation where the comments more closely resemble and open forum. Something ugly doesn’t show up in your comments section unless you or CDR Kerchner choose to permit that ugly comment to appear.But here’s the real point, Mr. Apuzzo. People are making ugly (and potentially dangerous) comments on your blog because they believe in the truth of false information that appears on your blog. I suggested that it is shameful that you know or should know that those people are being whipped up to make such ugly statements on the basis of false claims. That’s unbecoming a member of the Supreme Court’s bar. And that’s unbecoming a member of the New Jersey bar.”http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

    Mr. Sullivan,

    You make a petty point about whether it is the 2nd or 3rd Circuit. You know quite well what I meant. You also know that it does not make any difference in the context of the recusal issue whether the justice came from the 2nd or 3rd Circuit? Regardless of all this, you still see the need to show your audience how clever you are.

    Your whole point was that I had no basis to complain about the justices not recusing themselves and that I did not understand how the process worked. You then set out pontificating how that process works, telling everyone how the Kerchner case never even made it to the discuss list therefore it never made it to conference and was not even voted upon. You offered that as the justification for the justices not recusing themselves, suggesting that they had no input, involvement, or contact with the case so there was no need for them to recuse themselves. At no time did you address the merits of my recusal application. That was only your second argument after I pointed out to you that by arguing that the justices were not involved in the decision making and therefore no need to recuse, you were in effect saying that the justices did not decide the Kerchner petition but rather the law clerks.

    About going on line “like any average Joe,” you tell us that you feel lucky that you have had the fortune to speak to a former Supreme Court clerk and “repeat Supreme Court advocates” Now you tell us that you got you information from the former Supreme Court Clerk. Well, you surely did not tell anybody on your blog your little secret. In fact, by the way you made you statement regarding getting information on line, you led people like me to believe that you got your information on line just like Rickey did. I do not understand why you are now telling us from where you got your information. What difference does it make? I also do not understand why you would equate the value of the information that you got from a former Supreme Court Clerk to information one would get on line.

    About the “objection to the accuracy of public comments on my blog,” you make a distinction between what is moderated and what is not. So if someone allows an “ugly” comment to be posted because they made a conscious decision to let it be posted that is a Sullivan infraction but if someone like you just let’s all the garbage pile into your blog through an open door and stay there, especially all the unprofessional and slanderous comments about me including your own, that is alright. In the Sullivan world, you do not have any responsibility for those blog comments. I do not believe that is the way it works.

    Also, you blame what you say is “false” information on my blog for what people are posting on my blog. You say that people are “being whipped up to make such ugly statements on the basis of false claims” on my blog. First, that is only your opinion that the information on my blog is false. Second, these people have a 1st Amendment right to express themselves regarding what they perceive to be good or bad for our country. You should know that, being a civil rights attorney yourself. Third, who appointed you an expert on what causes people to say what they say on my blog? How do you know that there is a causal connection between what is written on my blog and what people are saying there? Have you interviewed these people to ask them what caused them to comment the way they did? Do you know what other sources of information these people also rely upon? Have you ruled out those other sources of information as the cause of these people’s comments? To say that what I am doing is “unbecoming a member of the Supreme Court’s bar [and that of] the New Jersey bar” is nothing more than your attempt to intimidate and silence me. I have had to endure ridicule, scorn, slander, being called a racist, and threats of bodily violence on a daily basis, including one just the other day from someone who said he was going to put a bullet through my head. Despite all that, I have prosecuted the Kerchner case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, representing the interests of my clients and that of the Constitution and nation. I cannot tell you how many Americans are behind my efforts to protect the Constitution and nation, but I can tell you that it is many. I do not believe these countless Americans consider my actions on behalf of our country as you do to be unbecoming of a lawyer.

  91. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: I have had to endure ridicule, scorn, slander, being called a racist, and threats of bodily violence on a daily basis, including one just the other day from someone who said he was going to put a bullet through my head.

    “I have had to endure virtually on a daily basis ridicule, scorn, slander, being called a racist and anti-Semite, an ambulance chaser, and threats of bodily violence, including one just the other day from someone who said he was going to put a bullet through my head.” – Mario Apuzzo
    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

    Notice the sudden omission of anti-Semite.

    Revisionism from Mario going back only a few minutes into history.

  92. avatar
    Greg December 2, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    Here’s an interesting little bit of information. Here’s what Mario posted on CAAFlog:

    I have had to endure virtually on a daily basis ridicule, scorn, slander, being called a racist and anti-Semite, an ambulance chaser, and threats of bodily violence, including one just the other day from someone who said he was going to put a bullet through my head.

    Here’s what he just posted here:

    have had to endure ridicule, scorn, slander, being called a racist, and threats of bodily violence on a daily basis, including one just the other day from someone who said he was going to put a bullet through my head.

    I think what you left out, Mario, speaks volumes, especially in light of your recent rants here.

    I am sorry, Mario, if you have been threatened with physical violence. That is an unacceptable thing in any debate. Of course, I say the same thing about calling people traitors and suggesting civil war.

