Main Menu

Purpura v. Obama Appeal hearing video 5/31/12: Updated with results and new video!

My notes follow the video below.

 

1. The judges seemed to notice that Apuzzo is trying to use a primary election statute to gain standing to challenge the general election.

2. Apuzzo clearly misstates the law of the United States regarding the citizenship of immigrant children prior to US v. Wong.

3. It was obvious that the judges were aware of the confusion resulting from 50 states making possibly conflicting decisions on a candidate. Apuzzo countered that it was simple and quick, one zip to the Supreme Court and everybody is satisfied, but having to admit that the present birther litigation is anything but simple and quick.

4. Apuzzo argues that “The Law of Nations” was adopted as the common law of the United States. Vattel codified a “universal principle of mankind”. He says that when the nation was founded “there was no other law,” a facially false statement which the judges couldn’t help but notice.

5. Apuzzo concedes that under English common law, parentage is not a requirement.

6. He concedes that the Electors and the Congress ultimately vet the candidates The judge notes that they already did this in the 2008 election. Apuzzo says that he doesn’t know what issues Congress looked at. The clause in the Constitution about presidential qualifications is like one sentence long. How could they have overlooked it?

7. The KGB?

8. Apuzzo admits that the Constitution makes provision for an unqualified president-elect, but then says that’s inconceivable. Well, whoever wrote that amendment conceived of it.

And here is the decision of the court, lower court decision affirmed. Apuzzo lost.

NJ – 2012-05-31 – PURPURA|MORAN – Appellate Decision (Affirmed)

, , ,

113 Responses to Purpura v. Obama Appeal hearing video 5/31/12: Updated with results and new video!

  1. avatar
    Arthur May 31, 2012 at 4:47 am #

    At 8:40, does Mario mangle the pronunciation of Wong Kim Ark? It sounds like he’s saying “Mark Kim Arf” on my speakers. Perhaps it’s just his Runyonesque dialect. I hear he’s up for the role of Harry the Horse in a Jersey City production of “Guys and Dolls.”

  2. avatar
    Arthur May 31, 2012 at 4:56 am #

    All those tap classes Mario’s mother made him take as a child are paying off, because once Mario let’s “Vattel” out of his mouth, he’s dancing as fast as he can. He sounds like a fast-talking but befuddled used-car salesman trying to sell a lemon.

  3. avatar
    nbc May 31, 2012 at 5:05 am #

    Arthur: He sounds like a fast-talking but befuddled used-car salesman trying to sell a lemon.

    I love citrus…

  4. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 5:08 am #

    That was almost painful to watch.

    Mario was off to a rather inauspicious start when he immediately was incapable of stating what relief he was seeking. He never recovered.

  5. avatar
    Arthur May 31, 2012 at 5:30 am #

    Notice around 12 minutes, Mario almost lets it slip that Vattel was a source for international law but not citizenship:

    “The Law of Nations was consulted by the Founders to conceive the Revolution, to constitute the Republic, to write the Constitution . . . Vattel was their favorite international– they didn’t call it ‘international’; that’s just a misconception. So somebody says, “Oh! We’re not guided by internation law!” It was not international law. It was the law of nations . . . it was a pure . . . law that they believed–a universal principle of mankind which would guide the national republic.”

    You know you’re in trouble when you begin arguing against yourself.

  6. avatar
    Lupin May 31, 2012 at 5:39 am #

    The fact remains that the two citizen parents is NOT in the Law of Nations, so even if Mario was to prevail in getting it admitted as relevant (which we all know he won’t), it still wouldn’t disqualify Obama.

  7. avatar
    Arthur May 31, 2012 at 5:51 am #

    Mario lost.

  8. avatar
    Lupin May 31, 2012 at 6:04 am #

    Arthur:
    Mario lost.

    A stunning surprise.

  9. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 6:11 am #

    Lupin: A stunning surprise.

    Well, it will be to Mario.

  10. avatar
    Sean May 31, 2012 at 7:25 am #

    Bailiff, kick this man in the butt.

  11. avatar
    Scientist May 31, 2012 at 7:30 am #

    That was like watching a really, really bad Pee-Wee team (Little League would be a huge step up for Mario) playing the Texas Rangers.

    It is clear that, as I predicted, the Court will simply follow NJ law, which is crystal clear that recognized candidates for President go on the ballot. Period. End of story. The Court will not address the NBC issue, which is properly the domain of the EC and Congress.

    They of course noted that Congress has already found Obama to be qualified. Mario’s blubbering about how he doesn’t know what facts they considered was pitiful. The bottom line is that if Mario is unsatisfied with his Congresspersons, his recourse is to run against them.

    I also found it completely outrageous that when asked about decisions in other states, Mario “forgot” to mention Ankeny. Eary onset dementia, counsellor, or just sleazy? I think the appropriate sanction for Mario would be to have him write out the 12th and 20th Amendments 100x in longhand.

  12. avatar
    Scientist May 31, 2012 at 7:43 am #

    By the way, Mario, if the US were to follow international law or “The Law of Nations”, then there would be NBC clause at all, since most countries don’t have one. So, by all means, let’s go international.

  13. avatar
    gorefan May 31, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    There will be a quick denial, but after spending so much time on the meaning of natural born citizen there will have to be a discussion of why Mario is wrong.

  14. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    gorefan: There will be a quick denial, but after spending so much time on the meaning of natural born citizen there will have to be a discussion of why Mario is wrong.

    Why? It seemed to me that the judges indicated they probably weren’t going to address it as it was irrelevant to the matter at hand. I’m certainly not an attorney, so I may be incorrect in my interpretation.

  15. avatar
    bovril May 31, 2012 at 9:29 am #

    Naughty Mario…..tut tut

    When asked by the court if other states have gone down this route and what the outcomes were you’re supposed to BOTH

    a. Tell the courts the names of the states AND
    b. That the cases have all been blown out of the water as frivolous/fact-free/without basis in law etc.

    Admittedly the court was plainly struggling trying to follow your inconsequential blather but as an attorney you really are supposed to have a duty of candor.

    So looking forward to the, by now, oh so traditional slap down

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    Other courts that didn’t have to, nonetheless commented on what a natural born citizen is. I agree that this court seems to be leaning towards dismissing the case on the statute. Still, they might say something, since the ALJ did.

    RuhRoh: Why? It seemed to me that the judges indicated they probably weren’t going to address it as it was irrelevant to the matter at hand. I’m certainly not an attorney, so I may be incorrect in my interpretation.

  17. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Other courts that didn’t have to, nonetheless commented on what a natural born citizen is. I agree that this court seems to be leaning towards dismissing the case on the statute. Still, they might say something, since the ALJ did.

    Right, some of them have even though it was unnecessary to decide the issues actually before them.

    They certainly might here, but as they spent so much time explaining that this was not a matter for state courts and asked both of the repondents whether they felt the court had to decide the NBC issue (neither did), it seemed to me that they were indicating they weren’t going to bother. Or at least confirming that it was unnecessary for them to make any comment on the definition of NBC.

