Main Menu

The Doc’s skyrocketing legal career

It’s hardly been a month since I was awarded the De Facto Juris Doctor Pro Hac Vice degree from The Fogbow School of Birther Law, for which I am duly honored (thanks guys). That was cool, but now my Birther Law career has taken a sudden and unexpected upturn.

I received a letter today from the Cornell University Law School acknowledging the help that I provided them this year as I pursued the dark reaches of Birther Law. They sent me a gavel in token of their thanks. Am I a Birther Law judge now? I must be because, in the words of Descartes, “I think, therefore I am.”

StressGavel

This is a very special gavel, created specifically situations like judging birther cases. It is made of rubber and is called a “stress gavel,” perfect for releasing the stress from dealing with these crazy people. I will cherish it, along with my degree, my Obama Ukulele bobble-head doll and the framed email on the wall from [mumble].

Print Friendly

,

378 Responses to The Doc’s skyrocketing legal career

  1. avatar
    US Citizen November 11, 2012 at 6:17 am #

    Congratulations!
    Now you’re perfectly qualified to hear citizen grand juries.

  2. avatar
    donna November 11, 2012 at 7:49 am #

    congrats doc

    pero cuidado, taitz will file a suit against you for the “unlawful practice of law”

    she now has “evidence” and will subpoena cornell as an “expert witness”

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 11, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    Well actually, I was sort of thinking about convening a citizens superior court to hear birther grand jury presentments.

    US Citizen: Now you’re perfectly qualified to hear citizen grand juries.

  4. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 11, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Well actually, I was sort of thinking about convening a citizens superior court to hear birther grand jury presentments.

    If I were you, I’d look up how to issue sanctions against those presenters.

  5. avatar
    Rickey November 11, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    US Citizen:

    Now you’re perfectly qualified to hear citizen grand juries.

    Sounds good to me. How about a citizen grand jury to indict birthers for treason because of their calls for armed rebellion? I volunteer to serve as an impartial juror.

  6. avatar
    bgansel9 November 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Congrats, Doc.

  7. avatar
    SluggoJD November 11, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    It’s also great for whack-a-mole!

  8. avatar
    Joey November 11, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

    SluggoJD:
    It’s also great for whack-a-mole!

    Correction: Whack-a-Taitz; whack-an-Apuzzo; whack-a-Kreep and whack-a-Berg!

  9. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    Get another one, attach the two with a chain at the handles, and you’ll be UNSTOPPABLE, because…that’s right, Judgechucks!
    Now that’s a courtroom show I’d actually watch! Also, hire Sonny Chiba to be the Bailiff.

  10. avatar
    Craig November 11, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    “judgechucks”. My heart just about stopped from the awesome!

  11. avatar
    ASK Esq November 11, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

    That’s got to be at least as impressive a legal credential as a degree from Taft Skool O’Law.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 11, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    I should add that the specific assistance I gave the Legal Information Institute was money.

  13. avatar
    US Citizen November 11, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I should add that the specific assistance I gave the Legal Information Institute was money.

    That’s ok. You received a gavel. It has value to you.
    But consider Orly.. She paid Taft and received nothing that’s of value to her.
    Her clients also.
    They pay her and receive nothing of value from her.
    The worst off are probably her dental clients.
    They pay her and then have to visit a real dentist to undo her mess.

  14. avatar
    myson15 November 12, 2012 at 2:49 am #

    Congrats

    I want one as well though i already am a lawyer not yet a judge.

    (Doc i couldnt post my comment before changing my email to one not known to your site as the one i normally use was rejected , why ?)

  15. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 12, 2012 at 3:36 am #

    Congratulations! All I can think of is you playing birther whack-a-mole with your new gavel… You could have Orly and Mario and the Constitutional hydrologist and Trump and Sheriff Joe and Corsi and all of your favorites (Berg and the Paraclete would be there, but they wouldn’t pop out of their holes anymore).

  16. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 7:54 am #

    Slartibartfast,

    Wishful thinking, but playing Wikipedia psychologist and preying on the weak gets the Doc no cigar.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 12, 2012 at 8:49 am #

    But I don’t play psychologist. That’s a major editorial guideline here. And as for the weak, well, that sort of comes with the birther territory.

    But I can’t help wondering who Mr. Apuzzo considers the “weak” and precisely how they are being preyed upon.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Wishful thinking, but playing Wikipedia psychologist and preying on the weak gets the Doc no cigar.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 12, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    When I used the concept of “whack-a-mole” it’s in terms of conspiracy theories and crank legal theories, not birthers individually. You’ll note that the Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories is about theories, not birthers.

    Certainly the characters inhabiting the birtherverse are interesting, but I’m not interested in whacking them personally. I hope that one day they can start to lead productive lives and be a benefit to society.

    There are other points of view directed at certain individual birthers, particularly against Orly Taitz, that it is the individual who is the problem. I acknowledge the value of such positions.

    I learned the concept of externality pretty early in life, and I have come to believe very strongly in the equitable sharing of costs (and this is line with a conservative saying that people should be responsible for their actions). So when I say, for example, that Taitz should be sanctioned, I am not saying that she should be punished for being a birther, or for vigorously pursuing what she believe to be right, but simply that she should bear the cost of her actions.

    Slartibartfast: All I can think of is you playing birther whack-a-mole with your new gavel

  19. avatar
    Scientist November 12, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Slartibartfast,
    Wishful thinking, but playing Wikipedia psychologist and preying on the weak gets the Doc no cigar.

    Losing 150 court cases and 2 elections is not enough? You should audition to play Jason in the next “Friday the 13th”. The hockey mask might help you do better with women.

  20. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater November 12, 2012 at 10:18 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Slartibartfast, Wishful thinking, but playing Wikipedia psychologist and preying on the weak gets the Doc no cigar.

    As opposed to you playing lawyer and failing repeatedly in court Mario?

  21. avatar
    bovril November 12, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    Yay Putzie,

    Given up being slapped around over at the Lakin thread I see.

    So, how does it feel that a majority of the public vote AND 68.84% of the Electoral Votes all said, “Obama…OF COURSE he’s qualified”

    Not to forget them there pesky lawsuits and SC rulings and 14th Amendment thingies of course.

    Oh and lets not forget how the Putz lost to a first year associate AND got himself an Order to Show Cause after the NJ court called your stuff “Frivolous”.

    So much failure from one failed lawyer….but of course not even with the title of The Worst Lawyer in the Western World, couldn’t even hit that bar, seriously Mario the best you can do is playing second fiddle to the Moldovan Molar Mangler.

    Mario………..just so average

  22. avatar
    Arthur November 12, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Wishful thinking, but playing Wikipedia psychologist and preying on the weak gets the Doc no cigar.

    And being a mediocre lawyer gets the Putz defeat, and earns him this memorable bouquet from the judge:

    Purpora V. Obama 2012

    “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

  23. avatar
    Thomas Brown November 12, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    … one day they can start to lead productive lives and be a benefit to society.

    They already have been a benefit to society… by helping to re-elect the President. And they will forever be useful as cautionary examples of counter-productive behaviour.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 12, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Listening to what’s been on the media, Romney would have won the election handily if it just hadn’t been for the:

    birthers
    right-wing attack ads against him in the primary
    climate-change denialists
    rape denialists
    outsourcing their data analysis

    Thomas Brown: [Birthers] already have been a benefit to society… by helping to re-elect the President. And they will forever be useful as cautionary examples of counter-productive behaviour.

  25. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    Sounds like bovril is the cousin of the filthy-mouthed Whisky and that Arthur does not know what he is talking about.

    New Jersey ALJ, Jeff S. Masin, did not addressed my “natural born Citizen” argument. First, I did not argue that Obama Jr. is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was born in Kenya, because Obama Jr. was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act, or because Obama Jr. was born with dual citizenship. Rather, I argued that he is not a “natural born Citizen” under the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” as confirmed in both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) because he was not born to a U.S. “citizen” father.

    Second, ALJ Masin stated in his decision that “there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position.” This is a false statement, for I provided plenty of such authority in my pleadings and briefs to the court which the court did not address. In fact, the court evaded its responsibility to due process by simply stating that [t]ime does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues” and [t]his is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject.”

    Third, the ALJ did not address my argument that Wong Kim Ark is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” case and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” case, which also makes the Ankeny case wrongly decided.

    Indeed, the few merits court decisions on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” are empty decisions and the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule that the Obots are correct.

  26. avatar
    Scientist November 12, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule that the Obots are correct.

    The voters have ruled, twice. The first 3 words of the Constitution are “We, the People” not “We the Justices” (not that the Justices would disagree with the People in this instance).

  27. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    Mario,

    Are you planning on spending the next four years in denial, complaining that a New Jersey administrative law judge done you wrong but unwilling to file a single case to attempt to get this “travesty” you’re whining about decided correctly? Or will you risk sanctions in an attempt to do more than just talk?

    Face the facts—it’s over. No politician is going to even pretend to pander or dog whistle to the birthers any more, no court is going to rule this nonsense anything other than the frivolous crap that it is, and there is no chance that the results of the last two lawful elections will be overturned. You are just another pitiful sore loser trying to get a do-over of a game you lost 175-0.

    Seriously, just move on with your life—this is over. Unless you want to try to catch up with Orly in the sanctions race…

  28. avatar
    Arthur November 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Sounds like bovril is the cousin of the filthy-mouthed Whisky and that Arthur does not know what he is talking about.

    I may not know much, but I know what the judge in your case decided. I also know what was decided about your appeal:

    “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). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forthin ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.”

    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISIONDOCKET NO. A-4478-11T3

    Look Mario, the fact that you lost doesn’t make you a putz, because everybody loses now and then. No, what makes you a putz is that you continue to deny the reality of your loss, even when it’s black and white and read all over.

  29. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Indeed, the few merits court decisions on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” are empty decisions and the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule that the Obots are correct.

    Mario: Do something constructive, and help clean up after the hurricane.

  30. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 12, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    Doc,

    Personally, I don’t believe in conscious free will (I find this argument by Sam Harris as well as the empirical evidence persuasive), so I believe that the purpose of punishment is merely to dissuade others from the same type of anti-social actions, to protect society from being victimized again, and to ensure that the perpetrator doesn’t repeat the offending behavior.

    I must admit that while I try to follow the teaching of Jesus (which in no way interferes with my atheism) and “hate the sin, love the sinner” I will probably derive no small amount of schadenfreude should the courts finally act to curtail Orly’s judicial terrorism.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I learned the concept of externality pretty early in life, and I have come to believe very strongly in the equitable sharing of costs (and this is line with a conservative saying that people should be responsible for their actions). So when I say, for example, that Taitz should be sanctioned, I am not saying that she should be punished for being a birther, or for vigorously pursuing what she believe to be right, but simply that she should bear the cost of her actions.

  31. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    bovril: Mario the best you can do is playing second fiddle to the Moldovan Molar Mangler.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Sounds like bovril is the cousin of the filthy-mouthed Whisky

    I’d say bovril is quite the wit – unlike your inarticulate, intoxicated clients, which is your stock-in-trade.

    “filthy-mouthed Whisky” – Please, my grandfather gave up being a rabbi, to bootleg.

  32. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: preying on the weak gets the Doc no cigar.

    Kettle, pot

  33. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 12, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Mario,

    What is it that you find fulfilling about posting on various blogs, refusing to debate in good faith, and whining about people being mean to you?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Sounds like bovril is the cousin of the filthy-mouthed Whisky and that Arthur does not know what he is talking about.

  34. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    Arthur,

    The Appellate Division said: “We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.”

    Hence, the Appellate Division decision is only as correct as the opinion of the ALJ. And we have seen the strength of the ALJ decision.

  35. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 12, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Why aren’t you working to get this case in front of a court again since the merits of the ALJ’s decision are so easily overcome? Methinks the loser doth protest too much…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Arthur,

    The Appellate Division said:“We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.”

    Hence, the Appellate Division decision is only as correct as the opinion of the ALJ.And we have seen the strength of the ALJ decision.

  36. avatar
    Arthur November 12, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Hence, the Appellate Division decision is only as correct as the opinion of the ALJ. And we have seen the strength of the ALJ decision.

    Indeed. And we have found it to be a good deal stronger than any thing you said in court. Moreover, despite your mendacious caterwauling, Obama won.

  37. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    Arthur,

    Your self-serving trite comments add nothing to the debate.

  38. avatar
    Arthur November 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Arthur,

    Your self-serving trite comments add nothing to the debate.

    The debate was settled before you ever filed a lawsuit or opened your mouth. You lost.

  39. avatar
    Rickey November 12, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Your self-serving trite comments add nothing to the debate.

    Earth to Mario: There is no debate. That ship sailed long ago.

    By the way, have you ever acknowledged that you lied when you claimed that there was a ban on U.S. citizens traveling to Pakistan in 1981?

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 12, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

    At some time in the past, you registered as a user on this site. A new anti-impersonation feature requires that registered users login in order to use their names. You can login using the link under the Visitor’s Guide menu, and if you don’t remember your password, there is a way there to reset it.

    myson15: (Doc i couldnt post my comment before changing my email to one not known to your site as the one i normally use was rejected , why ?)

  41. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Arthur and Rickey,

    You guys are real funny. You keep at it on this blog with your little sophomoric contributions. Then when someone challenges you, you say the debate is over. Very pathetic, indeed.

  42. avatar
    bovril November 12, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    So Fallio, lets see what Whisky has said that scares you so much.

    Mario, You can try to lie to yourself but them there pesky facts keep on biting you on that ample ass of yours.

    Simple binary questions and answers Falio, Yes or No answers

    1. Did a court in NJ issue an OSC to you…answer is either Yes or No.

    2. Was the OSC issued due to you pursuing a frivolous appeal…Yes or No answer

    3. Did you send to the court a 95 page statement the court found to be unpersuasive….Yes or No answer

    4. Was your appeal denied as without merit by the court….Yes or No answer

    5. Was your case found to have no standing in the eyes of the court….Yes or No answer.

    There, simple enough for a failing Birfoon like you Falio I trust.

    ======================
    And in a vain attemt to appear relevant, what does Falio the Putz do…?

    Why cut ‘n paste his ever irrelevent greatest hits in a bloviating verbal mish mash of nonsense.

    At just a bit over 56,000 words it is stunning in its delusional shallowness and if it was a PhD thesis would be returned with WTF stamped all over it.

    Yes Falio, you have conclusively demonstrated that yes, more really is far, far less.

    Just to recap for any purported followers of The Putz, it boils down to “Scary Black man, waaaaaah, send the Wahhhhhhhhmbulance, irrelevant cherry pick, deliberate lies and outright bovine by product

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

    And yet Falio, not a single solitary word in your tome of nonsense ACTUALLY supports your insane theory.

    For that matter, not a single relevant and extent court case or Constitutional interpretation or ruling by the SC supports you.

    So, based on how my view is supported by the law and the Constitution and yours isn’t would make me the winner and you the loser.

    In point of fact ( you know Mario, those things you are allergic to) no one who actually counts supports your wholly cretinous ideas.

    Facts in fact must give you hives Mario considering how you desperately avoid them and cowardly avoid answering in anything approaching an honest manner.

    You know, like where is a single SC ruling recording and defining your magical third class of citizenship.

    Or how winning in your mind is equated by your unequalled losing streak

    Or how the last time you tried to BS a court with your inane theory you had to show cause that you shouldn’t be sanctioned

    Or how your personal and asinine theory is so shallow and unsupported that you were beaten like a junkyard dog and lost to a junior associate.

    You know Falio… facts, now care to answer or will you fall back to your default response of a non response and pathetic and sad little attack.

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

    Yes, I can see how he scares the bull flavored stuff out of you, he or she is demonstrating the inane vacuity of your entire life

  43. avatar
    sfjeff November 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Arthur and Rickey, You guys are real funny. You keep at it on this blog with your little sophomoric contributions. Then when someone challenges you, you say the debate is over. Very pathetic, indeed.

    How possibly is the debate not over?

    Lets review:
    Every judge that has heard the case has ruled against you and the other Birthers.
    The voters have twice affirmed that they say that Obama’s father being a non-U.S. citizen is not relevant.
    Congress has affirmed that also.
    The Congressional Research Service researched it and agreed- not relevant.

    So what debate could there possibly be?

    There is no more ‘debate’ about your claim than there is a ‘debate’ about whether there are canals on Mars or whether income tax is unconstitutional.

  44. avatar
    Rickey November 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    You guys are real funny.You keep at it on this blog with your little sophomoric contributions.Then when someone challenges you, you say the debate is over.Very pathetic, indeed.

    I’m glad you got a good laugh. I’ll be here all week (I’m opening for Misha).

    And here’s a real knee-slapper for you:

    Obama: 332 electoral votes
    Romney: 206 electoral votes

    Obama’s victory margin in the popular vote: 3.3 million and climbing (29% of the vote in California hasn’t been counted yet, so Obama’s popular vote margin will almost certainly exceed 4 million when all is said and done)

  45. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: sophomoric contributions

    Bwahahahahahahaha…kettle, pot

    Go clean up after Sandy. We got the tail end in Chinatown.

  46. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You guys are real funny.

    As are you.

  47. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    Poor bovril, he has to rely on the mechanical gibberish of the foul-mouthed Whisky.

  48. avatar
    Arthur November 12, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    Speaking of funny, Mario, I watched the video of your bumbling attempt to argue your illegitimate argument before Judge Masin. I’m still laughing.

  49. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    Arthur: your mendacious caterwauling

    I thought it was braying at the moon.

  50. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    Poor Rickey, he has to rely on the election to try to prove that he knows what a “natural born Citizen” is.

  51. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: mechanical gibberish

    Who is the ventriloquist? You, or Orly?

  52. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    Arthur,

    I’m glad you watched the video. What did you think of ALJ Masin?

  53. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor Rickey, he has to rely on the election to try to prove that he knows what a “natural born Citizen” is.

    Try this definition:

    Macduff was from his mother’s womb
    Untimely ripp’d.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 12, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo is not being quite candid with the blog.

