Judge refuses to sign protective order for Mario Apuzzo and family
Mario Apuzzo, his family and several other individuals may now be in danger after a New York judge refused to sign a protective order (PDF, XPS) yesterday in the case of Strunk v. Patterson et al. The motion was filed by Christopher Earl Strunk in Part 47 of the Supreme Court of New York before judge David Schmidt. Strunk requested a protective order for these potential material witnesses and their families:
- Pastor James David Manning
- Robert K. Dornan
- Eric-Jon Phelps
- Jonathan Levy
- Orly Taitz
- John D. Hemenway
- Mario Apuzzo
- Robert L. Schulz
- H. Willian Van Allen
- John-Joseph Forjone
- Edward M. Person, Jr.
- Junlian Panachyd
- Carl E. Person
- Jim Faulkner
- The plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk
Strunk also asked the court to order all Federal agents to stay beyond 200 yards from any of those listed and stop harassing his witness, Pastor Manning. Stunk wants the Governor (Patterson) to testify, and there is something about a RICO suit against ACORN. Oh, and he wants the US Postal Service to do the 2010 Census.
I think Strunk deserves frequent flier miles from the New York judiciary.
Kerchner v Obama: case dismissed (Updated)
The New Jersey federal lawsuit prosecuted by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles Kerchner (aka Mountain Goat, E Publius Goat) has been dismissed by Judge Simandle. The order follows and this is the full 11-page opinion. “… the Court finds that Plaintiffs…lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.” [Let's see who finds the first typo in the opinion.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR., et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.
Defendants.
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil No. 09-253 (JBS/JS)
ORDER
This matter having come before the Court upon Defendants’
motion to dismiss [Docket Item 27]; the Court having considered
the submissions in support thereof and opposition thereto; for
the reasons discussed in the Opinion of today’s day; and for good
cause shown;
IT IS this 20th day of October, 2009 hereby
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be, and
hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this docket.
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
Jerome B. Simandle
United States District Judge
Update:
A notice of appeal has been filed.
Questions for Mario Apuzzo (6)
Dred Scott
Here’s a natural born thought experiment. Consider two hypothetical persons, both born on January 1, 1799 in Charleston, South Carolina.
Ezekiel Crowe was born a slave and the son of slaves. Both he and his Charleston-born parents were owned by John Rutledge, a Framer of the Constitution of the United States. Young Crowe was raised listening to anecdotes about the great Mr. Rutledge. Mr. Crowe was freed from slavery by the proclamation of Abraham Lincoln in 1863 when he was 64 years old. He served in the reconstruction legislature in South Carolina, and received a law degree from the University of South Carolina.
Otto Shicklegruber was born the son of German immigrants who arrived from Germany in 1793 and had become naturalized US Citizens. Otto’s father died of yellow fever before Otto was born and his mother died in childbirth. Because both of his parents were dead, the newborn Shicklegruber was sent back to Germany to live with grandparents. In 1857 he returned to the United States and established residence in a German speaking community in Wisconsin (Shicklegruber did not speak any English), where he lived as a loan shark.
Questions:
- Which of the two were natural born citizens of the United States on April 15, 1856? (Before the Dred Scott decision)
- Which of the two were natural born citizens of the United States on April 15, 1862? (After Dred Scott, but before the Emancipation Proclamation))
- Which of the two were natural born citizens of the United States on April 15, 1865? (After the Emancipation Proclamation, but before the 14th Amendment
- Which of the two were natural born citizens of the United States on April 15, 1870? (After the 14th Amendment)
- Which of the two were eligible to run against President Grant in 1872? (after Shicklegruber had lived in the US for 14 years)
Question for Mario Apuzzo (5)
(Not authentic image)
I notice that you from time to time cite favorably from the US Supreme Court Decision in Dred Scott v Sandford and you have said that the US Supreme Court Decision in United States v Wong Kim Ark is “bad law”.
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts?
If you chose to respond, could you begin your comments with “Yes.” or “No.” before launching into the explanation?
[Mr. Apuzzo, flinging abuse, declined to answer this question and hereby wins the inaugural Obama Conspiracy Theories Shoe Bang Award.]
Question for Mario Apuzzo (4)
Mr. Apuzzo, commenting here, favorably mentioned James Kettner’s book The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870.
How many times does Kettner mention Emerich de Vattel?
More questions for Mr. Apuzzo (2)
I’m trying go the hang of this Law of Nations thing and what it says (in later English translation) about natural born citizens.
Let me offer this hypothetical situation, suggested by a commenter here.
First, this from the Law of Nations (Book II):
§ 122. Right of carrying off women.
… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force.
Now let us suppose that this situation did occur and a citizen of X should by force carry off a woman of a foreign country, and that he should marry her (her consent given to insure her survival). Would their offspring be natural born citizens?
Also, is this bit from the Law of Nations (Book I) philosophically relevant to your argument of international law controlling citizenship and qualifications of the president of the US?
§ 67. That the right to the succession ought not to depend on the judgment of a foreign power.
…As the nation has established the succession, to the nation alone belongs the power of acknowledging those who are capable of succeeding; and consequently, on its judgment and laws alone must depend the validity of the marriage of its sovereigns and the legitimacy of their birth,