    I guess we’ll see soon enough.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    Anybody can seize up under pressure. The point is that the birthers are just digging themselves deeper into a hole every time they make the two-parent argument and lose. They are burying themselves in precedent against them.

    Scientist: I also found it completely outrageous that when asked about decisions in other states, Mario “forgot” to mention Ankeny. Early onset dementia, counselor, or just sleazy? I think the appropriate sanction for Mario would be to have him write out the 12th and 20th Amendments 100x in longhand.

  19. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    bovril: Naughty Mario…..tut tutWhen asked by the court if other states have gone down this route and what the outcomes were you’re supposed to BOTHa. Tell the courts the names of the states ANDb. That the cases have all been blown out of the water as frivolous/fact-free/without basis in law etc.Admittedly the court was plainly struggling trying to follow your inconsequential blather but as an attorney you really are supposed to have a duty of candor.So looking forward to the, by now, oh so traditional slap down

    Judge Fisher’s face was priceless at a few points as he tried to follow Mario’s reasoning. 🙂

  20. avatar
    Horus May 31, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    Audio is pretty bad, turned up volume all the way to just barely hear.

  21. avatar
    Reality Check May 31, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    Mario tried to deceive the judges that Vattel was the most often read expert by the founders. He was not even in the top 30 overall and Blackstone and others were more widely read on the law of nations. The phrasing in the Constitution is right out of Blackstone’s Commentaries.

    Mario admitted that it was too late to do anything before the primary but was asking the court to ignore his case and just rule for the sake of the general election to “get New Jersey on record”. On record as what? Does he want them to look like Maricopa County and be the laughingstock of the nation? These judges were not buying one iota of Mario’s bullpuckey.

    I loved it when Mr. Genova reluctantly called the plaintiffs argument absurd. I am sure his real opinion was much stronger than that.

  22. avatar
    Scientist May 31, 2012 at 9:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Anybody can seize up under pressure

    I have asked Mario here more times than I can count about Ankeny. I am not disposed to be as charitable as you towards him.

    Dr. Conspiracy: The point is that the birthers are just digging themselves deeper into a hole every time they make the two-parent argument and lose. They are burying themselves in precedent against them.

    Which was why Mario (or some other birther “lawyer”) should have taken Ankeny to the US Supreme Court, taken his lumps and gone home. But that would have destroyed his ability to spend the next 3 years milking his clients and their paymasters.

  23. avatar
    Scientist May 31, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    There is a very serious implication to Mario’s “argument” that goes well beyond this President or any other. If I understood it correctly, Mario’s “position” is that a child born in the US to 1 or more non-citizen parents, including legal residents, is not a natural born citizen and therefore must be naturalized, either through the non-citizen parent(s) naturalizing before they reach majority, or themselves when they reach majority. If you take the entire history of the United States, there would have been tens of millions of such individuals, many of whom are alive today. None of have been aware of the top-secret Mario provision that they must go through naturalization, so, of course, none of them have done so. None of them have filed naturalization petitiions, taken exams on US government and history and gone before a judge, as naturalization requires.

    Here they are, then, living here, thinking they are citizens, when they aren’t. Even the government thinks they are citizens, granting them passports on the basis of their birth in the US and letting them live here. And of course, since they aren’t citizens their children and all their descendants aren’t either.

    I’d venture to say that the odds are that quite a few of the judges on the NJ bench would be rendered non-citizens by Apuzzo. And he really thinks the courts will go there…

  24. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    Scientist,

    Although it is difficult to follow Mario’s argument, I believe that he says a child born in the U.S. to less than two citizen parents is naturalized at birth under the 14th Amendment and can never be a natural-born citizen.

  25. avatar
    Lupin May 31, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    RuhRoh:
    Scientist,

    Although it is difficult to follow Mario’s argument, I believe that he says a child born in the U.S. to less than two citizen parents is naturalized at birth under the 14th Amendment and can never be a natural-born citizen.

    Many moons ago I pointed out that this argument, if victorious, would immediately disenfranchise millions of American citizens who could never grow up to become President.

    Unthinkable, of course — except for Matio’s paymasters who want to keep all the “brown anchor babies” away from real power.

  26. avatar
    john May 31, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Once again this was a scared guttless court. The fix was already in the moment they worked through the door and the court seemed to have no intention or interest in listening to Mario’s argument. It seems this another court who is afraid of media attacks and allegations of racism. Further, the court seemed to be biased in that they were giving Obama Presidential Treatment. At one point, Mario maintains Obama is a CANDIDATE and not the PRESIDENT. Mario is absolutely correct and this passed right over the judges’s heads. This was a key essential fact. Because Obama is a candidate on the New Jersey Ballot, any notion the Obama is eligible due to 2008 election is moot. This is the 2012 election. Any question of eligibility that was settled in the 2008 election is erased and therefore moot. The court attempted to give Obama special treatment because he was president and his eligibility had already been settled. Clearly the court was in violation of Equal Protection Under Law.

  27. avatar
    john May 31, 2012 at 10:48 am #

    In more telling vein, the court attempted to state that Obama’s eligibility question was to be settled by Congress. This is patently false. No where in the Constitution does it state Congress has the duty or the authority to weigh the eligibility of a POTUS Elect. Although the 20th Amendment has the provision and the wording, “If the POTUS Elected shall have failed to qualify…”, this refers to the failure of the POTUS elect of receiving the 270 elector votes needed to lock up the presidency. It is Congress’s job to count the electoral votes not weigh the POTUS Elect eligibility. Incredibley, the court was attempting to violate the seperation of powers suggesting that Congress settle questions of Constitutionality and not the Courts.

  28. avatar
    Scientist May 31, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    RuhRoh: Scientist,
    Although it is difficult to follow Mario’s argument, I believe that he says a child born in the U.S. to less than two citizen parents is naturalized at birth under the 14th Amendment and can never be a natural-born citizen.

    Naturalization is done under specific statutes and procedures. Where are those? There is no provision for automatic natuuralization-even with those born to US citiizens abroad, the parents have to register the birth at a consulate. Mario is pulling this out of his (God, I don’t even want to THINK about where he is pulling this out of).

  29. avatar
    john May 31, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    Even more corrupt than the courts have been these Secretary of States. I found it appauling, that the SOS of New Jersey would prescribe to the court the idea of sanctioning a completely fraudlent election. The SOS is the Chief Election Officer of the State. The thought of any SOS simply allowing unlawful and fraudlent elections to take place is very chilling.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2012 at 11:03 am #

    That doesn’t make sense. Someone without the 270 votes wouldn’t be the “president elect.”

    john: “If the POTUS Elected shall have failed to qualify…”, this refers to the failure of the POTUS elect of receiving the 270 elector votes needed to lock up the presidency.