    It is correct that he did not

    argue that Obama Jr. is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was born in Kenya, because Obama Jr. was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act

    However, that is not what the Judge addressed. Masin wrote:

    No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born.

    Since the subject “father” is closest to “British citizen” we may take this to mean that it was Obama Sr. who was a British citizen, which goes to the very heart of what Apuzzo argued. The court addressed the dual citizenship issue in a second sentence. The Judge never wrote the “Obama Jr.” that Apuzzo inserts in order to try to force a false interpretation on the decision.

    Further, all of the Court’s citations go directly to Apuzzo’s spurious claim.

    I think it is clear that Mr. Apuzzo is in deep denial so much so that he can’t even admit what the Court actually said, much less accept it as true.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: New Jersey ALJ, Jeff S. Masin, did not addressed my “natural born Citizen” argument. First, I did not argue that Obama Jr. is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was born in Kenya, because Obama Jr. was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act,

  55. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm #

    Arthur: mendacious caterwauling

    That’s Katy Perry.

  56. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

    Mario: I looked at your avatar.

    This is the proper avatar: http://janetnami.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/1logo-janus-thumbnail.jpeg

  57. avatar
    Sudoku November 12, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Nope, you fail to understand, or continue to misconstrue, what ALJ Masin means. He is not saying you did not offer what you claimed was support. ALJ Masin was saying that none of it in fact supported your position. Big difference.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Second, ALJ Masin stated in his decision that “there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position.” This is a false statement, for I provided plenty of such authority in my pleadings and briefs to the court which the court did not address.

  58. avatar
    Rickey November 12, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor Rickey, he has to rely on the election to try to prove that he knows what a “natural born Citizen” is.

    I never said that winning the election proves what a natural born citizen is. Unlike you, I do not suffer from a reading comprehension deficit.

    I do, however, have a generous spirit, so I will give you one more chance. When are you going to admit that there was never a ban on travel to Pakistan for U.S. citizens in 1981?

  59. avatar
    Scientist November 12, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor Rickey, he has to rely on the election to try to prove that he knows what a “natural born Citizen” is.

    Can you cite any clause in the Constitution that says anyone other than the voters and Congress decides who is eigible to be President? There is none. The courts cannot usurp the powers of the People and their elected representatives.

    The People decide my friend and no one but..

  60. avatar
    Daniel November 12, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor bovril, he has to rely on the mechanical gibberish of the foul-mouthed Whisky.

    Well you just go ahead and win a court case. That’ll show him good.

  61. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    Sudoku,

    You said:

    “Nope, you fail to understand, or continue to misconstrue, what ALJ Masin means. He is not saying you did not offer what you claimed was support. ALJ Masin was saying that none of it in fact supported it. Big difference.”

    This is another lie.

  62. avatar
    Daniel November 12, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    You said:

    “Nope, you fail to understand, or continue to misconstrue, what ALJ Masin means.He is not saying you did not offer what you claimed was support.ALJ Masin was saying that none of it in fact supported it.Big difference.”

    This is another lie.

    Says the expert on lying…

  63. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Poor Rickey, scraping below the bottom of the barrel.

  64. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    Scientist,

    I just love how you wrap yourself around “The People” when it suits you.

  65. avatar
    Scientist November 12, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    Mario-Why do you hate the American people? Why do you hate democracy? If you hate American democracy so much, go to North Korea. They don’t bother with elections there, so you should feel at home.

  66. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor Rickey, scraping below the bottom of the barrel.

    Poor Mario, chasing ambulances.

  67. avatar
    Scientist November 12, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I just love how you wrap yourself around “The People” when it suits you.

    If the People had voted for Romney, I would respect their verdict. In fact I think both liberals and conservatives have erred in trying to get the courts to overturn the popular will. Educating people and changing minds is a better strategy. Look at same-sex marriage. 3 states voted for it last week. That is better and more sustainable than having judges mixing in.

  68. avatar
    misha marinsky November 12, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    Scientist: They don’t bother with elections there, so you should feel at home.

    Mario can join Orly with the West Bank fascists:

    Settler leader calls democracy an obstacle to Israel’s higher calling – Veteran settler leader Benny Katzover: ‘We didn’t come here to establish a democratic state.’

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/settler-leader-calls-democracy-an-obstacle-to-israel-s-higher-calling-1.407490

  69. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Even if you are correct which it is not clear that you are, your point makes no difference.

    “[T]hat his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act” is not controlling. Assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii and that his mother was a U.S. citizen, what is then controlling is whether his father was a U.S. citizen when Obama was born.

  70. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    Poor Daniel, he does not have anything meaningful to say on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” other than to say that I have to win cases.

  71. avatar
    Daniel November 12, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor Rickey, scraping below the bottom of the barrel.

    Poor Mario, pretending he’s not a loser

  72. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    Scientist,

    Why do you not stop spouting absurdities?

  73. avatar
    Sudoku November 12, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    It is possible I am wrong, but I doubt it. It is not a lie. Learn the difference.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This is another lie.

  74. avatar
    Sudoku November 12, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    If it doesn’t matter, why did you list that as your first issue with the ALJ’s decision?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Even if you are correct which it is not clear that you are, your point makes no difference.

    “[T]hat his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act” is not controlling.Assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii and that his mother was a U.S. citizen, what is then controlling is whether his father was a U.S. citizen when Obama was born.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: New Jersey ALJ, Jeff S. Masin, did not addressed my “natural born Citizen” argument. First, I did not argue that Obama Jr. is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was born in Kenya, because Obama Jr. was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act, or because Obama Jr. was born with dual citizenship. Rather, I argued that he is not a “natural born Citizen” under the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” as confirmed in both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) because he was not born to a U.S. “citizen” father.

  75. avatar
    Scientist November 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why does Mario not stop spouting absurdities?

    Because he hates himself and therefore hates everyone else too.

    Try this Mario: Show me in the Constitution where it denies that the voters can define who is a natural born citizen for peresidentiial eligibility.

  76. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    Daniel,

    It appears to me that you are in fact the loser, not being able to make any cogent argument.

  77. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    Sudoku,

    I know the difference. That is why I said that what you said is a lie.

  78. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    Scientist,

    Please stop being so corny.

  79. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    Sudoku,

    I hate to inform you that this stuff is going right over your head.

  80. avatar
    donna November 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    what is you opinion of marco rubio?

    according to kerchner, marco was born BEFORE his parents were naturalized

    TIA

  81. avatar
    Rickey November 12, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor Rickey, scraping below the bottom of the barrel.

    Ah, but I’m not the one who lied in a court filing and then obfuscated when caught in that lie. Or have you forgotten about your subsequent claim of a de facto travel ban?

    Now that was funny! My attorney associates still get a good laugh out of it.

    Here is a good joke for you:

    Q. Why does Mario Apuzzo wear turtleneck sweaters?

    A. To hold back his foreskin.

  82. avatar
    Sudoku November 12, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    Nope again. A lie is an attempt to deceive. What I expressed is my honest opinion. One by the way, that the Courts seem to agree with.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    I know the difference.That is why I said that what you said is a lie.

  83. avatar
    Sudoku November 12, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    No, if you started making sense, you might stun me for a moment, but I see no risk of that anytime soon.
    <blockquote cite="comment-224094"

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    I hate to inform you that this stuff is going right over your head.

  84. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    Donna,

    Marco Rubio was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents who were domiciled and residents of Florida. He is therefore pursuant to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, but he is not pursuant to Minor v. Happersett (1875) a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.

  85. avatar
    Scientist November 12, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Marco Rubio was born in Florida to two non-U.S. citizen parents who were domiciled and residents of Florida. He is therefore pursuant to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, but he is not pursuant to Minor v. Happersett (1875) a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.

    What if he runs and wins the election? What do you think would happen? I predict that he would become President. What is your prediction?

  86. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    Poor Rickey, he hangs around attorney associates who are as much a dullard as he is.

  87. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

    Sudoku,

    Your “honest opinion” is stuff made up with no factual basis.

  88. avatar
    Northland10 November 12, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Hence, the Appellate Division decision is only as correct as the opinion of the ALJ. And we have seen the strength of the ALJ decision.

    So, has the Appellate Court or the ALJ decision been overruled and Obama removed from the ballot or his office? Has the Supreme Court granted you cert? Has a court provided your relief?

    Didn’t think so.

    You can claim what you think or believe the courts said or what history said, but in the long run, that means squat. If the courts have not ruled in your favor, you have nothing and thus, what they really said stands. Since the courts have chosen not to rule him ineligible, then the decision lies in the purview of, as Scientist put it, We The People (through our voting for electors).

    Your childish name calling does not help your argument and has not helped a court rule in your favor.

  89. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm #

    Sudoku,

    I guess lying is a habit of yours. What did I say which does not make any sense for you?

  90. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    Northland10,

    Please do not lecture me on name calling. You can dish it but you can’t take it. Too bad.

    Also, I can read for myself.

  91. avatar
    Rickey November 12, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor Rickey, he hangs around attorney associates who are as much a dullard as he is.

    But what about that Pakistan travel ban, Mario? Why do you keep refusing to answer?

  92. avatar
    Daniel November 12, 2012 at 9:18 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Daniel,

    It appears to me that you are in fact the loser, not being able to make any cogent argument.

    But yet I have a 100% better record in court on the subject, in that I have never lost, and you have never won.

  93. avatar
    donna November 12, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    Scientist: What if he runs and wins the election? What do you think would happen? I predict that he would become President. What is your prediction?

    why do you think he would win?

    latinos are democrats and only OLD cubans are republicans

    fl cubans voted for obama

    rubio favors SB1070 which republicans hate

    his “dream act” is considered “not a dream act” by latinos

    latinos like obamacare, rubio said he would repeal it

    he is a social conservative and latinos are not

    “They just want to put a sombrero on the Republican elephant,” said one Latino GOP operative

    ““the mistake Republicans are going to make is thinking this is a demographic and political problem and not a social and cultural problem. ”

    latinos are not monolithic – cubans, puerto ricans, venezuelans, central americans, mexicans, etc all voted dem but in different numbers – in fact, mexican-americans hate cubans

    and aside from being a latino, rubio would have to overcome the huge gender gap and other republican problems

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    thanks for your reply – so what would be the birther reaction to a rubio vp/pres candidate?

    in your opinion, would there be ballot challenges and lawsuits?

    ancora, grazie mille

  94. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 12, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    But not, apparently, understand. If someone with no training in the law like myself knows that the 14th Amendment was merely declaratory of existing law (so it could not have created a new class of citizen), that Minor v. Happersett inasmuch as it conflicted with Wong Kim Ark would have been overruled by it, that the part which you are quoting is dicta and if it weren’t it would have been overturned by the 19th Amendment, and that a plain English reading of the passage in question clearly shows that the court declined to address the situation on which you claim it gave a definitive answer, what hope do you have of convincing a judge or even any competent lawyer?

    No one cares about this any more—except for those of us who are laughing at people like you (which isn’t very nice of us, I know, but we’ve been defending the Constitution against dishonest and bigoted birthers like yourself for 4 years now). I don’t know what you hope to accomplish, but you aren’t going to succeed (unless it is to continue to collect birther bux from some sugar daddy).

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Also, I can read for myself.

  95. avatar
    Northland10 November 12, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Also, I can read for myself.

    Reading and comprehension are 2 different things. You may have the first part down but the second, not so much.

    Unfortunately, you have left me with a dichotomous choice. Either you have a serious comprehension problem, or you are slime who has been constantly lying. Which one would you like me to choose?

  96. avatar
    Keith November 12, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Even if you are correct which it is not clear that you are, your point makes no difference.

    “[T]hat his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act” is not controlling.Assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii and that his mother was a U.S. citizen, what is then controlling is whether his father was a U.S. citizen when Obama was born.

    Incorrect.

    Assuming that Obama was born in Hawai’i, what is controlling is whether Hawai’i was a State of the U.S. when Obama was born.

  97. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 10:09 pm #

    Poor, poor Daniel. He keeps telling us how he won in court without telling us what he did to win.

  98. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    donna,

    I believe that there would be law suits against Rubio. There are some individuals who are not happy with the Republicans for their playing dumb and not standing up to defend the Constitution in the Obama eligibility question.

  99. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    Slartibartfast,

    Not only are you not trained in the law. But you also lack skills needed for critical thinking.

  100. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 10:23 pm #

    Poor Northland10, he just loves to beg the question.

  101. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 12, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Keith,

    You said: “Incorrect. Assuming that Obama was born in Hawai’i, what is controlling is whether Hawai’i was a State of the U.S. when Obama was born.”

    You missed the point of discussion. ALJ Masin, Dr. Conspiracy, and I were addressing the citizen parents issue, not the place of birth one.

  102. avatar
    Daniel November 12, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor, poor Daniel.He keeps telling us how he won in court without telling us what he did to win.

    How did I win in court? I didn’t bet on the fools.

    In the end you lost, and America won. Until you can get past that hurdle, you’ll just be another moron with a delusion for a cause.

  103. avatar
    Daniel November 12, 2012 at 11:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Slartibartfast,

    Not only are you not trained in the law.But you also lack skills needed for critical thinking.

    And yet, he’s not the one who keeps losing where it really counts….

  104. avatar
    Daniel November 12, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Keith,

    You said:“Incorrect.Assuming that Obama was born in Hawai’i, what is controlling is whether Hawai’i was a State of the U.S. when Obama was born.”

    You missed the point of discussion.ALJ Masin, Dr. Conspiracy, and I were addressing the citizen parents issue, not the place of birth one.

    Yes do keep focusing on the issue you lost on. That’ll convince people….

  105. avatar
    Sudoku November 12, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    Still wrong. What I said about ALJ Masin’s meaning is consistant with his decision. You write very lengthy briefs/pleadings/motions/blog posts, etc. The ALJ was clearly not saying you failed to offer any authorities, rather that those cited did not support your conclusion. That is also consistent with how other courts ruled on eligibility and ballot challenges brought by you and others of your ilk. That is what the courts mean when they say such arguments are frivolous and without merit.

    Just more of the same truth.

    BTW, what does not make sense to me are your legal arguments and your insistence on repeating them after having been ruled against, continuing to repeat the same nonsense. I understand what your are saying, just not why you think it is a valid argument, especially in light of so many failures.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    Your “honest opinion” is stuff made up with no factual basis.

  106. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 12, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

    That’s very funny Mario—I work in a field where my work gets judged on its merits and my deliverables need to meet standards for quality. I wouldn’t want it any other way. Besides, I think that getting a PhD in mathematics requires a bit more in the way of a demonstration of critical thinking ability than whatever the fly-by-night law school you attended asked out of you.

    After all, we know that either you’re not smart enough to correctly parse the English language or you are dishonest enough to lie about it—and someone who repeated tells the same bald faced lies over and over doesn’t sound like much of a critical thinker to me…

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Slartibartfast,

    Not only are you not trained in the law.But you also lack skills needed for critical thinking.

  107. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 12:03 am #

    Daniel,

    “[Y]ou’ll just be another moron with a delusion for a cause.” This really describes you.

  108. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 12:06 am #

    Poor Daniel, he knows who won and lost. But he knows nothing else. I must say, there is not much in the brains department.

  109. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 12:13 am #

    Sudoku,

    You said: “[T]hose cited did not support your conclusion.” You are just parroting bald statements. You cannot show how you arrive at this conclusion.

    You also said: That is also consistent with how other courts ruled on eligibility and ballot challenges brought by you and others of your ilk. That is what the courts mean when they say such arguments are frivolous and without merit.” Again, just parroting. You would not even know where to start to show that my arguments are “frivolous and without merit.”

    In the end, you are just full of a lot of empty words.

  110. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 12:16 am #

    Slartibartfast,

    I would suggest that you stick to mathematics. Logical word communication is not your forte.

  111. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 13, 2012 at 12:21 am #

    Me heap good word maker guy. Mario speak with forked tongue.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Slartibartfast,

    I would suggest that you stick to mathematics. Logical word communication is not your forte.

  112. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 12:41 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I guess lying is a habit of yours.

    Which epitomizes everything you write here and say in court, whether the defendant is a garden variety drunk, or the president.

  113. avatar
    Sudoku November 13, 2012 at 12:45 am #

    I thought I was clear, but I can be more specific if you would like.

    In his Initial Decision, ALJ Masin said “The petitioners present several grounds for their contention that Mr. Obama cannot legally stand as a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the pending primary. As identified in the petition and as more directly defined at the hearing, the objections are that

    1. Mr. Obama has not proven that he meets the Constitutional requirements for the Office of President…

    2. Even if he was actually born in the United States, he is not a“natural born Citizen” because his father was not a citizen.”

    See, the ALJ gets it. He understands your objection. But, gee whiz, who would have thunk it, you quoted him the second time he said there were no legal arguments, not the first. Here is what he actually said when he first referenced your “support”:

    “The second objection involves the meaning of the Constitutional phrase, “natural born Citizen.” Discussion and consideration of this issue is of course relevant only on the understanding that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. This issue has been the subject of litigation concerning Mr. Obama’s candidacy in several jurisdictions. No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here.”…

    See the difference? He said “no NEW legal argument on this issue has been offered HERE.”

    This, of course, supports what I keep telling you.

    No parroting necessary.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Second, ALJ Masin stated in his decision that “there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position.” This is a false statement, for I provided plenty of such authority in my pleadings and briefs to the court which the court did not address.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You said: “[T]hose cited did not support your conclusion.” You are just parroting bald statements. You cannot show how you arrive at this conclusion.

  114. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 12:56 am #

    Misha,

    Do you not grow tired at hearing yourself speak?

  115. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Misha, Do you not grow tired at hearing yourself speak?

    Kettle, pot

  116. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 1:06 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Misha, Do you not grow tired at hearing yourself speak?

    Don’t you grow tired beating a dead horse?

  117. avatar
    Arthur November 13, 2012 at 1:15 am #

    misha marinsky: Don’t you grow tired beating a dead horse?