  93. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    John Reilly: Mr. Apuzzo:You’re stil on this site, but you have not responded to me. Separately as to your most recent post, there are those of us who believe that there are two types of citizen, natural and naturalized. That’s what the government argued in the Wong Kim Ark case. That’s a far simpler explanation of the Constitution than the ones which seek to parse a meaning by which President Obama is not a natural born citizen, but that (pick’m) Gov. Jindal, Sen. McCain, Gov. George Romney, Gov. Agnew, Pres. Arthur, etc., are. I’ve attended a fair number of military funerals. We never made any distinction for the folks we buried along the lines of “He was a great soldier and loyal citizen, even if he could never be President.”

    John Reilly,

    I am surprised to see that anyone left here wants to discuss a legal question. I agree with you that there are only “naturalized” and “natural born citizen.” I state my position in my latest essay which you can access at

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-may-be-born-naturalized-citizen.html

    Thank you.

  94. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    dunstvangeet: law school

    dunstvangeet,

    I do give you credit for trying. But you did not adequately answer one of my points. Also, in the future, stick to the pure legal and factual arguments and leave out the extra comments about what law school I went to. It really hurts your credibility and professionalism.

  95. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 11:13 pm #

    ballantine:

    ballantine,

    You tried but failed. You present nothing but rhetoric as answers to my points. You have nothing that supports your personal thoughts which are only wishes. Your little insults are really stupid. And what a guy you are pulling that power trip about an associate in your firm. If you are a partner in some firm and with you attitude, you don’t realize that all the associates think your are a real jackass but they just don’t tell you. I’ve known you for some time know. And it is true.

    Also, please learn that in America we write English, not english.

  96. avatar
    Sef December 2, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: I am surprised to see that anyone left here wants to discuss a legal question. I agree with you that there are only “naturalized” and “natural born citizen.” I state my position in my latest essay which you can access at

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-may-be-born-naturalized-citizen.html

    Gee, thanks Mario. I didn’t need to wait until Sunday to read the “funny papers”.

  97. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Also, please learn that in America we write English, not english.

    You’re in no position to criticize someone’s grammar or spelling, you pompous ass.

    “If you are a partner in some firm and with you attitude, you don’t realize that all the associates think your are a real jackass but they just don’t tell you. I’ve known you for some time know.”

    Your little insults are incredibly stupid.

    Too many Jewish words, bigot?

  98. avatar
    gorefan December 2, 2010 at 11:28 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: I state my position in my latest essay which you can access at

    Hi Mario – on your latest blog you mention A. P. Morse’s 1904 law review article. what do you think about his 1881 thesis “A Thesis on Citizenship”

    ” In the law of nations, ” citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.

    This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2″

    And in footnote 2: ” It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be ” within the jurisdiction”‘].”

    He also says,

    “The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them) ; it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.”

    Is he saying there are only two types of citizens (those natural-born in the country) and those who are foreign-born?

  99. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 2, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): pompous

    I decided to help you be less pompous. From now on I’m going to call you Noisy Water. That really does you better. It puts you into nature and nature is never pompous. Take my advice.

    On my picture, I don’t think Dr. Conspiracy would have picked that picture out for me if he believed I looked pompous in it. Again, you really do need to consult with him on it.

  100. avatar
    Greg December 2, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    Compare:

    Also, in the future, stick to the pure legal and factual arguments and leave out the extra comments about what law school I went to. It really hurts your credibility and professionalism.

    with:

    From now on I’m going to call you Noisy Water.

    Professionalism!

  101. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) December 2, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I decided to help you be less pompous.From now on I’m going to call you Noisy Water.That really does you better.It puts you into nature and nature is never pompous.Take my advice.On my picture, I don’t think Dr. Conspiracy would have picked that picture out for me if he believed I looked pompous in it.Again, you really do need to consult with him on it.

    It’s okay Mario from now on I’ll call you a pilonidal cyst because its obvious your legal opinions only cater to the backwards dregs and boils on the ass of society. It really puts you back in your nature. You look rather pompous and full of yourself in that picture. It becomes even more evident when you write here. Mario you should stick to what you know and that’s drunks.

  102. avatar
    Majority Will December 2, 2010 at 11:56 pm #

    Greg: Professionalism!

    Is that one of those “Jewish words” he’s accused me of using?

  103. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 3, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    Greg: volumes

    Greg,

    You little juxtaposition is really silly. Evidently one comment is more complete than the other. They are both true. You really can to better than that. Foolish and sophomoric.

  104. avatar
    Ballantine December 3, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: ballantine, You tried but failed. You present nothing but rhetoric as answers to my points. You have nothing that supports your personal thoughts which are only wishes. Your little insults are really stupid. And what a guy you are pulling that power trip about an associate in your firm. If you are a partner in some firm and with you attitude, you don’t realize that all the associates think your are a real jackass but they just don’t tell you. I’ve known you for some time know. And it is true. Also, please learn that in America we write English, not english.