  31. avatar
    Arthur May 31, 2012 at 11:06 am #

    I wouldn’t want to put words in Mario’s mouth (he might eat my hand), but your summary is what I understood to be Mario’s argument. And though the concept is preposterious, you expressed it more succinctly and coherently than Mario ever has.

    RuhRoh: Scientist, Although it is difficult to follow Mario’s argument, I believe that he says a child born in the U.S. to less than two citizen parents is naturalized at birth under the 14th Amendment and can never be a natural-born citizen.

  32. avatar
    Jim May 31, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    RuhRoh:
    Scientist,

    Although it is difficult to follow Mario’s argument, I believe that he says a child born in the U.S. to less than two citizen parents is naturalized at birth under the 14th Amendment and can never be a natural-born citizen.

    Geez, this is getting complicated. All this time I thought there were only 2 types of citizens, and now I find out
    natural-born citizens
    naturalized citizens
    born-naturalized citizens
    unicorn citizens

    did I miss any?

  33. avatar
    ASK Esq May 31, 2012 at 11:10 am #

    Sorry, I haven’t had a chance to watch the video. Did Mario really say that a President-elect who didn’t qualify under the Constitution was inconceivable? If so, what have we all been arguing about the last 3+ years?

    He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

  34. avatar
    nbc May 31, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    john: Incredibley, the court was attempting to violate the seperation of powers suggesting that Congress settle questions of Constitutionality and not the Courts.

    John is in full denial again. Congress, when discussing to extend Quo Warranto to include the office of the President, voted down the proposal observing that it should not extend this explicit responsibility to the courts.

    Poor John… The Founders never believed that the Courts should decide on these issues.

  35. avatar
    bovril May 31, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    There is a Birfoon Venn Diagram O’Doom somewhere or other that has 3 intersecting circles and I believe 7 differing categories. Turned up at Orly’s fail-a-thon against the empty chair for example.

  36. avatar
    nbc May 31, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    Some supporting references

    It follows from this that if an election of President or the right of an individual to the office of President can be contested in a judicial court of the United States, that contest must be begun in one of the courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and can only reach that court by Congress conferring upon it appellate jurisdiction from the decision of the inferior court. And furthermore, it follows, as the inferior courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever except such as Congress may confer upon them by law, that whether they should have jurisdiction in such a case or not would depend wholly upon the will of Congress, and therefore it would be just as one Congress might decide or as another Congress might decide whether there should be this judicial contest at all. Was it intended that the title to the office of President of the United States should depend upon a contest in a court, which contest itself is wholly dependent upon the fluctuating opinions of Congress? One Congress might pass a law clothing the Supreme Court of the United States with power to entertain a quo warranto in such a contest, and just when that contest was at its height, and before any decision had been rendered upon it, the next Congress might repeal the law conferring the jurisdiction. Was any such thing as that ever intended by the framers of the Constitution? It seems to me not. It would be a very extraordinary constitution that would thus leave it to the fluctuating will of Congress whether or not if the first place there should be any judicial cognizance of the question at all, and if the next place that would allow Congress one day to provide for this judicial cognizance and the next day or the next week repeal the law that gave the court jurisdiction.

    Source: Counting Electoral Votes: Proceedings and Debates of Congress Relating to Counting the Electoral Votes for President and Vice-president of the United States By United States. Congress, William McKendree Springer, George Willard, House Published by G.P.O., 1877

    Mr. Frelinghuysen: It seems to me, Mr. President, that there is one idea which the Senator from Ohio has entirely omitted, which is conclusive upon this subject,; it certainly is to my mind. I think the twelfth article of the amendments to the Constitution settles who has jurisdiction over this question. It does not do so in express terms, but it does do so by necessary implication. It says that the President of the Senate is to open the certificates and the votes, which are then to be counted in the presence of the two houses. That by necessary implication to my mind gives the jurisdiction over this subject to the two houses; and if the Constitution does give it to them, we cannot by law give it to the judiciary of the country.

    Source: United States Congress, The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; Publisher D. Appleton and company, 1877

  37. avatar
    Lupin May 31, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    john: Once again this was a scared guttless court. The fix was already in the moment they worked through the door

    You do realize we’re all laughing at you, don’t you?

    I know it’s uncharitable to laugh at a village idiot, but when you resort to such tired clichés, I can’t help it.

    If I had my wish Obama would be the kind of President you think he is, and you’d be in Gitmo.

  38. avatar
    Stanislaw May 31, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That doesn’t make sense. Someone without the 270 votes wouldn’t be the “president elect.”

    When has john ever made any sense? Hell, he can barely spell or use correct punctuation.

  39. avatar
    Scientist May 31, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Lupin: Many moons ago I pointed out that this argument, if victorious, would immediately disenfranchise millions of American citizens who could never grow up to become President.
    Unthinkable, of course — except for Matio’s paymasters who want to keep all the “brown anchor babies” away from real power.

    You know, Lupin, I think what would happen is that all those millions of people who thought that all their lives they were natural born and woke up one morning to find they weren’t, would be on the line to their Congresscritters and you would see an amendment passed in a very short time to overturn the decision and, likely, the NBC clause as well. So it’s possible Mario is actually a secret enemy of the NBC thingy.

    Even though the vast majority of those affected are not deluded enough to think they will ever be President, no one likes having sometthing they thought was theirs taken away.

  40. avatar
    Bob May 31, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    john: Once again this was a scared guttless court

    Courts don’t have to have “guts.” That’s the whole point of having a legal system.

  41. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 31, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    john:
    Once again this was a scared guttless court.

    Oh, no, you have it backward. They are bravely defending the established Law against seditionist sore-loser cowards and brain-dead morally bankrupt gullible clueless sycophants like you who are trying to circumvent it.

    They’re not afraid of Birfoons. We’re not afraid of Birfoons. But we are rightly angry at your campaign of spreading lies and wasting taxpayers’ money on frivolous politically-motivated garbage lawsuits.

    And by the way: the smart sane reality-based world equates inability to spell with inability to think.

  42. avatar
    JPotter May 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    Thanks for the notes, Doc! I hope to watch it later. What a crack up! Once again, online bravado meets reality and is found wanting, eh?

  43. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

    Lupin: Many moons ago I pointed out that this argument, if victorious, would immediately disenfranchise millions of American citizens who could never grow up to become President.Unthinkable, of course — except for Matio’s paymasters who want to keep all the “brown anchor babies” away from real power.

    In addition to keeping “brown anchor babies” from achieving equal status, Mario’s argument also is inherently patriarchal in that he would similarly disenfranchise any children born to U.S. citizen mothers who can not decisively prove paternity of their offspring.