    It’s well known that Mario prefers beating a dead horse to eating a dead crow. In fact, he’s exceptional at beating off. Just look at his pleadings–they’re seminal.

  118. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 1:33 am #

    Sudoku,

    “[N]o NEW legal argument on this issue has been offered HERE” is not the same as saying “those cited did not support your conclusion.” Whether an argument is new is one thing and whether there is legal support for the argument is another.

    Additionally, even if it were true that “no NEW legal argument on this issue has been offered HERE” which it is not, ALJ Masin still had to show why the argument is wrong. He did not and neither do you who simply parrot the judge.

  119. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 1:35 am #

    misha,

    If the horse is dead, why are you here?

  120. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 1:37 am #

    Arthur,

    I hope your next door neighbors do not have children.

  121. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 1:40 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: misha, If the horse is dead, why are you here?

    I’m trying to prevent animal abuse, which is why I voted for Obama.

  122. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 1:43 am #

    misha,

    If the horse is dead, don’t you think that you are too late.

  123. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 1:45 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Arthur, I hope your next door neighbors do not have children.

    I’m more concerned about your drunk clients’ children. Drunks regularly beat their children and spouses.

  124. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: misha, If the horse is dead, don’t you think that you are too late.

    No, which is why people are prosecuted for animal abuse posthumously, except David Huckabee, or Mitt Romney.

    [Hey, Thrifty: 63 times!]

  125. avatar
    Sudoku November 13, 2012 at 1:54 am #

    You keep getting worse and worse. The ALJ said that no court has accepted your position that Obama is not an NBC and that “the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here.”

    It is called precedent.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    “[N]o NEW legal argument on this issue has been offered HERE” is not the same as saying “those cited did not support your conclusion.” Whether an argument is new is one thing and whether there is legal support for the argument is another.

    Additionally, even if it were true that “no NEW legal argument on this issue has been offered HERE” which it is not, ALJ Masin still had to show why the argument is wrong.He did not and neither do you who simply parrot the judge.

  126. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: poor Daniel. He keeps telling us how he won in court without telling us what he did to win.

    I’m waiting for you to tell us what is behind Door #2 – because that is what you won.

  127. avatar
    Daniel November 13, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Daniel,

    “[Y]ou’ll just be another moron with a delusion for a cause.”This really describes you.

    Wow the “I know you are but what am I?” defense….. I haven’t heard that riveting legal argument since…. kindergarten.

    So Mario, when you’re done all your obfuscation, will you have finally won your court battle? No? Allllllllrighty then.

  128. avatar
    Daniel November 13, 2012 at 2:12 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    “[N]o NEW legal argument on this issue has been offered HERE” is not the same as saying “those cited did not support your conclusion.” Whether an argument is new is one thing and whether there is legal support for the argument is another.

    Additionally, even if it were true that “no NEW legal argument on this issue has been offered HERE” which it is not, ALJ Masin still had to show why the argument is wrong.He did not and neither do you who simply parrot the judge.

    And yet at the end of the day, who gets to have the last word? Oh yes, the judge.

    You lose

  129. avatar
    Keith November 13, 2012 at 2:24 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    “[N]o NEW legal argument on this issue has been offered HERE” is not the same as saying “those cited did not support your conclusion.” Whether an argument is new is one thing and whether there is legal support for the argument is another.

    What it means is that none of the old arguments support your conclusion, and since you haven’t presented any new legal argument that supports your conclusion, YOU LOSE.

  130. avatar
    bovril November 13, 2012 at 2:36 am #

    Looks like Falio has been hitting the grappa again based on the flurry of nonsensical pasts we are seeing here.

    So, second worst lawyer in the Western world care to answer any questions or will we continue to see the devolution of what I am sure used to be an incredibly average mind?

    Lets start with losing ALL your cases, described variously as” frivolous”, ” without merit”, ” incomprehensible” etc.

    What does it feel like to never win and have the courts describe you and your nonsense as such?

    Then there is the knowledge that in at least one case you lost to a junior associate?

    Just how painful is it that you can’t even prevail with that level of opposition?

    Moving on we enter the thread of the absurd where you make up an imaginary and magical third class, the NBC that isn’t an NBC.

    Where oh where Mario is the legal, constitutional or historic basis for this magical thinking? I mean it is not as if any actual law, legal case, constitutional clause or amendment support you.

    Then we have denial, plainly seen in all of your posts even when you reach over 50,000 words all saying nothing.

    So Mario, care to attempt to salvage any of what would on a real lawyer pass for intellectual honor and actually attempt to answer any question or will as always you revert to type and answer with irrelevant, nonsensical non sequitors that simply expose you for the bloviating ignoramus that you are?

  131. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 7:40 am #

    Misha,

    At least I won what is behind Door #2. Given your attitude, you never won anything.

  132. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 7:44 am #

    Keith,

    Conclusory statements, by their very nature, do not prove anything.

  133. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 7:49 am #

    bovril, a/k/a whisky, also known as the foul-mouthed mechanical speak, has followed me. He really thinks that his stilted writing deserves any real answer.

  134. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 8:04 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Misha, At least I won what is behind Door #2. Given your attitude, you never won anything.

    I won a comedy prize in the Borscht Belt.

    Some women are playing their Wednesday Mah Jongg game. One looks at another’s rock and says, “Vhat a beautiful diamond.”

    “This is the Plotnick diamond.”
    “Plotnick diamond? I’ve heard of the Hope diamond. Vas is the Plotnick diamond?”
    “There’s a terrible curse that goes mit this diamond.”
    “Curse? How romantic. Vhat kind of curse?”
    “Mr. Plotnick.”

    Thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  135. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    Mario: Did you see the other thread? I’ll repeat. Eat your heart out.

    In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

    It’s one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

    http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-12/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-sasha-issenberg

  136. avatar
    misha marinsky November 13, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    Mario: Obama got 70% of the Jewish vote, down from ~74-78 percent in ’08.

  137. avatar
    bovril November 13, 2012 at 8:52 am #

    Tut tut Mario, the failure, as a putative lawyer one would expect you to grasp the phrases like “facts not in evidence”, “hearsay”, “supposition” etc….well, in point if fact those SHOULD be considering how much of an abject failure you are.

    Now, possibly due to your abject fear and hatred of those who point you out as the ignorant failure you are, you make the wild assumption that ALL your opponents are one. The fact is that MANY find you an object of ridicule.

    So, Mario, do tell, what PROOF, a word a lawyer is expected to know, do you have that Bovril and Whiskey are the some individual ?

    Surely your extensive numbers of failed lawsuits over the years would have enabled you to remember what proof is, how it is different from opinion or belief or paranoia and where the burden lies?

    As for the silly little statement around following you, you sad, deluded and pathetic little man, there is this thing called the flow of events. If truth be known i am concerned that the only stalker is you as I was here minding my own business when YOU turned up acting all

    Mr Fail. Based on Mario looking glass logic you are a stalker.

    NOW, lets return to facts shall we Falio,

    Where oh where is the legal and constitutional basis for your magical 3rd class of citizen.

    I mean you keep on with the 50,000+ word babbles but never actually answer that question.

    Or the equally fascinating one around how you equate losing cases with somehow winning them.

    Or how somehow the act of the court when they issued an Order to Show Cause was not a censure

    Or how when you replied with a 95 page tome the court found “unpersuasive” you somehow see it as supportive.

    So Mario do feel free to answer, I’m sure your nemesis whiskey will be along and scare you some more.

  138. avatar
    Lupin November 13, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    Let’s remember what’s really important: Mario lied under oath in his pleadings — the Pakistan visa is but one example. He barely avoided being sanctioned by the Courts.

    Why should anything he says carry any weight at all? The man is demonstrably a perjurer.

  139. avatar
    Keith November 13, 2012 at 10:26 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Keith,

    Conclusory statements, by their very nature, do not prove anything.

    Conclusory statement by their very nature, state conclusions.

    Most people understand the word ‘conclusion’ to mean something very similar to ‘end of story’.

  140. avatar
    Rickey November 13, 2012 at 11:04 am #

    Lupin:
    Let’s remember what’s really important: Mario lied under oath in his pleadings — the Pakistan visa is but one example. He barely avoided being sanctioned by the Courts.

    Why should anything he says carry any weight at all? The man is demonstrably a perjurer.

    Precisely. I suspect that the election results cause a flare-up of his Obama Derangement Syndrome, although it is actually more likely that whoever is paying him gave him orders to go on the attack again.

  141. avatar
    bovril November 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

    Well, we know that that Kerchner is paying the Failure something, the question is who else?

    It’s not as if The Putz has any other discernable method of financial support…..who is the sugar daddy and I trust Mario is declaring this (in reality) unearned income.

  142. avatar
    ASK Esq November 13, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Keith,

    Conclusory statements, by their very nature, do not prove anything.

    And none of your statements have ever been held by any court to have proven anything. Doesn’t that tell you something? No, of course not. You cling to your unfounded belief that you’re right, and the courts are all wrong. I really don’t understand. You misinterpret Minor and Ark, you don’t understand what the British common law says, you make claims based on no facts at all, and yet you don’t understand when you get called on it. Please, Mario, explain why Judge Maslin was wrong when he said that you did not provide anything that supported your claims.

  143. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    Ask Esq.

    I am not going to waste my time addressing your little sound bites. If you want me to address anything you might say, you need to address my arguments point by point. Show me how I am wrong. And spare me your repetitive conclusions.

  144. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 13, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Ask Esq.

    I am not going to waste my time addressing your little sound bites.If you want me to address anything you might say, you need to address my arguments point by point.Show me how I am wrong.And spare me your repetitive conclusions.

    What I want you to address is you getting your proverbial ass-whoopings in court. A real man knows when he is beaten and can admit that he was wrong, and not hang his losses on imaginary conspiracies or supposed trickery. In that respect have serious doubts you are a real man.

  145. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    Andrew,

    Why do you waste my time?

  146. avatar
    Scientist November 13, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you waste my time?

    Mario-Do you still practice law? I googled your name with”DWI defense” and “New Jersey” and got nada And all your birther “cases” are dead at this point. So do you do anythiing besides write an occasional blog post which no one cares about? That’s right, NO ONE CARES WHO OBAMA’S DAD WAS. I am not convinced that more than a half dozen people ever cared. Eligibility, schmeligibility, BFD…

  147. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 13, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    Scientist, the one who wraps all things in We the People and believes he made a legal argument. No one cares about what you think about “natural born Citizen” because you really have nothing of value to add to the debate.

  148. avatar
    Northland10 November 13, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Andrew,

    Why do you waste my time?

    I know of some New Jersey judges who were thinking that very thing.

    (Edit: “Wasting my time” would be the non-legal way of referring to “without merit” and “frivolous.” )

  149. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 13, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Andrew,

    Why do you waste my time?

    Why do you waste the courts’ time, energy and tax-payer dollars with your bigotry-fueled blathering? Well, it was all for naught. That scary black man you’re so afraid of is still president.

  150. avatar
    Scientist November 13, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Scientist, the one who wraps all things in We the People and believes he made a legal argument

    It has never been a legal argument. It has always and only been a political one. And 1 week ago we found out who won it.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: No one cares about what I think about “natural born Citizen” because I really have nothing of value to add to the debate.

    Indeed!

  151. avatar
    Scientist November 13, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    It’s funny. Probably 90% of birther web sites have a flag and “We the People” written in a reproduction of the quill pen used to write the original Constitution. It turns out that they mean “We the 0.0001% of the People are going to try (and fail) to stop the other 99.9999% the People from voting in a free election”.

  152. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 13, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    Scientist:
    It’s funny.Probably 90% of birther web sites have a flag and “We the People” written in a reproduction of the quill pen used to write the original Constitution.It turns out that they mean “We the 0.0001% of the People are going to try (and fail) to stop the other 99.9999% the People from voting in a free election”.

    Someone’s post just earned them a banana sticker! It just perfectly describes most, if not all, birther websites.

  153. avatar
    JPotter November 13, 2012 at 11:04 pm #

    Flagrant abuse of Americana is indeed a dead giveaway of a white/christian/evangelical/nationalist/reactionary/sovcit/origintent/ree-yull’merican/neanderthal/xenophobic/isolationist/self-deluded/misinformed/butt-scratchin’ whackjob.*

    Has the Putz failed to notice this pattern? Does he need a list?

    We want our kitsch back.

    _________

    * I do of course, mean all of these in the most perjorative possible, peculiarly American, angry white man sense.

  154. avatar
    bovril November 14, 2012 at 2:27 am #

    Yo, Putzie the Stalker,

    One notes with interest that after your sophomoric conflation of identities you have recovered to type and returned to your classic and all too pathetic avoidance mechanisms of childish insults.

    Have you ever actually responded to questions of fact, well your versions of the fact which is inevitably at odds with reality?

    I am sure everyone here would be fascinated when you provide actual factual proof of your imaginary third class of citizen.

  155. avatar
    ASK Esq November 14, 2012 at 7:32 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am not going to waste my time addressing your little sound bites. If you want me to address anything you might say, you need to address my arguments point by point. Show me how I am wrong. And spare me your repetitive conclusions.

    Well, how about how you completely misinterpret Minor? Not only does Minor NOT say that two citizen parents are required for a person born here to be a Natural Born Citizen (It only says that those born in those circumstances are such. It doesn’t say that only those are such), a fair reading of Minor actually says that President Obama is a NBC. Minor says that, at birth, you can be either a NBC or an alien. Since it is impossible to be both a citizen and an alien, therefore anyone who is a citizen at birth is also, according to the Minor court, a NBC. Please explain how you got that Minor said you need two citizen parents. It simply isn’t there.

  156. avatar
    bovril November 14, 2012 at 7:39 am #

    Now now Ask Esq, you must remember that The Second Worst Lawyer in the Western World is ALWAYS right and everyone one else is a horrid poopyhead.

    I mean, surely this must be true for otherwise The Putz would be a mendacious, ignorant, fantasizing, bloviating, seditious pustule upon the arse of humanity with the ethics, morals and intellectual honesty of a rabid rat.

    And surely NO ONE could say that about The Putz.

  157. avatar
    The Magic M November 14, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Conclusory statements, by their very nature, do not prove anything.

    Weren’t you the guy who brought Obama’s Indonesian school registration to court as “evidence” without properly authenticating it? As in “something even the worst lawyers know is required”?

    I suppose this is a case where one can safely say that you cannot point to being a “lawyer” when schooling anyone on what proves what.

    I don’t know where you bought that title, but given that any layman could give you an ass-whooping of Orlyesque proportions in court without even trying, you should definitely demand your money back.

  158. avatar
    Reality Check November 14, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    The use of the term “We the People” by either side is silly as it pertains to the meme that the term somehow carries some mystical meaning. A majority of Americans of around 51-48% (more in swing states where the election was really contested) not only had no issues with President Obama’s eligibility but also thought that he was worthy of being their President for another 4 years. The courts have spoken clearly that President Obama is eligible and Congress will meet in joint session in January to confirm for the second time that no one has any objection and that Obama easily won in the Electoral College.

    Under our Constitution that is finality. The election is over but charlatans and hucksters like Mario Apuzzo and Larry Klayman can continue to file baseless lawsuits and empanel silly “citizen’s grand juries”. However, nothing will change as a result. They will continue to provide some good entertainment for those of us that find their idiocy somewhat fascinating.

  159. avatar
    bovril November 14, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    I believe, based on well publicized past failures that we need to be aware of the differing clades of Birferstan and we need to be careful in our taxonomy.

    Krap Klown Klayman is of the genus Mendax Griftus and usually found in squalid and fetid swamps of the South East

    This line of creatures exhibits a combination of genes acquired in a Lamarckist manner by binding to and stealing characteristics of other organisms. Predominate are those of the Magpie, Cockroach, Packrat and Cuckoo.

    It exhibits an insatiable lust for yet inability to hold onto shiny objects that it values above all else. It mimics parental characteristics to enable its lust to be satisfied and when frustrated in its obsession strikes out in a venomous manner and is know to eats its own young and mate even in times of plenty.

    The Mendax Griftus typically builds its nest by mimicing the calls of the Birfoon Bird (Stultus Foeda Morionem), plucking it’s threadbare and lice ridden plumage and crying loudly and repetitively as if a particularly hungry and fetid chick.

    This type of animal is fortunately rarely seen in the wild and is typically dispatched by the Advocate Hawk and the claws of the OSC ferret

    The Putzie Toad, Mendax Mendax Braccae Igni, colloquially Magnificis Stultus is typically found in the breezy barrens of New Jersey.

    The particular animal is characterized by its call “I’m Right….awk….I’m Right” which it repeats in a monotone and repeatedly. Calls have been know to continue for days at a time and is inevitably linked to seemingly unending bouts of vomit and defecation.

    The animal is a close relation of the Failure Weasel, Delusional Sloth and Loser Worm

    The Magnificis Stultus has been described as a commensal however recent review firmly places it in the parasite category. It’s source of nutrition is still something of a mystery although links to the Kerchner Boobie leads us to believe the Magnificis Stultus feeds by blood sucking on this and other higher order predators.

    The commensal tag was initially applied as it was believed the organism acted independantly. Analysis of the neural tissue however showed a marked degradation and it is now believed that the Putzie Toad is that rare combination of both parasite and host.

    The Toad feeds on the “benefactor” whilst the benefactor exerts controls via the feed to control elements of the Toads behaviour. (see “Behaviour Modification in lower life forms”, TF Bow passim)

    The Toad is difficult to eradicate as it usually infested closed information eco-systems mimicing competence.

    The third type we need to be aware of the the Screech Owl, Strigis et Strideo Bubonem, commonly the Orly Harpy.

    (This organism should be approached with care as it can be a particulary venomous and tenacious biter.)

    The Harpy is a solitary animal although it tends to attract smaller and more ineffectual carrion eaters and cleaner wrass.
    These minnows placate the Harpy with raucous and irritating squeals that the Harpy finds occassionally soothing.
    It must be noted that from time to time, if one of the sub flock of scavengers fails to placate the Harpy sufficiently it will turn of the offender and will drive the others to (ineffectually) attack the miscreant.