    Wow, what a clever response. Gee, I said “english” rather than “English.” Great catch. Boy, do I feel stupid. Try reading your own posts. It’s “now,” not “know.” Is this where we are now?

    Nothing to do with a power trip. I didn’t say I would fire someone. However, any associate in a real law firm who tried to claim that a citation on a topic other than citizenship was authority on citizenship or who tried to claim cases said exactly the opposite of what they actually said wouldn’t last a second. You are lucky your standing arguments are so stupid, seriously, a right to tranquility, as the courts would not be amused by your creative interpretations of citizenship law. I love a good legal argument. However, one cannot argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge what cases actually say. If you really can’t understand that Wong Kim Ark defined what an NBC is, I feel sorry for you. If you really think Wong endorsed some definition from Minor when Minor was cited solely to show such court was not committed to an opinion on the subject, I really feel sorry for you. If you really think Marshall adopted Vattel’s supposed definition of NBC, there pretty much is nothing left to say. The bottom line is no framer ever said anything to remotely support your position, the fact that Blackstone and others thought the law of nations to be adopted by all nations means nothing unless you can find someone saying such controlled citizenship law, which no one did, there is no early legal authority of any significance support your position as all the early legal giants said you are wrong, no court ever said one needed citizen parents at birth and no court ever said there was another class of native citizens at birth other than NBCs. Sorry, those are the facts.

  105. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 3, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    Sef: Gee

    Sef,

    Now isn’t that nice. You use “Gee.” Can you imagine if someone said, “gee, sef”” Very nice, indeed.

  106. avatar
    Greg December 3, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    You little juxtaposition is really silly. Evidently one comment is more complete than the other. They are both true.

    I am certain that you have been called an anti-semite, since you have been called it in this particular thread. That you would post the more complete version on CAAFlog and the version that leaves out what you were called here says something.

    Maybe it just says that we don’t need to be reminded that you had been called an anti-Semite in this thread a few hours earlier.

    Also, please learn that in America we write “your little juxtaposition,” not “you little juxtaposition.”

  107. avatar
    Majority Will December 3, 2010 at 12:20 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: You little juxtaposition is really silly

    You is really silly, dumbass (deliberate sarcasm for the mentally challenged birther).

    Is English a struggle for you, birther idiot?

  108. avatar
    Daniel December 3, 2010 at 12:34 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I am surprised to see that anyone left here wants to discuss a legal question.

    Most people would love to discuss legal questions here, if they were discussing them with a qualified and proficient lawyer. Right now all we have to deal with is you, so actually discussing the intricacies of law would be a waste of time.

  109. avatar
    Daniel December 3, 2010 at 12:35 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: You tried but failed. You present nothing but rhetoric as answers to my points. You have nothing that supports your personal thoughts which are only wishes.

    And the Irony Meter goes OFF THE SCALE!!!

  110. avatar
    Sef December 3, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Sef,
    Now isn’t that nice.You use “Gee.”Can you imagine if someone said, “gee, sef””Very nice, indeed.

    Let me restate that: Haw thanks, Mario. I didn’t need to wait until Sunday to read the “funny papers”.

  111. avatar
    Daniel December 3, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Take my advice.

    Would that be the same sort of advice you gave Kerchner? ‘Cause so far that advice has been just one failure after another

  112. avatar
    Majority Will December 3, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    And Mario has refused to post Col. Sullivan’s responses on his blog just like Kim Jong Il.

    Mario is a fascist and a coward.

  113. avatar
    Sef December 3, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    Daniel:
    Would that be the same sort of advice you gave Kerchner? Cause so far that advice has been just one failure after another

    It would also be advice of similar quality as Jensen gave Lakin.

  114. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 3, 2010 at 2:41 am #

    Greg

    You wrote:

    “You little juxtaposition is really silly. Evidently one comment is more complete than the other. They are both true.

    I am certain that you have been called an anti-semite, since you have been called it in this particular thread. That you would post the more complete version on CAAFlog and the version that leaves out what you were called here says something.

    Maybe it just says that we don’t need to be reminded that you had been called an anti-Semite in this thread a few hours earlier.

    Also, please learn that in America we write “your little juxtaposition,” not “you little juxtaposition.”
    ++++++

    First of all, I am not into correcting people’s typos like the Obots are. I was not correcting ballantine for a typo, for when he writes “english” he means to write it with a lower case “e” given that he is not an American.

    Second, my fine friend, please know that in school where I learned how to write the English language, they taught me to be consistent in my writing. I notice that you first wrote “anti-semite” and then later you wrote “anti-Semite.” When using that word again just two sentence later, you violated a rule of grammar by using the lower case in one instance and the upper case in the other. So you see my little friend, life is a bitch.

  115. avatar
    gorefan December 3, 2010 at 3:11 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I state my position in my latest essay which you can access at

    Hi Mario,

    You quote from Dr. David Ramsay’s thesis about acquiring citizenship. This thesis was written as part of his campaign to overturn the election of William L.Smith of South Carolina to th US Congress. Along with the thesis, Dr. Ramsay petitioned the Congress to declare Smith ineligibile. Dr. Ramsay also wrote a personal letter to James Madison in which he asked Madison to support his petition in Congress.