  44. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 31, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    Scientist: There is a very serious implication to Mario’s “argument” that goes well beyond this President or any other. If I understood it correctly, Mario’s “position” is that a child born in the US to 1 or more non-citizen parents, including legal residents, is not a natural born citizen and therefore must be naturalized, either through the non-citizen parent(s) naturalizing before they reach majority, or themselves when they reach majority. If you take the entire history of the United States, there would have been tens of millions of such individuals, many of whom are alive today. None of have been aware of the top-secret Mario provision that they must go through naturalization, so, of course, none of them have done so. None of them have filed naturalization petitiions, taken exams on US government and history and gone before a judge, as naturalization requires.

    Great point, Scientist! But by Birther Calculus, it gets even worse! An indispensable pillar of their Obama-disqualifying theory is the notion that for eligibility to the Presidency, a person is contaminated by having been granted the right to citizenship at the time of their birth by a foreign country’s laws. For purposes of reckoning whether such a “contaminated” person (like a dual citizen) can ever become an Article 2 Natural Born Citizen, Constitutionally eligible to the Presidency, Birther theory declares that such “contamination” is forever disabling. In this regard, Birthers have no problem waiving the sovereignty of United States to allow the precise wording and conditions of foreign statutes to determine the Presidential eligibility for a United States Citizen. But such a theory must necessarily then incorporate ALL of that foreign nation’s conditions attendant to the establishment of that “contaminating” right to citizenship. So if Birthers propose to allow another country’s laws to imperiously dictate when that foreign citizenship arises in any given person, they must also acknowledge that the terms of such a foreign nation’s laws ALSO dictate under what specific conditions (if any), any rights of citizenship their nation grants can be ended – in other words, the foreign country is allowed to say how and under what terms such citizenship can be ended/removed/taken away. Birther theory conveniently avoids contemplating the implications of having to also let the foreign nation’s laws determine the allowed expatriation possibilities associated with the kinds of citizenship which have been granted. Their purpose-built theory didn’t worry about expatriation issues for a potential Presidential candidate because their theory seeks to present Obama as having needed naturalization and no one disputes the fact that currently, a naturalized United States Citizen is not eligible to the Presidency.
    Because of this oversight, we see, to go along with the huge category (often mult-generational) of surprised people you have pointed out who would, under Birther Logic, not actually be citizens currently, must be added the children, certainly of couples – maybe even of just fathers – who came to this country, were naturalized under our laws, and in association with the naturalization process, took an oath renouncing the citizenship they previously had with their former country, BUT NEVER SATISFIED THEIR FORMER NATION’S LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR ENDING OR REMOVING THAT CITIZENSHIP, when having become naturalized in the United States, was according to the laws of their former country at the time, not BY ITSELF automatically legally sufficient to cause them to ACTUALLY LOSE THEIR FORMER CITIZENSHIP! They might be required for example to go before a consul of their former nation and formally renounce it before that prescribed official witness then and there, for their original citizenship to legally end under the citizenship statutes of the same country who citizenship laws Birthers reverently want honored in CONFERRING that citizenship to begin with.
    Indeed, the United States still has just such a requirement. United States Citizens who are naturalized in another country typically remain United States Citizens, even after renouncing their U.S. Citizenship elsewhere during that process until they appear before a U.S. Consul outside of the United States and formally renounce their United States Citizenship.
    So under Birther Logic, such (even generationally)continuing dual citizens could, by “Natural Law” and the lately-mind-read “reckoning” of the Framers have children “contaminated” by their still-foreign (while also) United States Citizen parent(s).
    Who doubts, that if we suddenly discovered absolute proof that Obama Senior was originally a citizen of a country having such additional expatriating requirements, and that Obama Senior had been legally naturalized in the United States, before Obama Junior was born, that these Obama-haters would then claim Junior was still ineligible because at the time of Junior’s birth, his father’s citizenship had not been ended to the satisfaction of the laws of his original country?

  45. avatar
    Kate1230 May 31, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    IANAL but after reading this and listening to the video of the hearing, it brings to mind a question regarding the 14th Amendment that several RW’ers were seeking to overturn or amend recently. If a child born in this country to parents who were not citizens and never became citizens, then there would be no concern among anyone in regards to these children ever becoming citizens because they wouldn’t be considered a citizen, either natural born or naturalized, due to their parents standing or lack of standing as aliens. According to what Appuzo was saying, they would be reliant upon their parents seeking naturalization for themselves in order for their child, despite being born on U.S. soil, to ever be considered a citizen by any definition of the word.

    Did I misunderstand this portion of his argument against President Obama’s citizenship? I’d appreciate any info you can provide. Thanks!

  46. avatar
    realist May 31, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    john:
    Even more corrupt than the courts have been these Secretary of States.I found it appauling, that the SOS of New Jersey would prescribe to the court the idea of sanctioning a completely fraudlent election.The SOS is the Chief Election Officer of the State.The thought of any SOS simply allowing unlawful and fraudlent elections to take place is very chilling.

    Birther logic… Corruption = following the law.

  47. avatar
    Northland10 May 31, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

    “These arguments are without merit,” NJ Appellant Court, May 31, 2012.

    The court ruled against Mario, essentially saying, “what the ALJ said.” I am on mobile so a link is difficult. Go to NJ Courts unpublished opinions.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Other courts that didn’t have to, nonetheless commented on what a natural born citizen is. I agree that this court seems to be leaning towards dismissing the case on the statute. Still, they might say something, since the ALJ did.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    The parties had already submitted their briefs in full before the hearing. Mr. Apuzzo didn’t add anything.The hearing just afforded the judges the time to clarify anything. I daresay they did already have their minds made up based on the pleadings.

    But why don’t you go to law school and run for judge? Then you can show them what real courage is.

    john: Once again this was a scared guttless (sic) court. The fix was already in the moment they worked through the door and the court seemed to have no intention or interest in listening to Mario’s argument.

  49. avatar
    Stanislaw May 31, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    But why don’t you go to law school and run for judge? Then you can show them what real courage is.

    I’m pretty sure he won’t do that because he’d be afraid of becoming “corrupt” himself, using realists’ definition of the word a few posts above this one. Meanwhile his “courage” would lead to him being overturned by a higher court on a pretty consistent basis.

  50. avatar
    Horus May 31, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    Thomas Brown: seditionist sore-loser cowards

    That’s it in a nutshell.

  51. avatar
    Scientist May 31, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    Northland10: “These arguments are without merit,” NJ Appellant Court, May 31, 2012.
    The court ruled against Mario, essentially saying, “what the ALJ said.” I am on mobile so a link is difficult. Go to NJ Courts unpublished opinions.

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4478-11.pdf

    What does this bring the count to?

  52. avatar
    dch May 31, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    John says:
    “….The thought of any SOS simply allowing unlawful and fraudlent elections to take place is very chilling.”

    The idea that anyone takes this birther nonsense seriously is chilling, and the fact that over 100 courts have consistently found the birther claims to be completely bogus is reassuring.
    Yes, you’ve lost in well over 100 US courts and then went on to have many of those decisions upheld by higher courts. Thus amassing what must be a record for losing in courts.
    Your side has achieved less than zero in 4 years, other than to establish the fact beyond any possible doubt that B Obama was born in Honolulu and have made sure that Hawaii is compelled to verify the previous verification periodically.