    The Harpy shows extreme suspicion of its environment and exhibits rat like neophobia as well as an inability to control its defectation in its own nest.

    The Harpy is a foreign import to the continental USA and is believed to have been introduced as a vanity item by a collector who was unaware of how vicious, uncontrolled and downright ugly it gets as time passes.

    The bird regularly changes it plumage based on location although the plumage only changes between garish over the top colours and dowdy black.

    The Harpy’s diet seems to consist exclusively of vanity, fear, hatred and racist bigotry and has been know to sustain itself on a pure idiocy diet for weeks at a time

    The Harpy has a wide range and has been seen in most states of the USA although it is known to be under threat in its habitat due to its unwelcome attentions. These attentions have included attacks on groups of individuals and it has a well known characteristic of singling out and mobbing selected individuals for extened periods of time.

    The Harpy has a parrot like ability to repeat words (without a grasp of context) although the tone and pitch render the words almost unintelligible.

    It believes itself to be an apex predator whilst the reality is closer to that of being mugged by Fozzy Bear, albeit Fozzy Bear with rubber flick knife. Scary to the uninitiated, hilarious to the veteran.

  160. avatar
    Arthur November 14, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    Reality Check: The election is over but charlatans and hucksters like Mario Apuzzo and Larry Klayman can continue to file baseless lawsuits and empanel silly “citizen’s grand juries”.

    No hold on just a minute, RC! Larry Klayman is definitely a charlatan and a huckster, but Mario? He’s just a hobbyist. Birtherism is Mario’s Fantasy Football League. Sure, he drafted a team of has-beens (have you seen E. Vattel’s quarterback rating?!), but Mario’s happy to slip into a short skirt, pick up his pom-poms, and rah-rah for the handful of fans who come to his site.

  161. avatar
    Arthur November 14, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    Bovril,

    Your comments on the biology of birtherism was a remarkably funny piece of satire. Excellent work!

  162. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 11:34 am #

    The childish nonsense on this blog thread all together does not amount to a minuscule of truth, reason, and logic.

    You incessantly and vengefully attack me personally. You call me names, have changed my name, mock my family origins, keep trying to mislead the public by attempting to get it to believe that I was sanctioned in any court, and even attack the fine law school that I went to, Temple University School of Law in Philadelphia. You spend inordinate time and resources on pseudo-psychology and parody rather than making legal arguments based on historical sources and case law. You are personality fixated rather than truth and reason oriented. You paint all those who question government activity as conspiracy theorists and view the world through race-colored glasses, but only when it suits your end. I do not see how any of that is rational and supposed to prove that you are correct on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    You keep repeating what some lower administrative and law courts have said regarding, among other things, the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” You continue to argue that this issue has been finally and authoritatively decided and that therefore I have no reasonable grounds to persist with my position. Yet, you know darn well that I do not agree with these lower court decisions. My disagreement is perfectly acceptable under our legal system given the propensity of mankind to err, the existence of appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and the constitutional requirements of due process.

    We have not yet received any written opinion from either any State or U.S. Supreme Court on the matter. Should it decide the question, the U.S. Supreme Court would have the final say on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and its application to any particular presidential candidate. As far as the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned, it has turned down all Obama petitions for certification without comment. As you should know, because of limitation of resources and for policy reasons, the Supreme Court only takes for review and decision a very small percentage of cases, regardless of whether the parties correctly believe those cases were rightly or wrongly decided.

    I am therefore here to debate you on how the U.S. Supreme Court should rule on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and its application to presidential candidate Barack Obama or any other such candidate should it ever decide to review the issue, and not what a lower court has done or not done or to deal with your personal attacks on me. Unfortunately, I doubt that any of that fits well into your political agenda.

    Regarding my argument on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and what my analysis of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is, apart from the briefs that I have filed in the courts and other articles that I have written on my blog, you can read it in my latest article entitled, “Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at my blog
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html .

  163. avatar
    The Magic M November 14, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    Reality Check: A majority of Americans of around 51-48% (more in swing states where the election was really contested) not only had no issues with President Obama’s eligibility but also thought that he was worthy of being their President for another 4 years.

    It’s funny when the loser pulls the “the country is divided” card whenever elections are close.
    Then suddenly they want Stalinist style elections where one party gets 90+% of the vote.

    I had to remind Donald Trump – when he croaked to that effect – that 26 presidential elections ended with the winner getting less than 52 percent of the vote, including one win each by Nixon and Reagan, and both by GWB (of course including the famous popular vote loss, something which made Trump call for armed revolt when he thought Obama would lose that one, too).

  164. avatar
    John Reilly November 14, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo:

    There have been no “Obama petitions” for review in the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court has not declined to review the President’s legitimacy because it is busy on other matters. As I understand it from the lawyers on this blog, when given the opportunity, not a single Justice has requested briefing from the lawyers on the President’s side.The Supreme Court has declined to review the matter for its total lack of merit. Were there any merit, I am confident that Justices Scalia and Alito would have asked for briefing on the petitions, at the least.

    The birther side has lost every case it has brought. As a non-lawyer, I think that statistic is telling.The nuances of those decisions cease to have relevance once you pass the 100 loss mark.

    Come January 20, Chief Justice Roberts will undoubtedly swear the President in, for the third time. Maybe, if they don’t use notes, he will do it a fourth and fifth time.

    John Reilly
    Romney voter

  165. avatar
    Scientist November 14, 2012 at 11:53 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Should it decide the question, the U.S. Supreme Court would have the final say on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and its application to any particular presidential candidate

    WRONG!! Under the 12th and 20th Amendments, that authority rests with Congress.

  166. avatar
    Arthur November 14, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You spend inordinate time and resources on pseudo-psychology and parody rather than making legal arguments based on historical sources and case law.

    Mario, come on. The legal arguments have been made. You made some of them yourself. You lost.

    For God’s sake man, have some self respect and shut up. No one was talking about you, no was thinking about, no one had uttered your name nor made disparaging remarks, and then in you popped, like some chubby attention whore yelling, “I’m lonely, argue with me!”

    Your ideas were tested in court and found wanting. You’re not worth debating anymore– though you are certainly worthy of mocking. You have two choices: stay here and be ridiculed or leave and be forgotten.

  167. avatar
    Lupin November 14, 2012 at 12:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You incessantly and vengefully attack me personally.

    I don’t know about “vengefully” but someone who knowingly lies under oath in his pleadings and (so far) gets away with it deserve to be incessantly attacked in order to clean up the legal profession. You should count yourself lucky that you haven’t been disbarred. Shame on you!

  168. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    Poor Arthur, so self-righteous.

  169. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    Poor Lupin, just does not have a clue.

  170. avatar
    Arthur November 14, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    Poor Mario, so irrelevant.

  171. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    At last count, SCOTUS has declined 22 petitions for cert on Obama’s eligibility. No request for briefs, no comments, nothing. If the definition of NBC and its application to presidential candidates and specifically as it applies to Obama, why would SCOTUS repeatedly refuse cert? Isn’t it a vital constitutional issue, one that the SCOTUS is uniquely qualified to resolve? Yet, rather than understanding SCOTUS sees no reason to step in, you claim they denied cert due to a scheduling problem. Twenty-two times?

    You say you are here for debate. You have called me a liar at least three times on this thread. Smooth debater, you are.

    At first you were a curiosity to me. I wanted to know what you believed and why. Watching and reading your blog posts the last couple years, I learned that you just keep repeating yourself. Basically, it consists of misreading decisions and claiming anyone, including judges and Supreme Court justices who disagree are wrong, cases were decided wrongly, the decisions are interpreted wrongly, etc.

    To me, that broken record is not interesting and what wee smidge of relevance you may have had evaporated long ago.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: We have not yet received any written opinion from either any State or U.S. Supreme Court on the matter. Should it decide the question, the U.S. Supreme Court would have the final say on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and its application to any particular presidential candidate. As far as the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned, it has turned down all Obama petitions for certification without comment.

  172. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 14, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    PAY ATTENTION TO ME!! ME!!! IT IS ALL ABOUT ME!!!! YOU ALL ARE DUMB AND STUPID AND WRONG! LISTEN TO MY LATIN LEGAL GIBBERISH AND BE HUMBLED! I AM EDUCATED!!! I WEAR SUIT AND TIE!

    I have a three year old who grasps the simple term of admitting her mistakes. Let that one sink in, Wario. She ins’t even old enough for preschool yet, and she can do something that you are incapable of. The simple act of acknowledging when one is in the wrong.

  173. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Sudoku,

    You have not written anything on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” let alone even come close to demonstrating that I am wrong. You have no stature in the world of “natural born Citizen.”

  174. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    Andrew,

    I recommend having your three-year old child examined. She does not behave like your usual child of that age.

  175. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    “John Reilly
    Romney voter”

    John just forgot to tell us that he is a “Marco Rubio for President” supporter.

  176. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

    Actually, I have written on the subject, but not on this thread and that is beside the point. I notice you didn’t try to support that SCOTUS denying cert 22 is a scheduling problem or apologize for name calling.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    You have not written anything on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” let alone even come close to demonstrating that I am wrong.You have no stature in the world of “natural born Citizen.”

  177. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Andrew,

    I recommend having your three-year old child examined.She does not behave like your usual child of that age.

    Whatever you say, Goodfellas reject. Yes, that suits you to a T. You’re an angry little movie stereotype with a lousy temper and a penchant for blaming others for your mistakes. And how IS that denial working for you? Win you any court cases against Obama? No, didn’t think so.

  178. avatar
    Arthur November 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You have no stature in the world of “natural born Citizen.”

    Excellent point. Mario, you are a colossus in the world of “natural born Citizen,” just as Epulopiscium fishelsoni is a giant in the world of bacteria. I’ve also heard about a one-eyed man who ruled a bunch of blind people.

  179. avatar
    misha marinsky November 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “John Reilly – Romney voter” – John just forgot to tell us that he is a “Marco Rubio for President” supporter.

    Rubio is constitutionally qualified to run for president.

  180. avatar
    misha marinsky November 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You have no stature in the world of “natural born Citizen.”

    You have no stature in the world of Constitutional lawyers. You are a DWI attorney. It was fun watching Lakin take the advice of a personal injury lawyer, while facing a Court Martial.

    Not so much fun for Lakin. Schmuck.

  181. avatar
    misha marinsky November 14, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: She does not behave like your usual child of that age.

    I have put a picture of Orly Taitz on the bottom of Max’s litter box.

    He behaves just like a cat.

  182. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Sudoku,

    Do you have a reading problem? Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court taking cases, I referred to both resources and policy. How did you get “scheduling problem” out of that?

    You say you did some writing on “natural born Citizen.” Why do you not share it with us so that we can witness the strength of your arguments.

    Finally, you must be joking about apologizing.

  183. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Poor misha, she sent me an email and I responded and she did not answer back.

  184. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    Really? So, are you saying it the SCOTUS’s policy to refuse constitutional cases of national importance or are you saying they don’t have enough paper, disk space, clerks to do the job?

    I would expect a decent, rational person to apologize when they have erred, so I didn’t actually expect one from you.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you have a reading problem? Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court taking cases, I referred to both resources and policy. How did you get “scheduling problem” out of that?

  185. avatar
    bovril November 14, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    What one has to remember with The Toad that he equates quantity with quality, so when he writes on his Stalinist censored blog of nonsense some 56,000 words of inane blather that means it is inherently more valuable than anything written by actual constitutional scholars or the supreme court.

  186. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    Sudoku,

    Give it up with you inane questions. It is quite clear that you do not understand what resources and policy means.

  187. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    Poor andrew (with a small a), burn baby, burn.

  188. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    Let me make this easier for you. You said “As you should know, because of limitation of resources and for policy reasons, the Supreme Court only takes for review and decision a very small percentage of cases, regardless of whether the parties correctly believe those cases were rightly or wrongly decided.”

    Please elucidate. Specifically which resources do you believe to be too limited in order for the SCOTUS to grant cert to an Obama eligibility case? Which policy, specifically, would be violated by the SCOTUS granting cert to an Obama eligibility case?

    Remember, be specific.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    Give it up with you inane questions. It is quite clear that you do not understand what resources and policy means.

  189. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    Kudos on your exceptional child. You should be proud!

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I have a three year old who grasps the simple term of admitting her mistakes.

  190. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    Sudoku,

    May I recommend that you direct your questions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  191. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    The Court didn’t claim that was the reason, you did. Why did you claim it was due to limited resources and policy?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    May I recommend that you direct your questions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  192. avatar
    Scientist November 14, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: May I recommend that you direct your questions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Where in the Constitution does it give the judicial branch the authority to decide who will be President?

  193. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    Sudoku,

    You are not impressing me with your ongoing questions.

    The U.S. Supreme Court did not give any reason why in Kerchner it refused certification with no comment which is the usual way it handles requests for certification.

    Anybody who knows basic information about how the Court operates knows that the Court rejects the great majority of petitions for certifications. These persons also know that historically, the Court used to grant petitions much more frequently and that because of limited resources and policy, the Court cut back greatly on cases in which it does grant certification. It seems that you are either not among these persons of if you are, you are just playing stupid, but at your own expense.

  194. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 5:06 pm #

    Sigh. Again, you are claiming SCOTUS refused cert to 22 Obama eligibility cases because of “limited resources and policy”, but you have yet to say which recourses are lacking or what policy you could possibly be referring to.

    Wouldn’t just be easier to say you don’t know, misspoke, can’t find your arse with both hands and a road map, etc.?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: …These persons also know that historically, the Court used to grant petitions much more frequently and that because of limited resources and policy, the Court cut back greatly on cases in which it does grant certification.

  195. avatar
    RetiredLawyer November 14, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    Mario,

    What you are saying, badly, is that SCOTUS knows that Obama is not eligible, but decided that for its own housekeeping reasons not to grant cert or even ask for briefing in any one of 22 petitions for cert.

    Obviously this means that to all nine members of that court having a president that is not legally eligible to be in office is of much lower priority than every other case that they have given cert to over the last four years.

    Or, alternatively, SCOTUS understands that Obama is eligible.

    Which is it? They don’t believe it is a major issue, or they don’t believe it is an issue at all?

  196. avatar
    Keith November 14, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You incessantly and vengefully attack me personally. You call me names, have changed my name, mock my family origins,

    It all comes down to this simple credo, Mario:

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.

  197. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    RetiredLawyer,

    It looks like you also do not know what “policy” means.

  198. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    Poor Keith, he like so many of his coterie just never studied the concept of begging the question.

  199. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    You are still unable to explain your erroneous statement.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    RetiredLawyer,

    It looks like you also do not know what “policy” means.

  200. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 14, 2012 at 6:05 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    You have not written anything on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” let alone even come close to demonstrating that I am wrong.You have no stature in the world of “natural born Citizen.”

    And you, Sir, don’t have a miniscule of a stature. In fact your stature is negative.

    It does not really matter what you say Obama is or is not. What matters is that all the courts in which you have been suing have told you you are misinterpreting Minor, and your version of Wong Kim Ark is not merely wrong, but idiotic.

    So, why did you not help the plaintiffs in Ankeny? What a golden opportunity you had there, hm?

  201. avatar
    W November 14, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Whatever.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    I am therefore here to debate you on how the U.S. Supreme Court should rule on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and its application to presidential candidate Barack Obama or any other such candidate should it ever decide to review the issue…

  202. avatar
    ASK Esq November 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

    Mario, you seem to have forgotten to respond to my question. So, I’ll try again, in simpler terms. Where in Minor does it say that only those born here to two citizen parents are natural born citizens?

  203. avatar
    Scientist November 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    I shouldn’t have to explain this to someone who supposedly graduated from law school, but here are the facts. When the Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal, for whatever reason, that means that the lower court decision stands and has the force of law. In simple terms, if someone were convicted of murder and appealed to the Supreme Court and they declined to hear the appeal, that person would go to jail. They would not be allowed to escape prison based on the fact that they didn’t get to argue their case before the Supreme Court. Similarly, when a lower court rules Obama eligible and the Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal, that means he is eligible. The fact that theoretically, in an alternate universe, someday in the future, the Supreme Court could rule otherwse does not change in the slightest what the law is today, November 14, 2012 at 6:20PM EST

  204. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    Poor Paul, he arrived at the party when it was over.

  205. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Scientist,

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” Article III, Section 2.

    The question of whether candidate Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” raised in a case or controversy, is a “Case, in Law . . . arising under this Constitution.”

    The Constitution does not give to Congress the power to be the final arbiter on who is eligible to be President. While the 12th Amendment gives the House the power to “choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them,” this power does not include the power to have the final say on the question of whether the President is constitutionally eligible. Additionally, the question of what is a “natural born Citizen” does not fall under Congress’s “legislative powers” (Article I, Section 1), including its naturalization power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Despite these limitations, under the 20th Amendment, Congress can have an opinion on whether a “President elect” qualifies for that office as called for by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which includes the requirement that he/she be a “natural born Citizen.” But, by analogy under the 12th Amendment which prohibits Congress from choosing an unconstitutional Vice-President, Congress does not have constitutional power to confirm a President elect under the 20th Amendment who is not a “natural born Citizen.” Since Congress can express an opinion, but does not have the final say on whether a President elect is constitutionally eligible for that office, does not have constitutional power to confirm a President elect who is not constitutionally eligible, and the question arises under the Constitution, the question of whether a President elect is a “natural born Citizen” ultimately falls within the judicial power to resolve, with the U.S. Supreme Court having the final word.

  206. avatar
    gorefan November 14, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue to argue that this issue has been finally and authoritatively decided and that therefore I have no reasonable grounds to persist with my position. Yet, you know darn well that I do not agree with these lower court decisions. My disagreement is perfectly acceptable under our legal system given the propensity of mankind to err, the existence of appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and the constitutional requirements of due process.