    During the Smith trial, Madison made the following statement,

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    and later goes on to say,

    “I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connexion with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature, but capable of substituting a new form of Government in the place of the old one, which they had, for special considerations, abolished.”

    Representative Jackson of Georgia disagreed with Madison,

    “The situation of America, at the time of the revolution, was not properly to be compared to a people altering their mode or form of Government. Nor were there two allegiances due, one to the community here, another to that of Great Britain. We were all on a footing; and I contend the principle is right, in some degree, of a total reversion to a state of nature amongst individuals, and to a mere parental or patriarchal authority, where the heads had families dependent on them; the former, or individual, pursued that line which appeared right in his own eyes, and the cause which he thought just; and, in the latter case, the children follow the will of the father, who chose for them, as the person who brought them into life and whose fortunes they were to inherit.”

    So, who would you agree with Congressman Madison or Congressman Jackson?

  116. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 3, 2010 at 3:28 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: , please know that in school where I learned how to write the English language, they taught me to be consistent in my writing

    It’s too bad that no one ever taught you how to be clear and concise in your writing, or explained to you what is meant by the word “brief” in the phrase “legal brief”.

    Then again, it would have been nice they had taught critical thinking skills in that school where they seem to have focused so heavily on the nuances of capitalization.

  117. avatar
    The Magic M December 3, 2010 at 4:39 am #

    Isn’t it interesting to see how much time Mario now spends on attacking other people’s grammar instead of answering to the objections to his strange “arguments”?

    Typical troll behaviour. In German, we call this “throwing smoke grenades” (“Nebelkerzen werfen”), i.e. trying to divert the attention away from the embarrassing issues one would not like to be delved into further.

  118. avatar
    Majority Will December 3, 2010 at 6:45 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Second, my fine friend, please know that in school where I learned how to write the English language, they taught me to be consistent in my writing. I notice that you first wrote “anti-semite” and then later you wrote “anti-Semite.” When using that word again just two sentence later, you violated a rule of grammar by using the lower case in one instance and the upper case in the other. So you see my little friend, life is a bitch.

    “If you are a partner in some firm and with you attitude, you don’t realize that all the associates think your are a real jackass but they just don’t tell you. I’ve known you for some time know.”

    “Another problem that you fail to realized is that your on the wrong side of this battle to protect and defend the Constitution and nation.”

    – Mario the Illiterate, Inconsistent Liar and Jackass

    Want more examples, little crap stain? Isn’t life a bitch, you lying piece of crap?

  119. avatar
    Majority Will December 3, 2010 at 6:50 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Greg,
    You little juxtaposition is really silly.Evidently one comment is more complete than the other.They are both true.You really can to better than that.Foolish and sophomoric.

    You really can TO better than that?

    More Jewish words?

  120. avatar
    Majority Will December 3, 2010 at 7:01 am #

    “Can you tell me what was your need to write in your comment that I said the 3rd Circuit instead of the 2nd Circuit. Was that information somehow material to our discussion? You know it was not. You just added that little dig just to embarrass me for a simple error that anyone can make in the rush when typing on the internet.”
    – Mario Apuzzo

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

    Mario the hypocrite loves to play the victim card.

  121. avatar
    Lupin December 3, 2010 at 9:06 am #

    You will all note that once again Mario has NOT denied that he is being paid by ultra right wing racist organizations.

    Just saying.

  122. avatar
    Bovril December 3, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    For true and utter irony on just how cretinous Mario’s garbage is, over at CAAFLOG, where he keeps on posting and keeps on beiing kicked….he’s now got a supporter…

    Yes, our very own LieGuy.

    Irony and BS meters across the Intertubes are in terminal cascade self destruction……

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

    Time stamp starts at December 2, 2010 at 3:34 pm

  123. avatar
    John Reilly December 3, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: I am surprised to see that anyone left here wants to discuss a legal question. I agree with you that there are only “naturalized” and “natural born citizen.” I state my position in my latest essay which you can access at

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-may-be-born-naturalized-citizen.html

    Mr. Apuzzo: Having said that you agree there are only two types of citizens, naturalized and natural born, you then refer the reader to an old argument of yours, that actually argues for a third type of citizen, which one could label “born naturalized.” Don’t agree there are two types and then say there are three. That’s Alice in Wonderland time. Naturalized citizens are those who Congress, pursuant to one of its enumerated powers, become citizens by virtue of going through some legal process. Natural born citizens, as the 14th Amendment makes clear (if it wasn’t clear already from English common law) are those people born here, except if their parents are diplomats.

    You have yet to explain why my thinking is “warped,” (your word.) I understand you disagree with me, but I draw comfort in knowing that no judge has agreed with you. Some judges have been downright dismissive. I have not called you names, but you have accused me and others of taking our position for partisan advantage (untrue, as I am a registered Republican who voted for Sen. McCain) and that my thinking is “warped.” Where I learned English (among other places, Air Force Academy), we learned that in the American style of debate one does not hurl personal invective at one’s opponent.