    What say you?

  53. avatar
    Jim May 31, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    What does this bring the count to?

    Well, once it gets past 20, birthers don’t care. (They’ve run out of fingers and toes) 😀

  54. avatar
    bgansel9 May 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    john: At one point, Mario maintains Obama is a CANDIDATE and not the PRESIDENT.

    Are you seriously trying to argue that we don’t currently have a president? I can cite for you 100 publications that would disagree with you.

    Barack Obama IS a candidate, AND the current president. Get over yourself.

  55. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 31, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    The “arguments are without merit”? What– Mario’s?

    Say it ain’t so.

  56. avatar
    Norbrook May 31, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Summarized: Mario once again shows why he earned the nickname “Putzy,” and loses in court. As usual.

  57. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 31, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    Kate1230:
    IANAL but after reading this and listening to the video of the hearing, it brings to mind a question regarding the 14th Amendment that several RW’ers were seeking to overturn or amend recently.If a child born in this country to parents who were not citizens and never became citizens, then there would be no concern among anyone in regards to these children ever becoming citizens because they wouldn’t be considered a citizen, either natural born or naturalized, due to their parents standing or lack of standing as aliens.According to what Appuzo was saying, they would be reliant upon their parents seeking naturalization for themselves in order for their child, despite being born on U.S. soil, to ever be considered a citizen by any definition of the word.

    Did I misunderstand this portion of his argument against President Obama’s citizenship? I’d appreciate any info you can provide. Thanks!

    I think you are correct. Such children would be eternal aliens, without citizenship in any country at all, unless they applied to be Naturalized themselves.

    Birther logic!

  58. avatar
    tes May 31, 2012 at 2:12 pm #

    “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit.”

    Eggsactly.

  59. avatar
    Rickey May 31, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    Mario knew that he was going to lose, but he was hoping that the Appellate Division would not rule on NBC. However, the decision references Mario’s arguments on both the law and NBC and found that “these arguments are without merit.”

    Another resounding fail.

  60. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 31, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    Benji Franklin: So under Birther Logic, such (even generationally)continuing dual citizens could, by “Natural Law” and the lately-mind-read “reckoning” of the Framers have children “contaminated” by their still-foreign (while also) United States Citizen parent(s).
    Who doubts, that if we suddenly discovered absolute proof that Obama Senior was originally a citizen of a country having such additional expatriating requirements, and that Obama Senior had been legally naturalized in the United States, before Obama Junior was born, that these Obama-haters would then claim Junior was still ineligible because at the time of Junior’s birth, his father’s citizenship had not been ended to the satisfaction of the laws of his original country?

    Thanks a bunch. Now by brain is bruised and hiding in a corner.

  61. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Am I the only one who can’t read the embedded scribd as several characters are cut off from every single line?

  62. avatar
    realist May 31, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    tes:
    “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit.”

    Eggsactly.

    Oh, and Mario, that means ALL your arguments. I don’t want to hear any of this but… but.. but they did not opine on nbc or Vattel or the uber ridiculous naturalization at birth crap. It’s all.

  63. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    HA! Told you the appeal court was not going to get into the definition of NBC!

    *does the happy dance*

  64. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: the new edit function doesn’t work very well in IE 9.08. When it works (which is inconsistent) it takes a full minute for the edit screen to pop up. Sometimes it doesn’t work at all.

    As a typo queen, I am grateful for even a badly behaving edit function, but would prefer one that was reliable.

  65. avatar
    gorefan May 31, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    RuhRoh: Told you the appeal court was not going to get into the definition of NBC!

    Actually, I think they did.

  66. avatar
    john May 31, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    Very Interesting. The appeals said Mario’s argument were without merit but for some reason can’t say why. Perhaps the appeal court doesn’t know how to counter Mario’s argument, so it is best that they just reject them without merit rather entertain the possibility that Obama in not eligible to be a candidate on New Jersey’s ballot. Once again, we have guttless, shameful judges without any honor.

  67. avatar
    linda May 31, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    IMHO, it would also have stopped the litany of smears and rabble rousing involved with each new case and ballot challenged filed. They would prefer to have a SCOTUS win, but even they are not that confident. This way, they continue to incense their followers and spread seeds of doubt among others.

    Scientist: Which was why Mario (or some other birther “lawyer”) should have taken Ankeny to the US Supreme Court, taken his lumps and gone home. But that would have destroyed his ability to spend the next 3 years milking his clients and their paymasters.

  68. avatar
    linda May 31, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    It is fine for me.

    RuhRoh:
    Am I the only one who can’t read the embedded scribd as several characters are cut off from every single line?

  69. avatar
    realist May 31, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    H/T to Fogbow poster A Legal Lohengrin for the below, just in case anyone thing this is a “weak” opinion…

    “Just so you realize what a benchslap this actually is, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E) states:

    R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E) wrote: (e) Affirmance Without Opinion:

    (1) Civil Appeals. When in a civil appeal the Appellate Division determines that any one or more of the following circumstances exists and is dispositive of a matter submitted to the court for decision:

    [. . .]

    (E) that some or all of the arguments made are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion;

    then and in any such case the judgment or order under appeal may be affirmed without opinion and by an order quoting the applicable paragraph of this rule.”

  70. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    gorefan: Actually, I think they did.

    Maybe I missed it. Can you point out where this was addressed?

    I only see the Court saying that Obama met his obligations under NJ law.

  71. avatar
    Jim May 31, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    RuhRoh:
    Dr. Conspiracy: the new edit function doesn’t work very well in IE 9.08. When it works (whichis inconsistent) it takes a full minute for the edit screen to pop up. Sometimes it doesn’t work at all.

    As a typo queen, I am grateful for even a badly behaving edit function, but would prefer one that was reliable.

    I recommend Firefox…much nicer than IE. Try it, you’ll never go back!

  72. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    @Jim- I do use Firefox for many things and it was my only browser for years.

    Then I got a Windows 7 PC and Firefox simply couldn’t function on it AT ALL, so I went back to IE.

    Maybe Firefox has figured out how to deal with newer Microsoft PCs by now. 🙂 But it was literally impossible to use Firefox when I first bought this PC.

  73. avatar
    BillTheCat May 31, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

    john: Even more corrupt than the courts have been these Secretary of States. I found it appauling, that the SOS of New Jersey would prescribe to the court the idea of sanctioning a completely fraudlent election. The SOS is the Chief Election Officer of the State. The thought of any SOS simply allowing unlawful and fraudlent elections to take place is very chilling.

    Blah blah blah. You got nothing, as always. Spew spew spew, that’s what ya do.

    Every time your side loses, it’s always the “gutless courts”, ad nauseum. The blame is never on you. Try looking in a mirror some day, though I know birthers don’t like them fancy contraptions.