    Having said all that – are you going to take Purpura v. Obama to the SCOTUS?

  207. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    Scientist,

    You are missing the point. I did not say that we are not bound by the state of things as they presently exist. I only said that the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to issue a definitive decision on whether any given presidential candidate or president elect is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

  208. avatar
    Paper November 14, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Be that as it may or may not be, the Supreme Court’s actions have included doing nothing to interfere with President Obama being president. That has been how they have exercised their judicial power.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    … the question of whether a President elect is a “natural born Citizen” ultimately falls within the judicial power to resolve, with the U.S. Supreme Court having the final word.

  209. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Sudoku,

    You said: “Wouldn’t just be easier to say you don’t know, misspoke, can’t find your arse with both hands and a road map, etc.?

    Wow, the sweet and gentle Sudoku is coming out of its shell.

  210. avatar
    Paper November 14, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    Specifically, they have exercised their judicial power to *not* hear any such arguments regarding President Obama. The bottom line is President Obama remains president and will continue as such.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Scientist,

    You are missing the point.I did not say that we are not bound by the state of things as they presently exist.I only said that the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to issue a definitive decision on whether any given presidential candidate or president elect is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

  211. avatar
    Scientist November 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Scientist, You are missing the point. I did not say that we are not bound by the state of things as they presently exist. I only said that the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to issue a definitive decision on whether any given presidential candidate or president elect is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    So what? The Supreme Court has never issued a definitive dcision that the Sun rises in the East, yet it does.

    44 Presidents have served without the Supeme Court saying yes or no. I suspect when #45 comes along in 2016 that record will remain intact.

    As even you admit, we are bound by the law as it is,which is that Obama will continue in office until January 2017. Is it possible you are actually coming to your senses?

  212. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    ASK Esq: Mario, you seem to have forgotten to respond to my question. So, I’ll try again, in simpler terms. Where in Minor does it say that only those born here to two citizen parents are natural born citizens?

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, at 167-68).

    For further information, you can refer to my article, “Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at my blog
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html .

  213. avatar
    Scientist November 14, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Congress does not have constitutional power to confirm a President elect under the 20th Amendment who is not a “natural born Citizen.”

    Whomever they confirm IS by definition qualified to be President and therefore IS a natural born citizen. That is a simple FACT.

  214. avatar
    JoZeppy November 14, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Anybody who knows basic information about how the Court operates knows that the Court rejects the great majority of petitions for certifications. These persons also know that historically, the Court used to grant petitions much more frequently and that because of limited resources and policy, the Court cut back greatly on cases in which it does grant certification. It seems that you are either not among these persons of if you are, you are just playing stupid, but at your own expense.

    And anybody who knows basic information about how the Court operates knows that the Court doesn’t waste its time hearing cases rightly decided on matters of law that are uncontroversely considered well settled. Fact of the matter, Mario, is that not only has the Court passed up on hearing a birther suit 22 times, each and every time, the respondent has waived the right to file a response to the petition for cert. And every one of those 22 times, not even 1 of the justices requested a response, and as anybody who knows basic information about how the Court operates knows, it only takes 1 justice to require a response. Of course one way to ensure that the Court does hear your case is for there to be conflicting decisions among the circuits….however, not only is there no conflict among the circuits, there is no conflict in the 165 times courts have heard these arguments. And to have the word “frivolous” in those decisions is not unheard of. And the kicker is this “14th Amendment citizen” B.S. isn’t even new. Courts have been rejecting those claims when they were being made by tax protesters, and purported “sovereign citizens” for a couple of decades before you came along. You might be able to convince your birther groupies on that show up on your website that somehow none of this matters, and the fact that every court that has heard your agruments completely rejected them is irrelevant until the Supreme Court chimes in, but this isn’t your birther echo chamber. You well know that SCOTUS will never take a birther case. Not because it’s too busy, but it does have to do with policy. The policy not to take correctly decided appeals on matters of well settled law.

    And don’t you find it mildy interesting that considering attorneys are always on the look out for the case that will make their career, the best the birthers can do is a mail order lawyer, someone who spent more time at the poker table than a court room, a DUI lawyer, and a dog bite lawyer? Not a single actual conservative constitutional law scholar has come out to make a name for himself challegning the President. I wonder why that is?

  215. avatar
    Arthur November 14, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Here are some positive things about Mario:

    He’s a prolific writer who proofreads and rarely makes typos

    He avoids vulgarity and curse words.

    He has a sense of humor.

    He is fluent in his area of interest.

    His arguments are not based on conspiracy theories.

    Compared to Orly Taitz, he’s a genius, a gentleman, and a good lawyer.

  216. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

    Scientist,

    You continue to miss the point. I did not say what the U.S. Supreme Court will or will not do. I only said what it has not yet done.

  217. avatar
    Scientist November 14, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President

    And yet he is President. So perhaps eligibility is not required. Let’s look at the language of the Constiitution: For Representatives it says : “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” It says BE, not eligible. Similar language for Senators, except 30 years of age. But it also says BE , not eligible.

    So, why didn’t they say, “No one shall BE President” rather than “eligible to the office”? Very simply because they didn’t intend eligibility to prevent someone from BEING President.

    Eligibility and being are 2 very different things.

  218. avatar
    Paper November 14, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    As has been demonstrated many times, that quote, for one thing, does not state that *only* such citizens are natural born. Ask Esq’s question clearly contains the word “only.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”Minor v. Happersett, at 167-68).

    ASK Esq:
    Mario, you seem to have forgotten to respond to my question. So, I’ll try again, in simpler terms. Where in Minor does it say that only those born here to two citizen parents are natural born citizens?

  219. avatar
    Scientist November 14, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You continue to miss the point. I did not say what the U.S. Supreme Court will or will not do. I only said what it has not yet done.

    There are literally an infinite number of things the US Supreme Court has not done. So what?

  220. avatar
    JoZeppy November 14, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Minor v. Happersett

    You forgot:

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    And as the Court has been very consistent that you are either natural born, or naturalized, and there is no 3rd catagory of 14th Amendment citizens, I think Minor’s doubts ahve been put to rest.

    Again Mario…this argument has been put before the courts…in some instances by you. Every court has flat out rejected your argument.

  221. avatar
    Paper November 14, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    It has not declared President Obama ineligible and has done nothing to interfere with his being president.

    That’s all that matters.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Scientist,

    You continue to miss the point.I did not say what the U.S. Supreme Court will or will not do.I only said what it has not yet done.

  222. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Poor Joe Zeppy, tells us what lawyers have not made a name for themselves but he wants to make a name for himself by reading tea leaves about the U.S. Supreme Court.

  223. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    Misquoting yourself or trying to change position? I count 20 posts you have made here since the one quoted below, and you still fail and refuse to say which policy and/or resources you are referring to.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: As you should know, because of limitation of resources and for policy reasons, the Supreme Court only takes for review and decision a very small percentage of cases, regardless of whether the parties correctly believe those cases were rightly or wrongly decided.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Scientist,

    You continue to miss the point.I did not say what the U.S. Supreme Court will or will not do.I only said what it has not yet done.

  224. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 14, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    Mario,

    It’s not “reading the tea leaves” when it’s right every single time. Or can you cite an example where the court took up an issue without first asking for briefs from the respondent? Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results—are you insane or just dishonest?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor Joe Zeppy, tells us what lawyers have not made a name for themselves but he wants to make a name for himself by reading tea leaves about the U.S. Supreme Court.

  225. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    Paper,

    You said: “As has been demonstrated many times, that quote, for one thing, does not state that *only* such citizens are natural born. Ask Esq’s question clearly contains the word ‘only.’”

    This is a frivolous argument. Here is a simple example which shows how frivolous it is. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “father-in-law” as follows: “The father of one’s wife or husband.” Hey, they did not say “only” the father. So we can include someone else.

  226. avatar
    Rickey November 14, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Slartibartfast:

    It’s not “reading the tea leaves” when it’s right every single time.Or can you cite an example where the court took up an issue without first asking for briefs from the respondent?Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results—are you insane or just dishonest?

    This reminds me that Mario took umbrage at Dwight Sullivan at CAAFlog when Dwight told Mario, days before the week’s orders were to be published, that his SCOTUS petition had been rejected. Mario had no idea that the fact that not a single justice on the Court had called for a response meant that his petition was dead.

  227. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    Joe Zeppy,

    I am not here to address old hat.

  228. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    Paper,

    You said: “It [the U.S. Supreme Court] has not declared President Obama ineligible and has done nothing to interfere with his being president.

    That’s all that matters.”

    You are such a genius. We did not know that.

  229. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    Rickey and Slartibartfast,

    It really is a waste of my time debating with individuals like you who have poor logical skills.

    The “tea leaves” refers to why the U.S. Supreme Court did not grant certification, not whether it was or was not going to grant it.

  230. avatar
    Rickey November 14, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    I am not here to address old hat.

    That’s rich. What are you here for? You obviously are not here to acknowledge your lie about the non-existent Pakistan travel ban.

  231. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    Sudoku,

    I have finally figured out what your name means: of or pertaining to the gnat family.

  232. avatar
    RuhRoh November 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    Mario,

    Did Strunk ever share the total costs and fees that were served by some of the defendants after the show cause hearing in May? I seem to recall you mentioning something in the neighborhood of $500K on your blog, but wondered if that figure was perhaps a preliminary estimate as a few attorneys hadn’t yet served Strunk but had been given 30 days from the hearing date to do so.

    .

  233. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

    Quick, Mario, what does Black’s Law Dictionary have as the definition for natural born citizen? I know what mine says.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This is a frivolous argument. Here is a simple example which shows how frivolous it is. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “father-in-law” as follows: “The father of one’s wife or husband.” Hey, they did not say “only” the father. So we can include someone else.

  234. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    RuhRoh: Mario, Did Strunk ever share the total costs and fees that were served by some of the defendants after the show cause hearing in May? I seem to recall you mentioning something in the neighborhood of $500K on your blog, but wondered if that figure was perhaps a preliminary estimate as a few attorneys hadn’t yet served Strunk but had been given 30 days from the hearing date to do so. .

    First, Strunk was pro se in his action. Second, you seem to be so well informed, Einstein, so why do you not tell us how much the judge ordered Strunk to pay. Please provide a copy of the actual court order with links.

  235. avatar
    Sudoku November 14, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    A childish attempt at humor. I excel in logic puzzles, sudoku is the name of one of them.

    Still waiting for you to say which policy and/or limited resources cause the SCOTUS to refuse cert to such an important constitutional issue.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sudoku,

    I have finally figured out what your name means:of or pertaining to the gnat family.

  236. avatar
    RuhRoh November 14, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: First, Strunk was pro se in his action.Second, you seem to be so well informed, Einstein, so why do you not tell us how much the judge ordered Strunk to pay.Please provide a copy of the actual court order with links.

    Are you having a bad day? I fail to see the need for your tone.

    I neither said not implied that Strunk was not pro se. Nor did I say he had been ordered to pay sanctions. ( I believe that matter is still pending.)

    What I asked was whether Strunk had acquainted you with the potential dollar amount of sanctions that might be ordered following the May hearing. I thought you’d recall the hearing as you supplied a blog post listing your reasons why Strunk shouldn’t be sanctioned and Strunk subsequently moved the court to accept it as an amicus brief.

    In his decision and order, Judge Schack had clearly stated that sanctions were on the table and the May hearing was for Strunk to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. You were unhappy enough about the decision that you composed this blog post: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-york-state-court-should-not.html As far as I know, no sanctions have yet been imposed although all defendants were given the opportunity to serve costs and fees. A few did so at the hearing, which I believe was held on May 7.

    So my question remains: Did Strunk share the potential amount of sanctions and would you share that with us?

  237. avatar
    Daniel November 14, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Rickey and Slartibartfast,

    It really is a waste of my time debating with individuals like you who have poor logical skills.

    Well there goes another Irony meter….

    Serioulsy though, Mario, if you could perhaps just step out for a bit, there’s a chance a real attorney may be coming to talk to us, and we wouldn’t want him to think we consort with lawyer wannabe posers…

    I’m sure you understand

  238. avatar
    misha marinsky November 14, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: For further information, you can refer to my article, “Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

    Unmitigated drivel.

    Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. – Samuel Johnson

    To paraphrase Johnson: Mario Apuzzo’s lecturing is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.

  239. avatar
    misha marinsky November 14, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Sudoku, I have finally figured out what your name means:of or pertaining to the gnat family.

    Kettle, pot

  240. avatar
    Jim November 14, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”Minor v. Happersett, at 167-68).

    For further information, you can refer to my article, “Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at my blog
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html .

    Actually, for further information, I’ll just turn back to Minor v Happersett Mario…since it talks directly about Presidential Eligibility.

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that

    “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]”

    and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

    There you go, 2 types of citizens only and if you’re born a citizen, you are eligible. Thanks for playing and see why you keep losing, because all your cases agree that the President is eligible…except the over-turned ones.

  241. avatar
    Paper November 14, 2012 at 8:58 pm #

    Doesn’t matter what their internal reasons are. What they have *done* is nothing. Of course, we are more likely to be right about what their reasons may be (feel free to disagree). But that doesn’t matter. The important tea leaf is simple: they have done nothing, and President Obama remains president.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor Joe Zeppy, tells us what lawyers have not made a name for themselves but he wants to make a name for himself by reading tea leaves about the U.S. Supreme Court.

  242. avatar
    Paper November 14, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    However that may be, Black’s does *not* go on to say “some authorities go further and include as fathers-in-law fathers of ex-husbands and ex-wives…”

    On the other hand, Minor *does* go on to state that “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    So much for frivolous. Minor itself makes clear that it is not speaking to the *only* scenario. Therefore, selectively quoting Minor out of context does not answer Ask Esq’s question, much less address the underlying issue.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Paper,

    You said:“As has been demonstrated many times, that quote, for one thing, does not state that *only* such citizens are natural born. Ask Esq’s question clearly contains the word ‘only.’”

    This is a frivolous argument. Here is a simple example which shows how frivolous it is.Black’s Law Dictionary defines “father-in-law” as follows:“The father of one’s wife or husband.”Hey, they did not say “only” the father.So we can include someone else.

  243. avatar
    Paper November 14, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    You like to talk about how others snipe at you. For the record, this is you sniping. Have at it. Some insults are badges of honor.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    You are such a genius.We did not know that.

  244. avatar
    ASK Esq November 14, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”Minor v. Happersett, at 167-68).

    For further information, you can refer to my article, “Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at my blog
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html .

    Right. That says that those born here with two citizen parents are NBC. It doesn’t say they are the only ones who are NBC.

    Let’s try this hypothetical. You have a client who owns a poodle. She took said poodle to the local dog park, only to find a sign that said no poodles allowed. You sue the town, saying that, as poodles are dogs, they should be allowed in the dog park. The court says “It was never doubted that all puppies born of two poodle parents were dogs.” By your reading, this would mean that the court was saying that only poodles were dogs. Clearly this is not the case. perhaps that is why your argument has been rejected by every court and legal scholar.

    In any case, the next sentence is more important. The court says that NBC’s are distinguished from aliens or foreigners. They do not say they are also distinguished from some other type of US citizen at birth. Thus, the Court said, there are two things you can be born as: A natural born US citizen, or an alien. One cannot be bot a citizen and an alien at the same time. I know you seem to think that naturalization at birth is possible, but since, by definition, it is not, it is clear that Minor states that, if you are born a US citizen, as President Obama was, you are a natural born citizen.

  245. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    RuhRoh,

    If Strunk was sanctioned, do you not think that there would be some order about it which the Obots would plaster all over the internet? So do not play stupid with me.

  246. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    Poor misha, she just sticks to the easy stuff.

  247. avatar
    ASK Esq November 14, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: For further information, you can refer to my article, “Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at my blog

    BTW, Mario, can you please point to where in Minor children of aliens are mentioned, as you claim? I know the opinion says this:

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Oddly, it doesn’t say anything about the parents in question being aliens. That is probably because the doubts were for children of groups such as slaves, “Gypsies,” Native Americans and the Chinese. As you see, not all are what could be considered “aliens.” Now, can you find me one example of a US-born child of two non-citizen Irish immigrants who was not recognized as a citizen? Come on, just one. And then, please explain why you lied about what the case said.

  248. avatar
    ASK Esq November 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Paper,

    You said:“As has been demonstrated many times, that quote, for one thing, does not state that *only* such citizens are natural born. Ask Esq’s question clearly contains the word ‘only.’”

    This is a frivolous argument. Here is a simple example which shows how frivolous it is.Black’s Law Dictionary defines “father-in-law” as follows:“The father of one’s wife or husband.”Hey, they did not say “only” the father.So we can include someone else.

    Black’s also says that a natural born citizen is “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” How about that? Of course, since the Court in Minor was not saying that it was defining NBC, it is, as usual, your argument that is frivolous.

  249. avatar
    Rickey November 14, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    RuhRoh:

    Did Strunk ever share the total costs and fees that were served by some of the defendants after the show cause hearing in May? I seem to recall you mentioning something in the neighborhood of $500K on your blog, but wondered if that figure was perhaps a preliminary estimate as a few attorneys hadn’t yet served Strunk but had been given 30 days from the hearing date to do so.

    Strunk’s case is on appeal.

  250. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

    Jim,

    You quote Minor thus: “Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” You then conclude that such a statement demonstrates that there are only two types of citizens and that if you are born a citizen, you must be a “natural born Citizen.” I disagree for the following reasons.

    First, when Minor made that statement, there were only two types of citizens as you claim. But they were “natural born Citizens” and all those who were not who were called “citizens of the United States.”

    Second, Congress, since 1790, through its naturalization powers, treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. It also had been making of children born out of the United States to citizen parents statutory born citizens who were nevertheless naturalized.