    You have yet to apologize for accusing one of the parties here of using “Jewish” words. The people here of the Jewish faith are capable of defending themselves, but I, sir, find your use of that term and introduction of that argument as anti-Semitism. (I trust I have spelled that to your satisfaction.) I would think that even in this relatively unmoderated site, a few more anti-Semitic comments ought to get one barred. Anyone learning English in this country learns that we do not cast racial or religious aspersions on others.
    That is not what America is about.

  124. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Mr. Appuzo,

    I read your essay and I have a question – would an emancipated slave be a natural born citizen? How about blacks freed (or escaped) before emancipation and their children? Also, in your opinion, which presidents gained their eligibility via the grandfather clause?

  125. avatar
    nbc December 3, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    In sadder news, the Fogbow reports the untimely passing away of EllieWyatt, a long time contributor to Politijab and the Fogbow.

    Realist reports

    On Tuesday morning, November 23, 2010, our beloved ellie was killed in a car accident, when she lost control of her minivan while traveling late at night to see her family for Thanksgiving.

  126. avatar
    Greg December 3, 2010 at 10:36 pm #

    In a long debate here over his use of Dred Scott (a concurring opinion of, actually) Mario finally explained that the people who got citizenship by the 14th Amendment were not eligible for the presidency – only their children would be eligible. This would have been news to the writers of the 14th Amendment. They actually debated whether it would be a good idea to make “Negroes” eligible for the presidency (hat tip Ballantine):

    “The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).
    “Now if you pass this bill you will allow the negroes of this country to compete for the high office of President of the United States, because if they are citizens at all, they come within the meaning and letter of the constitution of the united states, which allows all natural born citizens to become candidates for the Persistency…” Rep. Rogers, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1122 (1866).

    “I want to make another extract from the speech from the gentleman from New Jersey. He said If you pass this bill you will allow negroes to compete for the high office of President of the United States.’ As for the fear which haunts the gentleman from New Jersey, if there is a negro in the country who is so far above all the white men of the country that only four million of his own race can elect him president of the United states over twenty six million of white people, I think we ought to encourage such talent in the country.” Rep. Windham, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1158 (1866)

  127. avatar
    nbc December 3, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

    Fascinating how reality appears to conflict with Mario’s claims which are driven not by data but by a final outcome

  128. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 4, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    Greg,

    The 14th Amendment made citizens of people who were already in being. It declared these persons “citizens of the United States.” How can a person who is made a citizen as an adult or even as a minor child be considered a “natural born Citizen.’ Clearly that person was not born with U.S. citizenship. Additionally, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that proclaims that anybody being made a “citizen of the United States” thereunder upon passage shall be considered a “citizen of the United States” retroactively to the moment of birth. .

    Also, your examples prove nothing. Allowing the U.S. born children of those who got citizenship from the 14th Amendment to be eligible to become President is consistent with your quotations. Hence, that I maintain that the 14th Amendment naturalizes person at birth is totally consistent with what is contained in your quotes.

  129. avatar
    Nbc December 4, 2010 at 12:17 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: How can a person who is made a citizen as an adult or even as a minor child be considered a “natural born Citizen.

    Because that was what the Constitution already provided for. The 14th made clear that it was federal citizenship which mattered not state citizenship and that states could not deny citizenship to those who were national citizens.
    Nothing retroactive, just getting the state/federal balance back in shape.

    The 14th merely repeated that which the Constitution already had provided for that one is either a natural born by virtue of birth in country or naturalized by virtue of statute in country.

    DeclaratoryAll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States New rules and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Sigh…

    Reading helps… Some history and legal background would also be helpful…

  130. avatar
    Nbc December 4, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    Hence, that I maintain that the 14th Amendment naturalizes person at birth is totally consistent with what is contained in your quote

    Just not with the facts as argued during the debates for instance or not with the facts as found in history, legal precedent and so on.

    The 14th Amendment did nothing to naturalize or to grant citizenship, it merely restated the known principles, extended national citizenship to state citizenship and prohibited states from abridging the rights of said citizens.

    The 14th clearly recognizes the principle that one is either a citizen by virtue of being born in the US or by virtue of statutory naturalization. The idea that it naturalizes citizens at birth who are born in the US is logically not consistent, such a concept is never expressed in the debates and at odds with the facts, and legal precedent.

    Two kinds of citizenship: Birth on soil or naturalization by statute. The only time one may argue reasonably for naturalization at birth is with respect to children born to US citizens outside the US, who are naturalized at birth through a statute. Some have argued that this precludes them from being NBC, but the majority opinion of scholars appears to be that indeed such people may be NBC.

  131. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 4, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    Nbc: Because that was what the Constitution already provided for. The 14th made clear that it was federal citizenship which mattered not state citizenship and that states could not deny citizenship to those who were national citizens.Nothing retroactive, just getting the state/federal balance back in shape.The 14th merely repeated that which the Constitution already had provided for that one is either a natural born by virtue of birth in country or naturalized by virtue of statute in country.Sigh…Reading helps… Some history and legal background would also be helpful…

    “The 14th merely repeated that which the Constitution already had provided for that one is either a natural born by virtue of birth in country or naturalized by virtue of statute in country.” If the Constitution already provided for all that then why was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment necessary?