  74. avatar
    linda May 31, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    Does that mean that the birther crowd believes that Michelle Bachmann’s kids are inelligible for the presidency?

    Benji Franklin: For purposes of reckoning whether such a “contaminated” person (like a dual citizen) can ever become an Article 2 Natural Born Citizen, Constitutionally eligible to the Presidency, Birther theory declares that such “contamination” is forever disabling.

  75. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

    linda: Does that mean that the birther crowd believes that Michelle Bachmann’s kids are inelligible for the presidency?

    No, they’re Caucasian children. Automatically qualified to any RWNJ.

  76. avatar
    Jim May 31, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

    RuhRoh:
    @Jim- I do use Firefox for many things and it was my only browser for years.

    Then I got a Windows 7 PC and Firefox simply couldn’t function on it AT ALL, so I went back to IE.

    Maybe Firefox has figured out how to deal with newer Microsoft PCs by now. But it was literally impossible to use Firefox when I first bought this PC.

    That could be true, but go ahead and try the new version. It’s what I use on my Windows 7 laptop. I just dislike IE all around, would use Chrome before IE

  77. avatar
    realist May 31, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    RuhRoh: Maybe I missed it. Can you point out where this was addressed?

    I only see the Court saying that Obama met his obligations under NJ law.

    The Court laid out the arguments of the Petitioners… all of them.. then stated their arguments are without merit. That means all their arguments.

  78. avatar
    linda May 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    You do know who the SOS is for NJ, right? She is the Lt Gov/SOS, Christie’s running mate, former prosecutor, former sheriff. Yep, a real leftie-loony, that one!

    “Christopher J. Christie, the Republican candidate for governor of New Jersey, picked a running mate in his own image on Monday, choosing another former prosecutor with a hard-charging reputation both in pursuing corruption cases and in advancing her political career.

    Mr. Christie, former United States attorney in New Jersey, named Kimberly M. Guadagno, the first woman elected sheriff of Monmouth County, as his choice for lieutenant governor.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/nyregion/21ltgov.html

    john:
    Even more corrupt than the courts have been these Secretary of States.I found it appauling, that the SOS of New Jersey would prescribe to the court the idea of sanctioning a completely fraudlent election.The SOS is the Chief Election Officer of the State.The thought of any SOS simply allowing unlawful and fraudlent elections to take place is very chilling.

  79. avatar
    nbc May 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    The Secretary affirmed and incorporated the decision of the ALJ, concluding, after a full hearing, that “[appellants] failed to meet their burden to establish that Barack Obama failed in any obligation to prove to the Secretary of State that he is qualified to hold the Presidency and that he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the United States of America, as required by the United States Constitution.”

    On appeal, appellants assert that the ALJ and Secretary erred in finding that President Obama does not have a constitutional or statutory obligation to provide evidence to the Secretary “who he is, where he was born, and that he is constitutionally eligible to occupy the office of President in order to be placed on the New Jersey primary election ballot.”
    In addition, appellants claim that the ALJ and the Secretary erred in finding that President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a “natural born citizen.”

  80. avatar
    linda May 31, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    Yes, that and the whole LSAT debacle.

    Stanislaw: I’m pretty sure he won’t do that because he’d be afraid of becoming “corrupt” himself, using realists’ definition of the word a few posts above this one. Meanwhile his “courage” would lead to him being overturned by a higher court on a pretty consistent basis.

  81. avatar
    gorefan May 31, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    RuhRoh: Can you point out where this was addressed?

    “On appeal, appellants assert that the ALJ and Secretary erred in finding that President Obama does not have a constitutional or statutory obligation to provide evidence to the Secretary “who he is, where he was born, and that he is constitutionally eligible to occupy the office of President in order to be placed on the New Jersey primary election ballot.” In addition, appellants claim that the ALJ and the Secretary erred in finding that President Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a “natural born citizen.”

    We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E)

    ====================================================================

    R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E)

    RULE 2:11. Argument; Determination; Costs; Rehearing
    2:11-3. Opinion, Judgment; Stay After Judgment
    (e) Affirmance Without Opinion.
    (1) Civil Appeals. When in a civil appeal the Appellate Division determines that any one or more of the following circumstances exists and is dispositive of a matter submitted to the court for decision:
    (E) that some or all of the arguments made are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion;

    then and in any such case the judgment or order under appeal may be affirmed without opinion and by an order quoting the applicable paragraph of this rule.

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r2-11.htm

    ====================================================================

    Because Mario’s arguments were without merit, they didn’t have to prepare a full blown opinion.

  82. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    But the ALJ didn’t find that Obama was born in Hawaii. He posited he was for the sake of making another argument.

    Mario maintained that the ALJ had found that Obama was born in HI. The ALJ never found that he was.

    Am I just misrememmbering the ALJ’s opinion?

  83. avatar
    Keith May 31, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

    RuhRoh:
    @Jim- I do use Firefox for many things and it was my only browser for years.

    Then I got a Windows 7 PC and Firefox simply couldn’t function on it AT ALL, so I went back to IE.

    Maybe Firefox has figured out how to deal with newer Microsoft PCs by now. But it was literally impossible to use Firefox when I first bought this PC.

    I’m on Win 7 64 bit and FF 13.0 (beta channel).

    I haven’t used IE under W7 ever. I have never seen FF not work well under W7 and I started with FF3.0 I think..

    The only thing I ever have trouble with FF is certain PDF’s from my bank, but then I just flip the rendering engine to IE and it works fine, from inside FF. I think I am missing a Javascript setting or something, and can’t be bothered to find it.

  84. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    freaking edit does not work *mutters*

  85. avatar
    Judge Mental May 31, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    RuhRoh: But the ALJ didn’t find that Obama was born in Hawaii. He posited he was for the sake of making another argument. Mario maintained that the ALJ had found that Obama was born in HI. The ALJ never found that he was. Am I just misrememmbering the ALJ’s opinion?

    No you’re not misremembering it. The ALJ did exactly what you remember. Appuzzo falsely claimed that the ALJ had found that Obama was born in Hawaii. That was clearly neither accidental nor due to incompetence. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

  86. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 31, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    john:
    Very Interesting.The appeals said Mario’s argument were without merit but for some reason can’t say why.Perhaps the appeal court doesn’t know how to counter Mario’s argument, so it is best that they just reject them without merit rather entertain the possibility that Obama in not eligible to be a candidate on New Jersey’s ballot.Once again, we have guttless, shameful judges without any honor.

    Does it hurt to be that dumb? Seriously, is there any physical pain involved?

  87. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 31, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    john: The appeals said Mario’s argument were without merit but for some reason can’t say why

    They said why very clearly, but apparently you can’t read. They wrote, “We affirm substantially for the reasons set forthin ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinionof April 10, 2012,”

    Here’s a link to ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion:
    http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88910250-Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

  88. avatar
    RuhRoh May 31, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    OK, I see where Mario’s NBC argument got the big bitch-slap. Page 7 of the ALJ’s decision, which the appellate court upheld.