    Third, Minor explained that under the common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar, the only born citizens who were not naturalized were “natural born Citizens.” Consistent with the early naturalization acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855), Minor explained that these were children born in the United States to parents who were citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

    Fourth, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment under Wong Kim Ark’s interpretation and application, also acted on children born in the United States. Under Wong Kim Ark, they created of children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, like Congress did of children born out of the United States to citizen parents, “citizens of the United States,” from the moment of birth, but not “natural born Citizens,” who continued to be defined under American common law as children born in the country to parents who were citizens of the country at the time of their birth.

    So, under Minor and consistent with the early naturalization acts of Congress, the only children who were “natural born Citizens” were those born in the United States to citizen parents. Under Wong Kim Ark, any other citizen, even if a citizen from the moment of birth, was a “citizen of the United States,” either under the Fourteenth Amendment, which applied to children born or naturalized in the United States, or an Act of Congress, which applied to children born out of the United States.

  251. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 14, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    Paper,

    Minor’s open doubts referred to a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.

  252. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 12:00 am #

    Ask Esq.

    So, you are having difficulty understanding what Minor meant when it said: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

    May I suggest that you read Benny v. O’Brien, 586 N.J.L. 36, 29 Vroom 36, 32 A. 696 (1895). Maybe then we will see who lied about what Minor said.

  253. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 12:10 am #

    ASK Esq.,

    Your poodle-dog hypothetical does not work. The clause “natural born Citizen” does not have numerous subsets like the word dog has. Do you really think that the Founders and Framers used “natural born Citizen” for eligibility for President and that the clause did not have one bright-line definition? Having all these definitions (like different breeds of dogs) yet to be invented just makes no sense.

  254. avatar
    JPotter November 15, 2012 at 12:14 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: May I suggest that you read …

    Generally an excellent suggestion! But, to understand the impact of a selective quote (which, after all these years, you have yet to grasp is a conditional ….) from a SCOTUS case from the 1870s, we have to look to a cherrypicked state supreme court case … from 20 years later …. that predates an even later SCOTUS decision that nailed down said conditional … and consider cherrypicked state case as binding???

    Having demonstrated the essential silliness of your choice of authorities, I’d love to hear how you mangle Benny. Let me guess, more selective quoting? Read in full, it’s a hearty doorslam on you pwecious fauxVattelism.

  255. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 12:18 am #

    ASK Esq.,

    Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) defines abortion thus: “The knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child or the intentional expulsion or removal of an unborn child from the womb other than for the principle purpose of producing a live birth or removing a dead fetus. . . .” Do you agree with that definition of abortion?

  256. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 12:20 am #

    JPotter,

    Please spare me your haughtiness.

  257. avatar
    Keith November 15, 2012 at 12:22 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: This is a frivolous argument. Here is a simple example which shows how frivolous it is. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “father-in-law” as follows: “The father of one’s wife or husband.” Hey, they did not say “only” the father. So we can include someone else.

    That is not a “simple example”; it is a “simpleton’s attempt at deflection”.

    Does Black’s Law Dictionary go on to say that some authorities include some other categories of persons as “father-in-law”? Does it express that there is doubt about whether the uncle of one’s wife or husband is also a “father-in-law”?

    Exactly how stupid do you think your readers are?

  258. avatar
    Keith November 15, 2012 at 12:37 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Second, Congress, since 1790, through its naturalization powers, treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. It also had been making of children born out of the United States to citizen parents statutory born citizens who were nevertheless naturalized.

    That is NOT true. The 1790 act implied that situation, but Congress agreed that that was not what they intended. How do I know? Because they corrected it in 1795.

    Third, Minor explained that under the common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar, the only born citizens who were not naturalized were “natural born Citizens.” Consistent with the early naturalization acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855), Minor explained that these were children born in the United States to parents who were citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

    See, even you are aware of the different naturalization laws. Have you read them? Do you see the different wording in the 1795 act which replaced the 1790 act?

    But even more importantly: have you ever read the Constitution? Because in 1868 “We the People” put our intentions out of the reach of mere acts of Congress and into the Constitution in the form of the 14th Amendment.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    Very simple. TWO kinds of citizens: born and naturalized. (Conclusory statement, following from evidence on record : end of story).

  259. avatar
    misha marinsky November 15, 2012 at 12:46 am #

    Mario’s exchange with readers:

    Reader: “What kind of fool do you take me for?”

    Mario: “First class.”

    [Apologies to Proctor and Bergman]

  260. avatar
    JPotter November 15, 2012 at 12:56 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Please spare me …

    I stand underwhelmed. You’re not getting any better at this!

    Spare you? You sought this out—on a public forum!

  261. avatar
    Paper November 15, 2012 at 1:06 am #

    Incorrect.

    See below. Basic English. The sentence “Some authorities go further…” immediately follows the sentence “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Some authorities go *further.* Clearly discussing natural-born citizens. Some authorities go further in their definition of natives, or natural-born citizens, go further than just including children born in country of citizen parents. Whatever you label that subset of citizens, the point is that Minor says some authorities go further in who is included in that very same subset.

    So, your parsing is incorrect. But even by your standard of parsing, Minor continues on to say there is no need to resolve those doubts.

    As such, it *doesn’t* resolve those doubts. So you can’t use it to say that it does.

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Paper,

    Minor’s open doubts referred to a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.

  262. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2012 at 1:08 am #

    I see no reason to conclude that they necessarily did. Often compromise is reached through ambiguity. Also, since there is no record of any debate regarding the phrase “natural born citizen” I don’t see any reason to necessarily conclude that each Framer had the same conception of what it meant. The same can be said for the Ratifying Conventions.

    Have you read my article Farmer v. Framer and if so do you have any substantive comments about it?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you really think that the Founders and Framers used “natural born Citizen” for eligibility for President and that the clause did not have one bright-line definition?

  263. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 1:26 am #

    Keith (and Paper),

    The simpleton is you who it seems lost a great quantity of neurons along the way.

    First, Minor v. Happersett (1898) said that, under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar, children born in a country to “citizen” parents were “citizens” themselves and called these “citizens” “natural-born citizens” and distinguished them from “aliens or foreigners.” With the reference to “citizen” parents, this was an expression of American common law and the law of nations and not English common law. So, under that definition, the parents had to be “citizens” to make their children born in the United States “citizens,” which also made them “natural-born citizens.” There was no other class of children who could be born in the United States and be “citizens,” let alone “natural-born citizens.”

    Second, the Court then said that “[s]ome authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” Here, the Court used the word “citizen,” not “natural-born citizen.” The Court used the expression “go further” because regarding how it treated children born in the United States, it said that children born to “citizen” parents were themselves “citizens” and also “natural-born citizens,” and all the rest of such children were “aliens or foreigners.” Hence, if born in the United States to alien parents, the child was an “alien or foreigner.” But it explained that “some authorities” were willing to also include this other class of children as “citizens.” The Court’s use of the language “born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” probably referred to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court added that “[a]s to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” So, the Court said that “there have been doubts” whether children born in the United States to alien parents were “citizens.” The Court also did not say that these other children, if “citizens,” could also be “natural-born citizens,” like the children born in a country to “citizen” parents. Hence, under Minor, the only children who could be “natural-born citizens” were children born in a country to “citizen” parents. Minor also left open the question of whether children born in the United States to alien parents were “citizens,” not “natural-born citizens.”

    Third, the question left open by Minor was answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 which held that children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents were “citizens” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and did not hold that they were “natural born Citizens” under Article II.

  264. avatar
    Paper November 15, 2012 at 1:42 am #

    It does not say this. Nowhere in that text does it say they were citizens and *also* natural-born citizens.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    The Court used the expression “go further” because regarding how it treated children born in the United States, it said that children born to “citizen” parents were themselves “citizens” and also “natural-born citizens,”

  265. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 2:06 am #

    Paper,

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor.

  266. avatar
    Paper November 15, 2012 at 2:41 am #

    Exactly. It does not say they are citizens, mere citizens in your exclusive terminology, and *also* natural born citizens. It does not say they are one kind of citizen plus also another kind. Moreover, this whole paragraph is framed from the first sentence as involving natural born citizenship.

    Whatever you want to call the nature of this cohort, Minor does say that some authorities go further in who is included in that nature. So if, as it did, Minor called that cohort natural-born citizens, they also were saying some authorities went further in calling others natural born citizens, as well.

    There is nothing in that text that allows you to parse it the way you do. Even if you ignore the clear frame of the discussion as involving natural born citizenship.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Paper,

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”Minor.

  267. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2012 at 3:07 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor Lupin, just does not have a clue.

    The rantings (for it is what they are) of a known perjurer carry little weight. You have amply demonstrated your incompetence as a lawyer; now what I’m singling out now are your professional ethics, which are clearly lacking.

  268. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2012 at 3:14 am #

    RuhRoh: Are you having a bad day? I fail to see the need for your tone.

    I neither said not implied that Strunk was not pro se. Nor did I say he had been ordered to pay sanctions. ( I believe that matter is still pending.)

    Mario is touchy on the subject because if you recall he never ever denied that his delusional campaign was being funded by some extreme right-wing movement la KKK. And he gets touchy when you start prying into these matters.

    As I have said in the past, Mario is like a mob lawyer. His only practice nowadays is to cater to his right-wing client(s). Whatever ethics he night have had once have been sold out a long time ago.

  269. avatar
    bovril November 15, 2012 at 4:30 am #

    As stated previously,

    The Putzie Toad, Mendax Mendax Braccae Igni, colloquially Magnificis Stultus

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/11/the-docs-skyrocketing-legal-career/#comment-224577

    Birfoons as a disease

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/bearding-the-apuzzo/#comment-154980

    The relevant part being…..

    Parasitic modification of neural responses

    In the same manner that certain infection and diseases modify a hosts natural habits and responses (See rabies and hydrophobia et-al) the Birfoon Infection exhibits some or more of this selection of symptoms.

    Isolation from healthy individuals
    Aggression and paranoia
    Inability to form coherent responses around the meme
    Selective mutism and autism
    Incoherence

    Natural attraction to the similar infected
    Flocking and pack behaviour
    Self mutilation
    Coprophilia and Coprophagia
    Insensate destruction of an individuals personal resources and habitat
    Repetitive unconstructive behaviour

  270. avatar
    Scientist November 15, 2012 at 6:28 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Paper, “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor.

    It doesn’t say both parents. You can pretend it does, but it doesn’t. So, Obama is in (as was Chester Arthur) and Jindal and Rubio are out. Then there is Ted Cruz, who has one US citizen parent, but was born in Canada. So, I guess he’s out too. Man, the GOP is well and truly F#c@3d!

  271. avatar
    The Magic M November 15, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: because regarding how it treated children born in the United States, it said that children born to “citizen” parents were themselves “citizens” and also “natural-born citizens,” and all the rest of such children were “aliens or foreigners.”

    But pray, Mario, where does that leave children born in country to just one citizen parent? By your literal reading, those would be “aliens or foreigners” because they didn’t have two citizen parents.
    So you are saying that the millions of people who were born in the US to just one citizen parents were never citizens? And since you can’t point to a single case where one of those ever naturalized, they remained non-citizens and, therefore, so did their offspring by the same reasoning applied recursively.
    So you are saying only those people who exclusively had citizens in their ancestry are citizens today? Well, tell that to Jindahl!

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Hence, if born in the United States to alien parents, the child was an “alien or foreigner.”

    You are still leaving out the key issue we’re debating, those born to one citizen parent.
    Your reading of Minor makes those non-citizens, though here you stack another error on top of your previous one by claiming the alternative to “born to two citizen parents” was “born to two alien parents”.

    So you concede that Minor did not address “born to one citizen parent”?
    Or do you concede the reductio ad absurdum that only people with no non-citizens in their ancestry are citizens today?

    Either way, you lose, you poor blurred copy of an actual lawyer.

  272. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Ask Esq.So, you are having difficulty understanding what Minor meant when it said: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” May I suggest that you read Benny v. O’Brien, 586 N.J.L. 36, 29 Vroom 36, 32 A. 696 (1895). Maybe then we will see who lied about what Minor said.

    Let’s see. I gave you several examples of children born here to parents who would not have been considered “aliens,” and yet would not have become citizens at birth, and you say I’m the one having trouble understanding Minor? And there is nothing in Benny that says otherwise, unless you think the part about foreigners traveling through the US applies, or if you think a NJ case applies to the United States as a whole. No, Mario, you clearly have the reading comprehension skills of a dish of flan that’s been left on the counter overnight.

  273. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 9:23 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: ASK Esq., Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) defines abortion thus: “The knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child or the intentional expulsion or removal of an unborn child from the womb other than for the principle purpose of producing a live birth or removing a dead fetus. . . .” Do you agree with that definition of abortion?

    I agree with the second part. And hey, look at that! It gives more than one definition! How about that! Just like the Court in Minor saying that they weren’t discussing the citizenship status of children born here but not to two citizen parents, therefore making clear that they were not providing an exclusive definition.

  274. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 9:26 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: ASK Esq., Your poodle-dog hypothetical does not work. The clause “natural born Citizen” does not have numerous subsets like the word dog has. Do you really think that the Founders and Framers used “natural born Citizen” for eligibility for President and that the clause did not have one bright-line definition? Having all these definitions (like different breeds of dogs) yet to be invented just makes no sense.

    The clause did have one definition. Anyone born a US citizen. You’re the one having trouble with that. Now, if you say that being born here to two citizen parents, being born here to one citizen parent, being born here to no citizen parents, or being born elsewhere to two citizen parents are “subsets,” then yes, it does have subsets. Just like being born to two poodles, one doberman and one rottweiler, or two mutts would still make a dog, but of different origins. The status at birth is what matters, and that is all that has ever mattered.

  275. avatar
    RuhRoh November 15, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    RuhRoh,

    If Strunk was sanctioned, do you not think that there would be some order about it which the Obots would plaster all over the internet?So do not play stupid with me.

    Again, I don’t see the need for your continued rudeness. I did NOT say that Strunk has been sanctioned–that decision is pending. There was a May 7 show cause hearing at which Strunk had the opportunity to argue why he should not be sanctioned. Several attorneys presented Strunk with statements of fees and costs per the judge’s request and a few others had 30 days to do so.

    What I am asking, now for the third time, is if you have an estimate of the total costs and fees presented to Strunk as potential sanctions.

    I don’t see how this is a difficult or unclear question, so I assume you simply choose not to answer it. You might have just said so in the first place.

  276. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    RuhRoh: I don’t see how this is a difficult or unclear question, so I assume you simply choose not to answer it.

    There are many questions that Mario has steadfastly refused to answer.

  277. avatar
    The Magic M November 15, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Do you really think that the Founders and Framers used “natural born Citizen” for eligibility for President and that the clause did not have one bright-line definition?

    No, it’s the Vattelists who want us to believe the Founders used a definition for “natural born citizen” that was not available in *any* English book until a Vattel translation published 10 years *after* the ratification of the Constitution.

    So you want us to believe the Founders

    (1) wrote the Constitution only for legal scholars versed in French and the writings of an obscure Swiss philosopher (or, alternatively, for average citizens who owned a time machine) and/or

    (2) additionally used a term that already had a different meaning relating to “natural born subject” without telling anyone that “natural born” was supposed to mean something entirely different when applied to “citizen” than when applied to “subject” (something that makes them either sociopathic fools or pranksters).

    I mean, after all, there is not a single text relating “natural born citizen” to “two citizen parents” other than a single Vattel text in a single translation. (A sane interpretation would actually find that the translator obviously was to blame for this confusion. So birthers are effectively relying on a mistranslation of a mistranslation of a French treatise. Charming.)

    No birther has ever been able to give a proper answer to this, including the Putz, no matter how often I ask them.

  278. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Poor, poor Lupin, does not even come close to making any kind of a legal argument. She is simply clueless.

  279. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    bovril, a/k/a whisky, the foul-mouthed, mechanical speak wonder.

  280. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

    Magic M,

    You are one totally confused individual. May I recommend that you carefully read Wong Kim Ark on whether it made any difference whether it was one or two alien parents. You will see there that there were no parents who had different citizenships from each other. The wife’s citizenship merged into that of the husband.

  281. avatar
    misha marinsky November 15, 2012 at 1:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: She is simply clueless.

    Learn proper pronouns.

  282. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    The Magic M,

    I see why you call yourself Magic. You just keep dreaming that what you say makes any sense.

  283. avatar
    Scientist November 15, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The wife’s citizenship merged into that of the husband.

    That is not the case today So the real question is what courts TODAY think. And we know that they all (I have lost count, but it is quite a signifiicant number by now) follow the logic of Ankeny. That is the law in 2012. You can go on about how the Supreme Court could possibly, maybe, who knows, overrule that. Sure. The Supreme Court could also come out and launch their next session wth a joint performance of “Gangnam Style”. Quite honestly, that is at least 1000x more likely than that they would overrule any of the lower court rulings on birther cases.

    The law in 2012 is what 2012 courts say it is. If you don’t like that, tough.

  284. avatar
    gorefan November 15, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    “The decision in that case [Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168] was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.” Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark

    Why didn’t he describe Virginia Minor as a natural born citizen?

    “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;” Chief Justice Fuller in Ex Parte Lockwod

    Why didn’t he describe Virginia Minor as a natural born citizen?

    Does this mean that “natural born citizen” is a subset of “citizen of the United States”? And the other subset is “naturalized citizen”? And according to Chief Justice Fuller that was the case before the 14th Amendment as well as after?

  285. avatar
    Scientist November 15, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    gorefan: The decision in that case [Minor v. Happersett (1874),

    Honestly, enough with this antique! No country on earth is going to pick its leaders based on a 150-year-old case that denied women the vote. Mario is seriously unbalanced if he thinks that is gonna happen.

  286. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Scientist,

    Are you saying that Congress amended the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” by passing a statute which separates the wife’s citizenship from that of her husband?

  287. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

    To what statute are you referring?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Scientist,

    Are you saying that Congress amended the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” by passing a statute which separates the wife’s citizenship from that of her husband?

  288. avatar
    Scientist November 15, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Are you saying that Congress amended the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” by passing a statute which separates the wife’s citizenship from that of her husband?