  132. avatar
    G December 4, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    John Reilly: You have yet to apologize for accusing one of the parties here of using “Jewish” words. The people here of the Jewish faith are capable of defending themselves, but I, sir, find your use of that term and introduction of that argument as anti-Semitism. (I trust I have spelled that to your satisfaction.) I would think that even in this relatively unmoderated site, a few more anti-Semitic comments ought to get one barred. Anyone learning English in this country learns that we do not cast racial or religious aspersions on others.
    That is not what America is about.

    Mario has a consistent habit of being incapable of admitting to his mistakes or being capable of apology or any self-accountability of his own behaviors, actions and words.

    Even more egregious, as you have repeatedly and politely asked in earlier posts on this thread – he has NOT at all responded to the attacks on others patriotism (including your own) that he has made. I’m surprised that you seem to have let him off the hook already for that one.

    Furthermore, as Lupin and Misha have frequently pointed out:

    Lupin: You will all note that once again Mario has NOT denied that he is being paid by ultra right wing racist organizations.

    Just saying.

    Therefore, the history of Mario’s behavior is quite clear. He’s merely an unabashed and unrepentant bigot without the balls to even address those issues when called out on them.

  133. avatar
    Sef December 4, 2010 at 12:28 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    “The 14th merely repeated that which the Constitution already had provided for that one is either a natural born by virtue of birth in country or naturalized by virtue of statute in country.”If the Constitution already provided for all that then why was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment necessary?

    Have you never heard of Dred Scott?

  134. avatar
    Nbc December 4, 2010 at 12:49 am #

    It is the common law of this country and of all countries and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently decided in the United States It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native born persons of this country as citizens of tho United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States

    Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

  135. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo December 4, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    Sef:

    Sef: Have you never heard of Dred Scott?

    I guess then that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment did not simply repeat what was in the Constitution, for I would assume that the Dred Scott Supreme Court could read the Constitution as it was written when it took up the case.

  136. avatar
    Nbc December 4, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: “The 14th merely repeated that which the Constitution already had provided for that one is either a natural born by virtue of birth in country or naturalized by virtue of statute in country.” If the Constitution already provided for all that then why was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment necessary?

    To counter the attempts by the judiciary to disallow access to citizenship to black people is one of the reasons. Furthermore, it restores that which was already clear from the Constitution that citizenship is an issue to be determined by Congress and not by the states, where it is bound to accept that those born on US soil are natural born and those who become citizens by statute, naturalized citizens.

    The problem was that some believed that national citizenship derived from state citizenship rather than the other way around. The 14th basically put an end to that foolishness by pointing out that national citizenship is what defines citizenship and that no rights can be abridged to anyone who is such a citizen.

    Simple really… Were you not aware of the history of the 14th?

  137. avatar
    G December 4, 2010 at 12:58 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I have had to endure ridicule, scorn, slander, being called a racist,

    Take some self-accountability for once, Mario. All of the above have been duly earned by you as a result of your very own words and actions. You’ve only brought such ridicule, scorn and charges upon yourself and have only yourself to blame for that part…

    Mario Apuzzo:
    and threats of bodily violence on a daily basis, including one just the other day from someone who said he was going to put a bullet through my head.

    Although I can understand the urge some people may have to wanting to kick your *ss, we are expected to be better than our urges, and thus such behavior is unacceptable.

    The threat of a bullet is WAY over the line and beyond the pale and indefensible. I’m very sorry to hear that someone made that extreme and unacceptable threat to you. That should never be condoned at all….just as the calls for any physical violence, sedition or Civil War from your followers should be similarly denounced by all – yourself included.

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Despite all that, I have prosecuted the Kerchner case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, representing the interests of my clients

    The one thing you’ve said so far that truly is a legitimate and fair argument. As a lawyer, you should do everything you can to represent your client and I agree that you have pursued these cases, to their fullest extent, dutifully…just not very competently.

    Mario Apuzzo:
    and that of the Constitution and nation.

    LOL! Well, you sure seem to think that. Respectfully, most of us do not see anything that you have done as being in the “interest” of the Constitution, nor the nation.

    Mario Apuzzo:
    I cannot tell you how many Americans are behind my efforts to protect the Constitution and nation, but I can tell you that it is many.

    Yeay for you Mario. You are a “hero” among the delusional, misinformed and/or bigoted lot that is the collective joke known as the “birthers”. Woo-hoo! Are there many? Well, I’m sure that there are tens of thousands of such folks out there. So yeah, in one sense that is many…

    …but in the perspective of a nation of over 300 Million, they are a mere spit in the bucket compared to the number of people out there who think the birthers and you are just plain hopeless nuts tilting at windmills; not to mention the even greater number of the population who just plain don’t have any interest nor intention of paying any attention to the issue at all and who will never know your name.