  89. avatar
    Arthur May 31, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    Well, it’s time for Mario to take his medicine: a big pile of crow. It’s usually administered by the spoonful, but since Mario’s such an enormous ass, maybe he should get it as a suppository. ‘Course, that presents two problems: first, getting John’s head out of Mario’s tuckus, and second, finding someone who’d agree to do the dirty work. Guess Mario will be forced to self medicate.

  90. avatar
    tes May 31, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    john:
    Very Interesting.The appeals said Mario’s argument were without merit but for some reason can’t say why. Perhaps …

    Perhaps you should read the opinion again – particularly the last sentence where the court said EXACTLY why it determined the arguments were without merit.

  91. avatar
    bgansel9 May 31, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    Awww, isn’t that cute! A birther writes an article for the Examiner:

    “The three judges seemed ignorant of the Constitution, especially what it says about how the United States elects Presidents. Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2 begins:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” – Terry Hurlbut, Essex County Conservative – http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-eligibility-and-judicial-embarrassment-nj

  92. avatar
    roadburner May 31, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    john:
    Very Interesting.The appeals said Mario’s argument were without merit but for some reason can’t say why.

    it’s unbecoming of a judge to say `you’re spouting pure bollocks’ even if he is.

  93. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 31, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    john: Very Interesting. The appeals said Mario’s argument were without merit but for some reason can’t say why. Perhaps the appeal court doesn’t know how to counter Mario’s argument, so it is best that they just reject them without merit rather entertain the possibility that Obama in not eligible to be a candidate on New Jersey’s ballot.

    But they did say why, John, and by reference to an earlier administrative judge’s decision on the same facts, in some detail. And they knew exactly how to deal with an argument that has no merit; you simply label it as such since arguing with nonsense is a waste of time.

    Identifying Mario’s arguments as “without merit” is a devastating way of warning him again that this is a frivolous case which is wasting the court’s time. “Without merit”, John! That means that the sum total of his claims is nonsense.

    Not to mention the fact that the video reveals Mario’s courtroom presence is an attempt to out-yawn the Grand Canyon. Seriously, John, there are countless courtrooms in this country where accumulations of dust on window frames make more compelling call-to action arguments than the ones this video showed emerging from the vicinity of Mario’s oratorical rear window. When he was speaking directly at the 3 judge panel, I wonder if he remembered to keep moving his lips?

  94. avatar
    Greenfinches May 31, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    RuhRoh: the new edit function doesn’t work very well in IE 9.08.

    try Firefox, works fine (and I don’t just mean this site’s edit function…)

  95. avatar
    y_p_w May 31, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    bgansel9: Awww, isn’t that cute! A birther writes an article for the Examiner:

    I remember when the San Francisco Examiner was a proud daily newspaper (flagship paper of the Hearst empire) that was in decline after it was turned into an afternoon and Sunday paper in a joint operating agreement with the morning San Francisco Chronicle. While I guess it was in decline, it’s really a mess what it’s turned into after Hearst Newspapers sold it off and it became a free daily and then into a bunch of local news websites with the same name.

  96. avatar
    Nathanael May 31, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    Scientist: If I understood it correctly

    The whole thing starts at about 8:45, and I had a hard time following that myself. He starts out claiming that prior to WKA “only a citizen could beget a citizen; your parents had to be citizens for you to become a citizen”. Very sloppy talk that, if taken literally, would mean only direct descendents of those “grandfathered in” by the Constitution back in 1791 could ever become citizens.

    He then goes on to talk about WKA swapping “domicile parents” for “citizen parents”, tacks over to something about children of naturalized citizens, corrects himself to parents who naturalized after the child’s birth, then before completing that thought tacks again over to parents who never naturalized. It was *those* children, from what I could gather, that he said would have to go through naturalization as adults. Children born of already-naturalized parents would be naturalized citizens themselves. (And what of *their* children? Is Mario creating a permanent class of naturalized citizens, passed down eternally from father to son?)

    And of course then comes the whopper: “WKA didn’t change that”; i.e., the two-parent citizen rule — right after he claimed that WKA DID change things, substituting “domicile parents” for “citizen parents”.

    No, the judges won’t go there, primarily, I think, because nobody can figure out where “there” is based on Mario’s presentation.

    I loved his defense of MvH: “Some people say Minor was just an example, but there can’t be more than one definition of NBC, because Minor defined it and, well, it would just be too confusing to have more than one.”

  97. avatar
    Joe Acerbic May 31, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    Jim:
    unicorn citizens

    That’s not a relevant category in this context. Amercian unicorns are supernatural citizens who can then be born citizens or naturalized, just like natural citizens. Only natural born citizens like e.g. Barack Obama are eligible to be President.

  98. avatar
    john May 31, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    Mario shouldn’t feel bad. This was another corrupt court. I could tell immediately that the judges had no interest in listening to Mario’s arguments. I seriously doubt they even read Mario’s brief. The appeals court was clearly biased by showing Presidential treatment to Obama even though Mario indicated he was a candidate on the New Jersey Ballot. The court then tried to say Obama’s eligibility was settled with the 2008 election. This is a moot issue and nonsense as this is the 2012 election and anything concerning Obama’s eligibility in 2008 is moot. Further the courts basically violated the seperation of powers by suggesting that Congress settle matters concerning Constitutional Law such Obama’s eligibility under Article II Section I. Finally, in truly an appauling show, they allowed the New Jersey SOS to prescribe to the court that unlawful and fraudlent elections can take place in New Jersey by suggesting that the SOS has no duty to insure candidates are eligible. This is complete nonsense and the court’s reason for it is nonsense too – That they HOPED the problem of eligibility would be settled by Congress.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    I believe one of the Obots was seen outside judges’ offices in New Jersey a couple of days ago making a hand gesture and quietly saying “you don’t need to see Apuzzo’s papers. Obama is not the usurper you’re looking for.” It’s just a rumor, mind you.

    john: Mario shouldn’t feel bad. This was another corrupt court. I could tell immediately that the judges had no interest in listening to Mario’s arguments. I seriously doubt they even read Mario’s brief.

  100. avatar
    Scientist May 31, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    john: I could tell immediately that the judges had no interest in listening to Mario’s arguments.

    Why should they be interested in a load of horse manure unless they were ordering garden fertilizer?

    john: The court then tried to say Obama’s eligibility was settled with the 2008 election. This is a moot issue and nonsense as this is the 2012 election and anything concerning Obama’s eligibility in 2008 is moot

    What has changed about Obama or about the law since 2008? Nothing. Therefore, given that he was eligible then, he is eligible now. OTOH, Romney has not had his eligibility ruled on ever. And given that POS “birth certificate” he has, the decision could go either way.