    I’m saying that Minor is a fossil. I’m saying that you are a fossil. So, for that matter is the “natural born citizen” crap. No one cares. You guys got your butts kicked because all your arguments smell like dusty old fossils. Women have the vote, blacks have the vote, Hispanics have the vote, get over it.

    Here is a challenge for you-cite me a single court case in the past 50 years that supports you. Go on….

  289. avatar
    misha marinsky November 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You just keep dreaming that what you say makes any sense.

    Kettle, pot

  290. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Scientist, Are you saying that Congress amended the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” by passing a statute which separates the wife’s citizenship from that of her husband?

    Still means what it has always meant. Citizen at birth. Period. How that happens may get changed, but the definition remains the same.

  291. avatar
    insomnia November 15, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

    Mario is more than a fossil. Mario has become a troll.

    He has repeated this argument for how many years, on how many websites, in how many courts now? And lost every time.

    He only came here to get attention. “Look at me, I’m still relevant! Anybody? Please?”

    Mario has heard all these arguments a million times and chooses to ignore them. He is just a troll at this point. I think the thing that would hurt him most is if everyone just ignored him.

  292. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    insomnia: He only came here to get attention. “Look at me, I’m still relevant! Anybody? Please?”

    Actually, I think he came here because this is the only place he gets to argue for this long. If this had been court, he’d be long past the point where the judge would say “Thank you, counselor, I think I’ve heard enough.”

  293. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    Scientist: Honestly, enough with this antique! No country on earth is going to pick its leaders based on a 150-year-old case that denied women the vote. Mario is seriously unbalanced if he thinks that is gonna happen.

    I hope you realize that our Constitution is 225 years old.

  294. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    Slartibartfast: To what statute are you referring?

    The Cable Act of 1922.

  295. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    ASK Esq: Still means what it has always meant. Citizen at birth. Period. How that happens may get changed, but the definition remains the same.

    Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) said that citizens at birth who are born out of the United States are naturalized at birth.

  296. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    insomnia: Mario is more than a fossil. Mario has become a troll.He has repeated this argument for how many years, on how many websites, in how many courts now? And lost every time. He only came here to get attention. “Look at me, I’m still relevant! Anybody? Please?”Mario has heard all these arguments a million times and chooses to ignore them. He is just a troll at this point. I think the thing that would hurt him most is if everyone just ignored him.

    It sounds like you need to get some sleep.

  297. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    ASK Esq: Actually, I think he came here because this is the only place he gets to argue for this long. If this had been court, he’d be long past the point where the judge would say “Thank you, counselor, I think I’ve heard enough.”

    Sorry, I did not know that Dr. Conspiracy’s blog was accepting only comments from the likes of geniuses like yourself.

  298. avatar
    Scientist November 15, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I hope you realize that our Constitution is 225 years old.

    The natural born citizen part is past due. There is nonsense in the Constitution, the Bible, the Koran and every other text. Wise people focus on the good parts and ignore the nonsense.

    Obviously you don’t fall into the category of wise people (though wise guy fits you pretty well).

  299. avatar
    JPotter November 15, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I hope you realize that our Constitution is 225 years old.

    Try to practice or adjudicate Constituational law according to the vintage 1789 edition. It won’t work, the Constitution did not stop time. The Constituion was brilliantly conceived as a flexible, living document. It, and its attendant body of law, has adapted, grown, improved with age, and will continue to do so. It was intended to improve on the very inflexible Articles, and its various allowances for growth were its greatest improvement.

    Please proceed with some origintent ramblings.

    This is your main stumbling block, wilfully ignoring time’s arrow. Precedent piles one way. Wake up. It’s 2012. Next stop 2013. Cherrypicking the best timeframe to support your argument may make you feel better, but is won’t accomplish jacksquat in the present.

  300. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    JPotter: Try to practice or adjudicate Constituational law according to the vintage 1789 edition. It won’t work, the Constitution did not stop time. The Constituion was brilliantly conceived as a flexible, living document. It has adapted, grown, improved with age, and will continue to do so. It was intended to improve on the very inflexible Articles, and its various allowances for growth were its greatest improvement.Please proceed with some origintent ramblings.This is your main stumbling block, wilfully ignoring time’s arrow. Precedent piles one way. Wake up. It’s 2012. Next stop 2013. Cherrypicking the best timeframe to support your argument may make you feel better, but is won’t accomplish jacksquat in the present.

    It sure would be nice if you even knew what you were talking about. Scientist discounted case law strictly on its age. Hence, my point regarding the age of the Constitution.

  301. avatar
    Jim November 15, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It sure would be nice if you even knew what you were talking about.Scientist discounted case law strictly on its age.Hence, my point regarding the age of the Constitution.

    That’s OK Mario, you discount case law just because it doesn’t agree with you…even when it’s your own cases that are found to be “Without Merit”. So, for you to criticize someone else is the ultimate in lack of candor.

  302. avatar
    JPotter November 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm #

    This thread is the most blatant case of communal trollfeeding in months here if memory serves!

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: … if I even knew what you were talking about…

    Relax, M; you don’t have to play dumb.

  303. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) said that citizens at birth who are born out of the United States are naturalized at birth.

    Really? They say that? That’s strange, they never said that before. That’s because they don’t say that. And they don’t say that because naturalization at birth is, by definition, an impossibility. Naturalization is the legal process of acquiring a citizenship which one did not have previously in their life. Therefore, if one has the citizenship from the moment of birth, one cannot be considered to have naturalized.

  304. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Sorry, I did not know that Dr. Conspiracy’s blog was accepting only comments from the likes of geniuses like yourself.

    Mario, I have never claimed to be the best lawyer around. Luckily, with the likes of you and Orly around, I can never be the worst.

  305. avatar
    Scientist November 15, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Scientist discounted case law strictly on its age.

    There is no case law regarding presidential eligibility and parental citizenship. In the entire history of the United States, not a single person has been barred fom running for President or serving as President based on the citizenship of their parents. Not one.

    As for silly, antiquated laws that remain on the books, here is a selection:

    Florida-When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.
    -You may not fart in a public place after 6 P.M. on Thursdays.
    -It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.

    Idaho-Illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds

    Indiana-The value of Pi is 4, and not 3.1415…..
    -It is illegal for a man to be sexually aroused in public

    Iowa-One-armed piano players must perform for free.

    Massachusetts-It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.

    Texas-The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home

    So, yes, when laws get old they often get foolish and toothless, just llike people. What does a sensible person do regarding such laws? Ignore them. The natural born citiizen nonsense is not quite as silly perhaps, but close.

  306. avatar
    misha marinsky November 15, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Cable Act of 1922.

    The Cable Act was repealed in 1936. Get a life.

  307. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    Poor ASK Esq., it really hurts to be so humiliated and even on his own home turf with armed guards surrounding him.

  308. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    Scientist: There is no case law regarding presidential eligibility and parental citizenship. In the entire history of the United States, not a single person has been barred fom running for President or serving as President based on the citizenship of their parents. Not one. As for silly, antiquated laws that remain on the books, here is a selection:Florida-When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.-You may not fart in a public place after 6 P.M. on Thursdays.-It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.Idaho-Illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy weighing less than fifty poundsIndiana-The value of Pi is 4, and not 3.1415…..-It is illegal for a man to be sexually aroused in publicIowa-One-armed piano players must perform for free.Massachusetts-It is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.Texas-The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at homeSo, yes, when laws get old they often get foolish and toothless, just llike people. What does a sensible person do regarding such laws? Ignore them. The natural born citiizen nonsense is not quite as silly perhaps, but close.

    The Constitution is not an “old law” which can be changed or abandoned so easily. Rather, it is the Constitution, to be changed or discarded only by prescribed constitutional amendment.

  309. avatar
    donna November 15, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    Scientist:

    not to mention that adultery is a criminal offense in 23 states, with punishments ranging from a $10 fine in Maryland to life imprisonment in Michigan (at least according to one judge). It’s also prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    In 2009, when Minnesota lawmakers sought to repeal the state’s prohibition on adultery (which, among other things, punished women more severely than men), the conservative Minnesota Family Council fought back, calling for the laws to be strengthened. (The MFC once counted Rep. Michele Bachmann as one of its education experts, and both Bachmann and THRICE MARRIED, SERIAL ADULTERER Gingrich have raised money for the organization.)

  310. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Poor ASK Esq., it really hurts to be so humiliated and even on his own home turf with armed guards surrounding him.

    Strange. I don’t feel humiliated. Actaully, I feel pretty good. I wonder why that is. Oh, yeah. Probably because I showed that you are wrong on every claim you made, and you were unable to show me wrong on anything. All you did was keep repeating your tired and debunked claims and your pathetic misinterpretations. You were unable to actually deal with any of the myriad challenges to prove your contentions that we presented you with. You continue to embarrass yourself, Mario, and the worst part is, you don’t seem to realize it. In case you didn’t get it, everyone here, whether they are an attorney or not, has a better understanding of the law than you do, and a better ability to comprehend judicial opinions. Also, you really probably don’t realize this, but we are all laughing at you, to your face.

  311. avatar
    JPotter November 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Rather, it is the Constitution, to be changed or discarded only by prescribed constitutional amendment.

    I have one word for you, M: ‘Interpretation’.

    Without it, SCOTUS would be unemployed (dream on, dear birfer). And the country would have seized into gridlock within 15 minutes of ratification, unaided by an inapplicable plan.

  312. avatar
    bovril November 15, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    bovril, a/k/a whisky, the foul-mouthed, mechanical speak wonder.

    The Toad, the lying, ignorant, incompetent pretend lawyer, oh and lets not forget based on your definitions, stalker.

  313. avatar
    RuhRoh November 15, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    Mario, in case you weren’t yet aware, H. Brook Paige v. State of Vermont, et. al. was dismissed today due to lack of jurisdiction and lack of merit. Didn’t you compose a great deal of that suit?

  314. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    Poor, poor ASK Esq., just so immature.

  315. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 6:01 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor, poor ASK Esq., just so immature.

    I’d ask if that’s the best you could come up with, but I have a feeling that someone must have helped you write this.

  316. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

    JPotter: I have one word for you, M: ‘Interpretation’.Without it, SCOTUS would be unemployed (dream on, dear birfer). And the country would have seized into gridlock within 15 minutes of ratification, unaided by an inapplicable plan.

    Let’s see now, the Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution by constitutional amendment. Then more amendments were added. Oh, and let’s not forget about the Fourteenth Amendment and so on. We are now up to the 27th Amendment.

    Maybe, you are the one who should keep dreaming.

  317. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

    Hey, Mario, here’s another challenge that you’ll ignore or pretend to answer but clearly fail. Show us one case from any US court where the court said that someone was born here, was a citizen at birth, but was NOT a natural born citizen. And I am not referring to cases where NBC status was not explicitly mentioned. I mean a court actually saying that someone could be born in the US, have citizenship from birth, but not be a natural born citizen. Any court, Mario. Supreme Court, Federal Court, State Court, Traffic Court, Night Court, People’s Court, Food Court. Anywhere. Show us the case. After all, if what you claim is true, there must be a case that says it, right?

  318. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    ASK Esq: I’d ask if that’s the best you could come up with, but I have a feeling that someone must have helped you write this.

    I will say that you must have some unnoticed powers. I did have someone help me write that. I have a 35-year-in-practice psychologist on staff. She helped me write it.

  319. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    RuhRoh: Mario, in case you weren’t yet aware, H. Brook Paige v. State of Vermont, et. al. was dismissed today due to lack of jurisdiction and lack of merit. Didn’t you compose a great deal of that suit?

    So what.

  320. avatar
    Keith November 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Magic M,

    You are one totally confused individual.May I recommend that you carefully read Wong Kim Ark on whether it made any difference whether it was one or two alien parents.You will see there that there were no parents who had different citizenships from each other.The wife’s citizenship merged into that of the husband.

    That’s right Mario. WKA was born in America with ZERO citizens parents and he was a Natural Born Citizen.

    How could a child born in America with ONE citizen parent be anything less?

  321. avatar
    RuhRoh November 15, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: RuhRoh: Mario, in case you weren’t yet aware, H. Brook Paige v. State of Vermont, et. al. was dismissed today due to lack of jurisdiction and lack of merit. Didn’t you compose a great deal of that suit?

    Mario Apuzzo: So what.

    Don’t worry your pretty little head over it. The rest of us are aware of what it means.

  322. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    ASK Esq.

    Hey, ASK Esq. here’s another challenge that you’ll ignore or pretend to answer but clearly fail. Show us one case from any US court where the court addressed each one of my legal arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” in a written opinion. And I am not referring to cases where NBC status was not explicitly mentioned. I mean a court actually addressing each one of my legal arguments in a written opinion. Any court, ASK Esq. Supreme Court, Federal Court, State Court, Traffic Court, Night Court, People’s Court, Food Court. Anywhere. Show us the case. After all, if what you claim is true, there must be a case that says it, right?

  323. avatar
    Scientist November 15, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Let’s see now, the Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution by constitutional amendment. Then more amendments were added. Oh, and let’s not forget about the Fourteenth Amendment and so on. We are now up to the 27th Amendment.

    Plessis v Ferguson said segregation was constitutional. Brown v Board of Education said it wasn’t. No amendment pertinent to segregation was passed in the interim. It was the interpretation of the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment, that changed.

    The Constitution is not magical. Like any set of law, parts become irrelevant. Seen any 3rd Amendment cases recently? Parts take on new meanings-when the 1st Amendment was written, press meant press-no TV, radio, twitter, Facebook. Can those be censored?

  324. avatar
    Keith November 15, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: The Constitution is not an “old law” which can be changed or abandoned so easily. Rather, it is the Constitution, to be changed or discarded only by prescribed constitutional amendment

    That is correct Mario. So why do you insist on using wording from a 1790 act that was overridden by a 1795 act and rendered moot by Constitutional Amendment in 1866 as part justification for your incoherent legal theory?

    The Constitution is the controlling law, not the wording of the 1790 law.

  325. avatar
    Scientist November 15, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

    Hey Mario: When Minor talks about “natural born citiizen” they don’t mention Article II. Minor was not an Article II natural born citizen, she was only an ordinary natural born citizen. However, all Presidents are, by definition Article II natural born citizens (as stated in Article II). Had Minor been elected President, then she would have been an Article II whatchamacallit. Capisch?

  326. avatar
    donna November 15, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    Scientist: Parts take on new meanings-when the 1st Amendment was written, press meant press-no TV, radio, twitter, Facebook. Can those be censored?

    you might be interested in the article

    The Real Reason You Should Care About the Petraeus Affair: Privacy
    If the CIA director couldn’t keep his emails secret, neither can you.

    The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the law governing online communications, was written in 1986. Congress wasn’t sure whether to treat email, then in its infancy, more like letters or phone calls. People used to download their email back then, so leaving your information on a company’s server meant the feds had to do less paperwork to access it. Now everyone’s information is stored online, but that archaic standard is still in place.

    “Now everything is kept in the cloud on Google and Yahoo’s servers,” says Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/cia-petraeus-fbi-broadwell-emails-privacy

  327. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    It was a throw-away article anyhow.

    JPotter: This thread is the most blatant case of communal trollfeeding in months here if memory serves!

  328. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    “Argue” is not a word I would have chosen, “bicker” maybe.

    ASK Esq: Actually, I think he came here because this is the only place he gets to argue for this long. If this had been court,

  329. avatar
    JPotter November 15, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have a 35-year-in-practice psychologist on staff. She helped me write it.

    A. Attending state-mandated appointments with a person does constitute having that person on your staff.

    B. Your mom’s a shrink? And she still helps with your papers! How sweet!

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: et’s see now, the Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution by constitutional amendment. Then more amendments were added. Oh, and let’s not forget about the Fourteenth Amendment and so on. We are now up to the 27th Amendment.

    Oh, M, you’re diehard dedication to the consistent density required of nutjobs is flawless. No chance of admitting, or admitting to, the slightest particle of reality. Not even willing to recognize the interpretation of the Constitution—you know, “judicial review”? —when it doesn’t help you maintain your permannetly obtuse angle? LOL!

  330. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    As you know, the acts of the First Congress are of particular importance because many of the Framers were in it.

    Accepting for the sake of argument that your comment cited below is accurate (at least as to the Bellei case), I would note that the Naturalization Act of 1790 said the citizens at born outside of the United States are natural born citizens (and the Court cited the precise “natural born” language in the Act in the Bellei decision). These two facts taken together suggest that there is an overlap between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens at least in the way that Bellei construes them.

    That seems to make it even more difficult for your side to create its exclusive natural born citizen club.

    The Court in Bellei noted that it was using the term “naturalized” in a way at odds with the common understanding of the term, as a generic class of any citizenship obtained by act of Congress under the naturalization powers in the Constitution. For that reason care should be taken comparing “naturalized citizen” in different contexts.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) said that citizens at birth who are born out of the United States are naturalized at birth.

  331. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    Damn, that was a brand new irony meter you just blew.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Why do you waste my time?

  332. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

    When read that, I was reminded of the byline of my blog; the full quotation from which it comes is:

    “Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.” United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003), quoted in Parker v. Learn The Skills Corp., No. 03-6936, 2004 WL 2384993, *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2004)

    I’m sure you’ve seen that before.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Show us one case from any US court where the court addressed each one of my legal arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” in a written opinion.

  333. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It was a throw-away article anyhow.

    Hey, doc, you strike me as one of those types who loses and then says that he really didn’t try.

  334. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    Not really.

    Some articles on this blog are substantive. They involve ideas that I think are important. I spend considerable time researching them. I value input from the online community here and encourage discussion I care a great deal that the discussion stays on topic, and will do such things as move off-topic remarks to the Open Thread, and even put people in moderation.

    Some articles on the blog, like this one, are just funny. They are not important. On these I am not concerned that the discussion stays on track and I’m much more tolerant of bickering and trollish behavior.

    People win and lose in court, or in sport. They don’t win or lose on blogs because there’s no judge.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Hey, doc, you strike me as one of those types who loses and then says that he really didn’t try.