    So if your true goal is to just be king of the crazies… then by all means, have at it.

  138. avatar
    Nbc December 4, 2010 at 1:03 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:

    I guess then that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment did not simply repeat what was in the Constitution, for I would assume that the Dred Scott Supreme Court could read the Constitution as it was written when it took up the case.

    It did and it found reason as to why negros could be excluded, mostly based on bigotry and ignorance.
    Regardless, the decision required to be overturned by Constitutional amendment which extended national citizenship to negros to counter the effects of the SCOTUS ruling, even though, as many observed, the decision was at odds with the Constitution. The 14th was necessary to close an ugly period in our history where our Supreme Court was instrumental in denying basic rights to those who were entitled to such under the US Constitution.

    Thus the 14th Amendment repeated that which the Constitution had already declared. You really should focus on logic a bit more as your foundation is somewhat shaky here.

    You presume, incorrectly, that the Dred Scott Supreme Court could read the Constitution

  139. avatar
    Nbc December 4, 2010 at 1:05 am #

    But even accepting that Dred Scott was correct, the 14th dealt with a much more important issue namely whether or not National or State Citizenship was more important. Before the 14th, the idea was that state citizenship gave one US citizenship, the 14th corrected that misconception

  140. avatar
    Nbc December 4, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    full text deleted

    Well stated.

  141. avatar
    Nbc December 4, 2010 at 1:18 am #

    Sef:
    Have you never heard of Dred Scott?

    Oh Mario has, it forms one of the strange foundations for his ‘claims’…

    Fascinating… Our nation’s worst Supreme Court ruling is seen as support for Mario’s position…

    Makes a lot of sense.

  142. avatar
    Keith December 4, 2010 at 1:31 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: “The 14th merely repeated that which the Constitution already had provided for that one is either a natural born by virtue of birth in country or naturalized by virtue of statute in country.” If the Constitution already provided for all that then why was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment necessary?

    Two reasons.

    1) flowing from the Dred Scott decision, some States were taking it upon themselves to deny the newly emancipated black population their civil rights. CRA1866 was in part a remedy for this, however it was not seen as adequate permanent solution as it could be overturned by a later Congress. It is worth repeating nBC’s breakdown of the first clause:

    Nbc: Declaratory All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States New rules and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Notice that the first phrase is declarative of the original intent of the Constitution. That 1st phrase essentially overturns Dred Scott and leaves no wiggle room about who is a citizen and who is responsible for determining naturalization rules.

    2) Notice also that the remainder of the clause is the new rules part and says that the States cannot discriminate against citizens, and ensures that that the actions of the States are limited by the Bill of Rights in the same way as the Federal Government is.

    As you are an esteemed Constitutional Lawyer, I’m sure you know that in Barron v The Mayor of Baltimore (1833), SCOTUS ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal Government but not the States. This meant that the City of Baltimore could put Barron out of business without just compensation. The States, especially in the south were taking every advantage of this situation to deny basic rights to the recently emancipated black population. The 14th Amendment rectified this ‘loophole’.

    The 14th Amendment corrected these two problems, Dred Scott and Barron. This is exactly the reason that the Framers put the amendment process into the Constitution. They knew that no one was perfect, least of all them, and that situations would arise that would require correction in the future.

  143. avatar
    Lupin December 4, 2010 at 6:25 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I have prosecuted the Kerchner case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, representing the interests of my clients and that of the Constitution and nation. I cannot tell you how many Americans are behind my efforts to protect the Constitution and nation, but I can tell you that it is many.

    I wonder how many people here have juxtaposed the above statement by Mario — note the plural in “clients” — with my often stated theory that Mario is acting on behalf of some ultra right wing / racist organization(s?) whose agenda is clearly to undo your 14th Amendment, or at the very least agitate and propagandize against the notion of children born on US soil from alien parents being full-blown citizens.

    I once made a comparison between Mario and “mob attorneys” not because I believe Mario works for organized crime, but because of his tactics of knowingly arguing the indefensible.

    I think we have to factor in that Mario isn’t a solitary attorney arguing in good faith for his crank client, but part of a larger movement.

  144. avatar
    Lupin December 4, 2010 at 6:28 am #

    I once again appeal to Mario Apuzzo — who appears to be quite proud of his “efforts to protect the Constitution” on behalf of his “many” “clients” — to come out and publicly tell us who is bankrolling said efforts.

    Mr Apuzzo: if you think this is a noble cause, you should have no problems identifying your clients whom I’m sure share your pride.

    Only scoundrels hide in the shadows.

  145. avatar
    Greg December 4, 2010 at 7:17 am #

    Mario again tells us that his personal interpretation if the 14th Amendment trumps the understanding of the Founders. Surely, if the writers of the 14th thought it would be a generation before Negros were eligible for the Presidency someone would have mentioned it to those who were going to vote against the 14th.

    Mario’s reasons for believing in a generation of ineligible people? Pure ipse dixit – because he said so. The writers of the 14th didn’t have time machines, so we can assume that THEIR interpretation informed their debate, not yours.