  101. avatar
    Obot One Canoli May 31, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    That would be me. My mouth was full of lasagna, but it still worked. We’re just that good. Thanks to our teacher, Yowza!, that is.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I believe one of the Obots was seen outside judges’ offices in New Jersey a couple of days ago making a hand gesture and quietly saying “you don’t need to see Apuzzo’s papers. Obama is not the usurper you’re looking for.” It’s just a rumor, mind you.

  102. avatar
    Keith May 31, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I believe one of the Obots was seen outside judges’ offices in New Jersey a couple of days ago making a hand gesture and quietly saying “you don’t need to see Apuzzo’s papers. Obama is not the usurper you’re looking for.” It’s just a rumor, mind you.

    I think its time we all reviewed the message on the sign posted just under your “Quote of the Day”.

  103. avatar
    James M May 31, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    john:

    Even more corrupt than the courts have been these Secretary of States.

    Secretaries of State.

    Are you saying that you have an opinion that some official is “corrupt”, or do you intend to lay out evidence of a crime?

  104. avatar
    DP May 31, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

    john:
    Mario shouldn’t feel bad.This was another corrupt court.I could tell immediately that the judges had no interest in listening to Mario’s arguments.I seriously doubt they even read Mario’s brief.The appeals court was clearly biased by showing Presidential treatment to Obama even though Mario indicated he was a candidate on the New Jersey Ballot.The court then tried to say Obama’s eligibility was settled with the 2008 election.This is a moot issue and nonsense as this is the 2012 election and anything concerning Obama’s eligibility in 2008 is moot.Further the courts basically violated the seperation of powers by suggesting that Congress settle matters concerning Constitutional Law such Obama’s eligibility under Article II Section I.Finally, in truly an appauling show, they allowed the New Jersey SOS to prescribe to the court that unlawful and fraudlent elections can take place in New Jersey by suggesting that the SOS has no duty to insure candidates are eligible.This is complete nonsense and the court’s reason for it is nonsense too – That they HOPED the problem of eligibility would be settled by Congress.

    Well, you’re obviously uninformed on legal matters and, it appears, the general topic of structural logic. You have blindly accepted a set of ideas that have been repeatedly rejected by the courts. Everytime they are rejected, you simply call the court corrupt corrupt for not validating your personal beliefs. I suppose it must give you some sense of relief to vent, but you simply demonstrate your lack of knowledge and objectivity.

  105. avatar
    Stanislaw May 31, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

    Expelliarmus: They said why very clearly, but apparently you can’t read.

    He won’t read it because it’s not on FR or WND. Or because he’s functionally illiterate. The more I read his postings the more I suspect that it’s the latter and not the former.

  106. avatar
    Lupin June 1, 2012 at 2:04 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I believe one of the Obots was seen outside judges’ offices in New Jersey a couple of days ago making a hand gesture and quietly saying “you don’t need to see Apuzzo’s papers. Obama is not the usurper you’re looking for.” It’s just a rumor, mind you.

    Me, I blame Perrier. Badoit. Vittel. Whatever.

  107. avatar
    Nathanael June 1, 2012 at 3:45 am #

    James M: Are you saying that you have an opinion that some official is “corrupt”, or do you intend to lay out evidence of a crime?

    You mean there’s a difference? Quit trying to confuse the guy.

  108. avatar
    Nathanael June 1, 2012 at 4:09 am #

    john:I could tell immediately that the judges had no interest in listening to Mario’s arguments.

    Ah, explains why they spent so much time asking him questions and, well, um, you know — listening to him.

    john:
    Further the courts basically violated the seperation of powers by suggesting that Congress settle matters concerning Constitutional Law such Obama’s eligibility

    Please, John, do enlighten. whose duty is it to sort out such matters? According to the Constitution, of course. Please cite the specific article and/or statute so those of us who know less about the Constitution than you can follow your reasoning.

    john:
    Finally, in truly an appauling show

    Your spellchecker’s acting up again, John. That should be A-P-P-E-A-L-I-N-G. Just sayin’.

    by suggesting that the SOS has no duty to insure candidates are eligible.This is complete nonsense

    Unless you can cite where NJ state code states that the SoS has such a duty, then you’re living in La-La Land. NJ state law, no matter how much you wish it did, does not proscribe any such duty for the SoS.

    The only question the NJ elections commission has to answer — the only question it has any authority to answer — is whether Obama has fulfilled the requirements of NJ law for appearing on the ballot. So, John, which NJ requirement, exactly, did Obama not fulfill? Chapter and verse, please, or it didn’t happen.

  109. avatar
    Sef June 1, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    Nathanael: NJ state law, no matter how much you wish it did, does not prescribe any such duty for the SoS.

    FIFY

  110. avatar
    Nathanael June 1, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    Sef: FIFY

    Yeah, thanks. Brain fart. The older I get the more I find myself reaching for words and they’re just not there. Used to be the multisyllabic ones, so I blamed it on the fact that I spend most of my day communicating in Chinese. But more and more it’s the simple stuff. Like just this morning I couldn’t think of the word for … uh …

    Um, thanks.

  111. avatar
    The Magic M June 1, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    john: as this is the 2012 election and anything concerning Obama’s eligibility in 2008 is moot

    Since even birthers don’t (and can’t) claim Obama’s eligibility (or lack thereof) or the Constitutional eligibility requirements have changed between 2008 and 2012, that argument is moot as well.

    Do you suggest courts should grant any case a do-over just because it’s a new year?

    Or do you simply not understand how courts work?

    This is the same stubbornness that is going to cause many birthers lawyers to get sanctioned “any day now” (for real this time) – you simply cannot look at all the rulings in all the courts before and say “yeah, all courts say I’m wrong, but I’m bringing this case anyway because have a good feeling this time”. Remember also, the definition of insanity is…

    Once the sanctions come in, we will either see those cases dwindle or we might have a chance to peek behind the curtain at who’s financing all this. Either way, Obots win, birthers lose.

  112. avatar
    Sef June 1, 2012 at 10:31 am #

    Nathanael: Yeah, thanks. Brain fart. The older I get the more I find myself reaching for words and they’re just not there. Used to be the multisyllabic ones, so I blamed it on the fact that I spend most of my day communicating in Chinese. But more and more it’s the simple stuff. Like just this morning I couldn’t think of the word for … uh …

    Um, thanks.

    Same here. Thanks be given to Google, et al.

  113. avatar
    Reality Check June 2, 2012 at 10:52 am #

    John alluded to this above in his fantasy recollection of the hearing but I thought one of the best moments was when one of the judges asked Apuzzo if Congress didn’t conclude Obama was eligible when it certified the electoral vote in January 2009. Apuzzo’s answer was something to the effect that “they didn’t have all the evidence”. That ws a blatant lie. In late 2008 Birthers were calling, writing and faxing every elector and every member of Congress. Birther cases by Berg, Donofrio, and others had made national news. allot took was a petition signed by one Representative and one member of the senate to call the question. There were none. Apuzzo even filed a case naming the leadership of the Congress for not vetting President Elect Obama and he was told the claim was frivolous.