  335. avatar
    Reality Check November 15, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    That makes Mario a perfect 0 for 10 in court. He needs to get busy. He is within striking distance of Orly’s record as TWLITHOTU*

    *The Worst Lawyer in the History of the Universe

    RuhRoh: Don’t worry your pretty little head over it.The rest of us are aware of what it means.

  336. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 15, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    I think that’s what Mario likes about blogs—he still needs to pretend that he won, though…

    Dr. Conspiracy: People win and lose in court, or in sport. They don’t win or lose on blogs because there’s no judge.

  337. avatar
    RuhRoh November 15, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    Reality Check:
    That makes Mario a perfect 0 for 10 in court. He needs to get busy. He is within striking distance of Orly’s record as TWLITHOTU*

    *The Worst Lawyer in the History of the Universe

    Well, he may have won a case somewhere in whatever used to be his primary practice of law. As a Birther attorney, he is a complete and utter failure, yes. But if he’s won even one case in other subjects, he’d still be ahead of Orly. Give him time though and he may catch up to her! LOL

    Although Orly does have a sense of humor, which Apuzzo sorely lacks. Hmmm…

  338. avatar
    Trim November 15, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    My take is your arguments don’t deserve such response, nor that any court has cared to waste it’s time.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ASK Esq.

    Hey, ASK Esq. here’s another challenge that you’ll ignore or pretend to answer but clearly fail. Show us one case from any US court where the court addressed each one of my legal arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” in a written opinion.And I am not referring to cases where NBC status was not explicitly mentioned. I mean a court actually addressing each one of my legal arguments in a written opinion.Any court, ASK Esq. Supreme Court, Federal Court, State Court, Traffic Court, Night Court, People’s Court, Food Court. Anywhere. Show us the case. After all, if what you claim is true, there must be a case that says it, right?

  339. avatar
    misha marinsky November 15, 2012 at 9:37 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I have a 35-year-in-practice psychologist on staff.

    Admitting you need help is the first step. Let us know how your therapy is working.

  340. avatar
    ASK Esq November 15, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ASK Esq.

    Hey, ASK Esq. here’s another challenge that you’ll ignore or pretend to answer but clearly fail. Show us one case from any US court where the court addressed each one of my legal arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” in a written opinion.And I am not referring to cases where NBC status was not explicitly mentioned. I mean a court actually addressing each one of my legal arguments in a written opinion.Any court, ASK Esq. Supreme Court, Federal Court, State Court, Traffic Court, Night Court, People’s Court, Food Court. Anywhere. Show us the case. After all, if what you claim is true, there must be a case that says it, right?

    What a surprise. You yet again don’t even try to demonstrate that your arguments are correct. You also show, to nobody’s surprise, that you don’t understand how our legal system works. You seem to think that, as no court has discussed your silly theories, they are right. No, sorry, that isn’t how it works here in the US. On the other hand, since courts have told you that none of what you said was correct, they don’t actually have to go step by step to show you how wrong you are. All the judge has to do is say “no,” and that’s it. As we have shown you repeatedly, courts have established that there are two and only two types of citizenship in the US. Natural born and naturalized. period. And, if you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. No court has said otherwise in any ruling that is still good law. But really, Mario, if your legal theories are so sound, why is it that you can’t actually support them with precedent?

  341. avatar
    Jim November 15, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    ASK Esq.

    Hey, ASK Esq. here’s another challenge that you’ll ignore or pretend to answer but clearly fail. Show us one case from any US court where the court addressed each one of my legal arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” in a written opinion.And I am not referring to cases where NBC status was not explicitly mentioned. I mean a court actually addressing each one of my legal arguments in a written opinion.Any court, ASK Esq. Supreme Court, Federal Court, State Court, Traffic Court, Night Court, People’s Court, Food Court. Anywhere. Show us the case. After all, if what you claim is true, there must be a case that says it, right?

    Hey Mario, I got bad news for you. Each one of your “legal” (BWAHAHAHAHA) arguments were considered “Without Merit” by the Judges you appeared before in NJ. Basically, you’re arguments weren’t considered legal arguments, just BS being made up as you went and without any legal backing. So basically, all your “legal” arguments have already been shot down in writing, because you have none.

  342. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: When read that, I was reminded of the byline of my blog; the full quotation from which it comes is:I’m sure you’ve seen that before.

    Doc, I am really disappointed in you for making such a mistake. You are confounding Rule 8 complaints with a brief which contains legal arguments.

  343. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    Reality Check: That makes Mario a perfect 0 for 10 in court. He needs to get busy. He is within striking distance of Orly’s record as TWLITHOTU**The Worst Lawyer in the History of the Universe

    Poor Reality Check, he is still looking for a way to prove that I am wrong, but as yet to find it. So now he relies on the Vermont decision which relied on the Ankeny case. Show me the evidence that I am wrong, Reality Check?

  344. avatar
    LW November 15, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor Reality Check, he is still looking for a way to prove that I am wrong, but as yet to find it.

    Perhaps if you helped him out by providing a list of cases you’ve won.

    Out of curiosity, what’s with the Cockney?

  345. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    Jim,

    What pleasure knowing that no one has even attempted to prove that I am wrong, but only said that I am wrong.

  346. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    If it is more context that you want regarding naturalization at birth, like that which applies to children born in the country, try this:

    William Blackstone divided the people into “aliens, denizens, and natives.” 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, 366 (1765). He did not use the clause “natural born subject” in his nomenclature. He then stated that the “first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.” Id. at 366. He considered all those born within the King’s dominions and within the allegiance of and therefore under his protection “natural born subjects.” Id. at 366; 373. He considered all aliens, if not ambassadors or military occupiers, present within the King’s dominions “subjects,” even without such alien taking any oath of allegiance or fealty. Id. at 369. They were “subjects” because they owed the King a local but temporary allegiance. Id. at 370. These aliens remained “subjects” and owed that temporary and local allegiance to the King as long as they continued to be physically present within his dominions. Id. These aliens owed the King that local but temporary allegiance because the King, while those aliens were physically present in his dominion, owed them protection. Id. He maintained:

    “The “children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects (8) [8 Unless the alien parents are acting in the realm as enemies; for my Lord Coke says, it is not caelum nec solum [[climate nor soil]], but their being born within the allegiance, and under the protection of the king. 7 Co., 18. a.], and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.” (9) [9 The late Vinerian professor informs us, that, ‘in this respect there is not any difference between our laws and those of France. In each country, birth confers the right of ‘naturalization.’ 1 Woodd. 386.”]. Id. at 373.

    What is critical to understand about Blackstone’s reference to Wooddeson is that he actually said that in England, a child born to alien parents became a “natural born subject” by naturalization at birth and that France also allowed the same under its naturalization laws. In both countries, birth in its territory conferred the right to naturalization at birth. Hence, he agreed with Wooddeson that there really was no difference between the English common law and the French Constitution which treated children born in France to alien parents as aliens, but French laws then allowed those children to be naturalized at birth. Hence, the laws of both nations allowed children born in their territories to alien parents to become “subjects” or “citizens” by naturalization at birth. Professor Wooddson’s comment, which Blackstone cites and quotes approvingly in his footnote 9, shows that England, France, and eventually the United States, all provided for naturalization at birth for children “born within the jurisdiction” to alien parents. So, both Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case and William Blackstone in his Commentaries considered a child born in the King’s dominion and under his allegiance to alien parents to be a “natural born subject” by naturalization at birth.

    Excerpt from Mario Apuzzo, Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” found at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html .

  347. avatar
    RuhRoh November 15, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

    Trim:
    My take is your arguments don’t deserve such response, nor that any court has cared to waste it’s time.

    That would be why they keep ruling his claims are meritless.

  348. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    RuhRoh: That would be why they keep ruling his claims are meritless.

    I am still waiting for you to say something that has any value.

  349. avatar
    Keith November 15, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am still waiting for you to say something that has any value.

    Interestingly, that is exactly what every Judge has said about every single one of your ‘birther’ cases.

  350. avatar
    Paper November 15, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    Incorrect again. See above. I have shown you to be wrong on some very basic points, even involving simple English. You may not accept that. Your lack of acceptance is a different issue. Neither here nor there. Your argument nonetheless remains incorrect.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:
    Jim,

    What pleasure knowing that no one has even attempted to prove that I am wrong, but only said that I am wrong.

  351. avatar
    RuhRoh November 15, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    Keith: Interestingly, that is exactly what every Judge has said about every single one of your ‘birther’ cases.

    That’s really the bottom line. Mario’s taken his arguments and theories into court 10 times now and has always lost, with the court deeming his arguments and theories meritless.

    The rest is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  352. avatar
    Trim November 15, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    Just saw a quote from Rubio about Romney that also applies here: “I don’t want to rebut him point by point,” Rubio said of Romney. “I would just say to you…” [his arguments are meritless.]

    Text in brackets added by me to highlight the parallel between Rubio’s comment and the judicial system’s comment upon Mario Apuzzo’s arguments.

    RuhRoh: That would be why they keep ruling his claims are meritless.

  353. avatar
    misha marinsky November 15, 2012 at 11:41 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: I am still waiting for you to say something that has any value.

    As I am from you.

  354. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    Thanks for the citations. I don’t find them adequate to establish context. But even if your representation is faithful to the intent of the writers, it would seem fatal to your purposes. However you describe the process by which such persons attain that status, in 1776 in England the children of aliens born in England and the children of the English born anywhere were both natural born subjects.

    Have you ever found any American reference where someone born in the US was described as a “naturalized citizen?” I have not.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: If it is more context that you want regarding naturalization at birth, like that which applies to children born in the country, try this

  355. avatar
    Lupin November 16, 2012 at 3:02 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor, poor Lupin, does not even come close to making any kind of a legal argument. She is simply clueless.

    We don’t need to make legal arguments anymore: you’ve been thoroughly trounced and proved your incompetence.

    Now what we need to do is question your total lack of ethics and professional standards. The real question is, why shouldn’t you be sanctioned, even disbarred, for lying under oath?

  356. avatar
    Lupin November 16, 2012 at 3:29 am #

    bovril: The Toad, the lying, ignorant, incompetent pretend lawyer, oh and lets not forget based on your definitions, stalker.

    Don’t forget, perjurer.

  357. avatar
    Lupin November 16, 2012 at 3:37 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: and the French Constitution which treated children born in France to alien parents as aliens, but French laws then allowed those children to be naturalized at birth.

    This is incorrect; more specifically the use of the word “naturalized” in this context is incorrect. It is NOT like (1) you’re born an alien, and (2) a micro-second later, you ‘re “naturalized” French as you imply, but the child was ALWAYS born French, should he/she choose to exercise that option.

    As I said before, we no longer need to discuss law with you. (1) You have amply demonstrated your abysmal incompetence; and (2) the Courts have systematically and unanimously kicked you & your loopy theories to the curb.

    So these issues no longer need to be argued with you; that boat has sailed.

    The only thing left to discuss is your unethical practices and what consequences they should entail.

  358. avatar
    The Magic M November 16, 2012 at 5:56 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: You will see there that there were no parents who had different citizenships from each other. The wife’s citizenship merged into that of the husband.

    Then why did they say “citizen parents” and not “citizen father”?

    Additionally, does that mean you are now saying that the native-born child of a citizen father and a foreign mother is an NBC? After all, today the wife’s citizenship does not “merge into” anybody else’s.

    Besides, you still haven’t answered my question why the Founders allegedly used a definition of “natural born” that deviated from the Common Law meaning without telling anyone.
    Can you point to *any* legal treatise in English the predates the Constitution (or post-dates it by less than 10 years) and mentions a two-parent requirement for NBC?
    If not, how were people on the streets supposed to understand their own Constitution?

  359. avatar
    Scientist November 16, 2012 at 7:07 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Hence, the laws of both nations allowed children born in their territories to alien parents to become “subjects” or “citizens” by naturalization at birth.

    “Parents”? According to you that means BOTH parents. Hence, this doesn’t apply to Obama, since one of his parents was not an alien. On the other hand, if you wish to argue that “parents” means one or both, then “Born in the country to citizen parents” includes those with one citizen parent. This is what Joseph Heller called a “Catch-22″.

  360. avatar
    Reality Check November 16, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama

    Case closed.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Poor Reality Check, he is still looking for a way to prove that I am wrong, but as yet to find it.So now he relies on the Vermont decision which relied on the Ankeny case.Show me the evidence that I am wrong, Reality Check?

  361. avatar
    Paper November 16, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    Incorrect. What you quote from Blackstone does not say this, does not support your characterization.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

    What is critical to understand about Blackstone’s reference to Wooddeson is that he actually said that in England, a child born to alien parents became a “natural born subject” by naturalization at birth and that France also allowed the same under its naturalization laws.

  362. avatar
    Lupin November 16, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    Paper: Incorrect. What you quote from Blackstone does not say this, does not support your characterization.

    That’s typical Mario. He purposefully distorts the meaning of the materials he purports to use to prove his theories.

  363. avatar
    bovril November 16, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    So Falio dear Falio,

    Apart from your rather flattering attempt to link me with your nemesis “Whiskey” you seem still incapable of answering some simple and rather basic questions.

    Where oh where is this magical 3rd class of citizen you pimp so furiously in case or constitutional law?

    I mean you keep on pushing this special 3rd class, NBC yet not NBC yet no matter where I look, there is no evidence of it. You remember that word “evidence” Mario, I’m quite sure Temple taught the concept.

    Then there is this whole point around the wilful misinterpretation of words/cases/Constitutional Amendments etc. For example. We have the whine, and lets be honest Mario, your’e whining, where you take a statement In Happersett that doen’t support your insane personal theories and desperately attempt (in the eyes of various courts FRIVOLOUSLY) to re-interpret it at 180 degrees to what EVERY OTHER ACTUAL LAWYER understands it to mean.

    So either the universe of actual legal and constitutional experts and judges and courts – 1 are wrong or you, on your own are right.

    Seriously Mario, once upon a time it was plain that you were simply pimping your paymasters BS, the problem is you are now so invested in this cack you truly believe that you are right. Even you must understand the depth of delusion this requires.

    You stated you had a “psychologist on staff” a statement I find risible in the extreme but, assuming this is not yet another outright lie, take medical advice, you are acting insane.

  364. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 16, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    I don’t think Whiskey is Wario’s nemesis, so much as comprehending the law is.

  365. avatar
    The Magic M November 16, 2012 at 9:43 am #

    bovril: yet no matter where I look, there is no evidence of it

    Wherefore it is clear that Mario’s arguments only work in the Bizarro world where absence of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy suppressing such evidence. ;)

    But it’s not surprising; birthers have no problem extending the Obama conspiracy back to before his birth in 1961, so why should some of them have a problem extending it even further back to before WKA to claim “they” have been working to obfuscate the meaning for 150+ years, only to one day have a black man with a funny sounding name the Antichrist in the White House.

  366. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 16, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: I don’t think Whiskey is Wario’s nemesis, so much as comprehending the law is.

    Andrew,

    You are so smart. Ask your boss for a raise.

  367. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 16, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    The Magic M: Wherefore it is clear that Mario’s arguments only work in the Bizarro world where absence of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy suppressing such evidence. But it’s not surprising; birthers have no problem extending the Obama conspiracy back to before his birth in 1961, so why should some of them have a problem extending it even further back to before WKA to claim “they” have been working to obfuscate the meaning for 150+ years, only to one day have a black man with a funny sounding name the Antichrist in the White House.

    It sounds like you are taking something.

  368. avatar
    bovril November 16, 2012 at 9:57 am #

    No Mario,

    The only one around here who should be either taking more or cutting down on the drugs is you.

  369. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 16, 2012 at 10:20 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: Andrew,

    You are so smart.Ask your boss for a raise.

    Well, if I did my job as poorly as you do yours, I would have been fired for gross incompetence.

  370. avatar
    misha marinsky November 16, 2012 at 10:54 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: It sounds like you are taking something.

    Kettle, pot

  371. avatar
    Daniel November 16, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    Actually Mario and I are a lot alike in one respect. Neither of us would make a good lawyer. The difference is, I realize it and thus I depend on actual experts, rather than just make crap up as I go along

  372. avatar
    Rickey November 16, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    Quote of the Day:

    “The expression ‘natural born citizen’ is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed.” – Judge Robert Bent, Vermont Superior Court, dismissing the birther case Paige v. Obama.

    H/T to Donna for the link:

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012311150036&nclick_check=1

  373. avatar
    Rickey November 16, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    I received an e-mail from documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald. He is heading to Pakistan to make a film.

    Mario, please take note. The travel ban has been lifted!

  374. avatar
    donna November 16, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    Rickey:

    thanks but i like this quote from michael steele re the republican fail:

    “following up on what haley barbour said, before you have that proctology exam, PULL YOUR HEAD OUT”

  375. avatar
    Arthur November 16, 2012 at 3:34 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Well, if I did my job as poorly as you do yours, I would have been fired for gross incompetence.

    Mario’s incompetence should be celebrated. Just think of all the drunk drivers he’s defended who are now in jail thanks to his ineptitude.

  376. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

    Arthur: Mario’s incompetence should be celebrated. Just think of all the drunk drivers he’s defended who are now in jail thanks to his ineptitude.

    So, he unintentionally does good things through bumbling, and utter incompetence?
    Should we start calling him Mario Clouseau? Or perhaps Sergeant Mario Drebin, Detective Lieutenant Police Squad?

  377. avatar
    ASK Esq November 16, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    Arthur:
    Mario’s incompetence should be celebrated. Just think of all the drunk drivers he’s defended who are now in jail thanks to his ineptitude.

    If other Marios were as incompetent as Apuzzo, Pauline never would have been rescued from Donkey Kong.

  378. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 16, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    ASK Esq: If other Marios were as incompetent as Apuzzo, Pauline never would have been rescued from Donkey Kong.

    I’m not so sure that she was. Haven’t seen hide nor hair of her since 1981.

333333 44444
5555555
6666666