  146. avatar
    Ballantine December 4, 2010 at 9:20 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Greg, The 14th Amendment made citizens of people who were already in being. It declared these persons “citizens of the United States.” How can a person who is made a citizen as an adult or even as a minor child be considered a “natural born Citizen.’ Clearly that person was not born with U.S. citizenship. Additionally, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that proclaims that anybody being made a “citizen of the United States” thereunder upon passage shall be considered a “citizen of the United States” retroactively to the moment of birth. . Also, your examples prove nothing. Allowing the U.S. born children of those who got citizenship from the 14th Amendment to be eligible to become President is consistent with your quotations. Hence, that I maintain that the 14th Amendment naturalizes person at birth is totally consistent with what is contained in your quotes.

    .

    So much wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin. The prevailing view of the 39th Congess was that blacks were already citizens from their native birth. Hence, people like judiciary chair Trumbull thought the amendment unnecessary since the NBC clause already conferred citizenship on the native born. No one even remotely suggested that the lact of blacks having citizen parents preventing them from being citizens. However, there were members who thought they needed to deal with the doubt created by Dred Scott and one senator argued the citizenship language in Dred Scott was not dicta and needed to be overruled.

    Any interpretation of the 14th Amendment needs to argue how it was consistent with existing law in 1866 as pretty much everyone who spoke on the subject, and the authors of the language, said it was declaratory of existing law. Not one person suggested otherwise. Of course, it is not clear everyone agreed on what exisiting law was but the vast majority of comments makae clear most thought it jus soli and many looked to the NBC clause as the basis of existing law. No one suggested they were creating a citizen different than an NBC. Even Bingham said the civial rights act to be simply declaratory of the NBC clause, he just had a definition different from everyone else. Not surprisingly, Justice Gray held the amendment to be declaratory of exisiting law and anyone claiming it created a new class of citizens is just wrong.

    Obviously, the text of the Amendment distinguishes between native and naturalized citizen. However, the debates show why such a statement is really dumb. There was actually much discussion during the civil rights act debates as to what authority Congress had to pass such an act. Initially, it was argued that it was through its naturalization power. However, it was pointed out that native born people could not be naturalized and when such was questioned they brought out the supreme court’s statements to such effect. It was then generally argued that the act was simply declaratory or enacted under the authority of the 13th Amendment. Justice Swayne, before ratification of the 14th, would rule the amendment Constitutional under the 13th Amendment and neverthess declaratory of the existing English common law rule. He also pointed out that the native born could not be naturalized. Hence, the people who adopted the 14th clearly understood that native born people could not be naturalized citizens. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant or dishonest.

  147. avatar
    Northland10 December 4, 2010 at 10:43 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: The 14th Amendment made citizens of people who were already in being. It declared these persons “citizens of the United States.” How can a person who is made a citizen as an adult or even as a minor child be considered a “natural born Citizen.’ Clearly that person was not born with U.S. citizenship.

    If this were so, how could there have been African American representatives and Senators in 1870 as they would not have been citizen’s for a long enough period. This briefly came up in seating Hiram Revels.

    From senate.gov

    Revels’ credentials arrived in the Senate on February 23, 1870, and were immediately blocked by a few members who had no desire to see a black man serve in Congress. Masking their racist views, they argued that Revels had not been a U.S. citizen for the nine years required of all senators. In their distorted interpretation, black Americans had only become citizens with the passage of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, just four years earlier. Revels’ supporters dismissed that statement, pointing out that he had been a voter many years earlier in Ohio and was therefore certainly a citizen.

    It seems that a majority of the Senate at the time disagrees with Mario’s version. If he wants to use the excuse that Revels was not born into slavery, than maybe he should consider the Congressman, Joseph Rainey.

  148. avatar
    Nbc December 4, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    It seems that a majority of the Senate at the time disagrees with Mario’s version. If he wants to use the excuse that Revels was not born into slavery, than maybe he should consider the Congressman, Joseph Rainey.

    There you go again Northland10, confusing Mario with facts rather than ignoring them for being so unsupportive of Mario’s arguments. Have you no sense of decency… Stop harassing Mario with these facts I tell you…

    End of TIC

  149. avatar
    Northland10 December 4, 2010 at 5:36 pm #

    Nbc: Stop harassing Mario with these facts I tell you…

    My bad… 😳

  150. avatar
    Daniel December 4, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    Ballantine: So much wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin.

    Do you think that might be why Apuzzo keeps losing in court?

  151. avatar
    Slartibartfast December 4, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Daniel:
    Do you think that might be why Apuzzo keeps losing in court?

    It’s sad that you’re so misinformed – clearly he keeps losing in court because all of the judges in the country are in on the conspiracy – what other reason could there possibly be?

  152. avatar
    misha December 4, 2010 at 9:12 pm #

    Daniel: Do you think that might be why Apuzzo keeps losing in court?

    Slartibartfast: clearly he keeps losing in court because all of the judges in the country are in on the conspiracy – what other reason could there possibly be?

    Easy: none of the judges are drunk.