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.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil No. 09-253 (JBS/JS)
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
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
A notice of appeal has been filed.
Just yesterday Apuzzo was predicting this motion would be denied, and had called me a “loser” for thinking the court would rule exactly as it did.
The opinion was really quite straightforward. Its ll pages dwelt for the most part with a recounting of the plaintiff’s claims and the history of the case.
The opinion was essentially: your claims of harm are generalized or hypothetical and the courts only deal with actual harm and real controversies.
And besides, your remedy is the ballot box, as J. Simandle wrote.
This ought to be emphasized: this is not a matter for the courts.
Two typos on page 3: “his” should be “he” and “Court” should be “Count”
Judge Carter can use this opinion almost line by line…
The key part (IMHO) is from the final footnote:
“To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by
the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3.
The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the
Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,
in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions
evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political
So now Mario heads to the next level on appeal.
Regrettably, the judge did not specifically address the claim that the President is not an NBC because both of his parents were not citizens, rather discussing allegations that he “was not an NBC” for unspecified reasons. He specifically mentions his “place of birth.”
Mark my words, some of the birthers will jump on this and claim that the judge “never addressed” that issue. And, of course, they will claim that the court “sidestepped” the issue on “technical grounds…”
I wonder if the SCOTUS will grant cert for this one? 🙂
Very unlikely that the SCOTUS would grant review, given that it has previously denied review on similar cases, there is no circuit conflict, the dismissal was plainly correct etc.
In any case, the SCOTUS typically does not review district court decisions. Plaintiffs would need to take this on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and get a ruling from that Court. If the Circuit Court affirms — the most likely result given that the district court was clearly correct — Plaintiffs could then petition for certiorari to the SCOTUS.
Apuzzo has a big problem: Berg.
Berg’s case is under submission in the 3d Circuit (soon to be affirmed). Apuzzo has to appeal to the 3d Circuit. By the time Apuzzo briefs this case, Berg’s case will be adversely decided. Apuzzo’s case will get even less attention.
the word “hypothetical” seems to not be in their dictionary.
Nor do they comprehend Land’s use of the words “frivolous” or “delusional”.
Well oour response from good ole Chuck Kerchner…
“Attorney Mario Apuzzo called me a few minutes ago. Judge Simandle has granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. More on this later. Mario will post some initial comments in the blog but he still has to read the Judge’s decision in full. I also need to read the full decision. But we will definitely appeal.
Like in the Battle of Long Island in the Revolutionary War, we have lost a battle. But we have not lost the war. The real decision on this will ultimately be made by the U.S. Supreme Court on the real crux of this matter … which is a legal issue, i.e., the legal question of what is a Natural Born Citizen per Article II of our Constitution per original intent, and is Obama one. I say he is not.”
“Attorney Apuzzo will comment further once he has had a chance to read the full decision.
We have lost at this initial step. But now Attorney Apuzzo can move the case up the ladder in the court system and file an appeal.”
I am curious on how Mario will spin this loss. I am sure he will appeal but overall I am not sure it will be successful…
I read the decision but am not suprised by it. Mario can appeal to the 3rd circuit. However, I would reccommend against an appeal directly to SCOTUS. If Mario goes this route he almost certain to be denied.
Clearly, this decision indicates that our Constitution is indeed dead and that we live in Mob Rule. We have no republic.
The court’s remedy of going the polls is just absurd and contary to our Constitution.
Clearly, the courts are getting these case wrong.
On the contrary, the decision shows that the Constitution is alive and kicking.
But I understand that you have no other choice than to argue the courts must be wrong, even though you present no logic to support such a position.
Clearly you are wrong and the 40+ courts that have consistently ruled on these matters are not ignoring the Constitution, as some want them to do.
John, you continue to live in world far different from the rest of us:
“Clearly, this decision indicates that our Constitution is indeed dead and that we live in Mob Rule. We have no republic.”
Hmmm lets see. We have a legally elected President- elected by a majority of voters, confirmed through all of our constitutional processes. A small mis-guided group of zealots are convinced otherwise and filed dozens of lawsuits trying to convince someone, anyone that they are right, but the courts have found them all to be without standing or merit. These same people can still appeal to their congress and ask them to appeach. And you call this mob rule? Since no reasonable people agree with you, you think the United States is no more democratic than Somalia?
“Clearly, the courts are getting these case wrong”
John, I put your use of the term “clearly” right along with your erroneous use of the term ‘overwhelming evidence”- neither have a basis in reality.
Constitution is indeed dead and that we live in Mob Rule.
Oh, the irony. Are you the very proppenent of the WE THE PEOPLE mob?
Clearly, the courts are getting these case wrong.
Clearly! These courts uniformly dismiss based on standing, and cite the relevant Supreme Court law. Morans.
I wish Mario and Charles luck, but I agree that their chance of succeeding is very slim. Clearly, our Constitution is dead and there is no justice.
However, with all of these cases being dismissed for essentially the same reason does provide insight on how to proceed further.
We now know the road blocks to overcome. Now it just a matter of filing more lawsuits while specifically addressing how these road block can be overcome.
Am I right that the Third Circuit did not even grant Berg oral argument? If so, then Apuzzo’s appeal should be summarily dismissed by the Circuit Court after they have affirmed the dismissal of Berg’s case.
It seems the court dind’t address the Immunity. But this decision is clearly absurd and makes no sense.
However, with all of these cases being dismissed for essentially the same reason does provide insight on how to proceed further.
The court is clearly say you can’t proceed; do not pass go.
Now it just a matter of filing more lawsuits while specifically addressing how these road block can be overcome.
Oh this should be good: How will this standing “roadblock” be “overcome”?
It appears you do not know the words “frivilous” or “delusional” when they are staring right at you. Do you see those words in Judge Simandle’s opinion. Keep dreaming.
It seems the court dind’t address the Immunity.
Didn’t need to; lack of standing kills the case.
But this decision is clearly absurd and makes no sense.
The order concisely cites relevant law. Sounds like user order.
Did Wendy say Judge Simandle used those words? No; she said Judge Land did.
But reading for comprehension was never your strong suit.
Perhaps you may read with more attention to detail what Wendy stated.
Good luck on your appeal. Bummer…
Berg’s case was submitted on the briefs; no oral argument.
Doubtful Apuzzo’s case will be “summarily dismissed,” but it will mostly likely suffer the same fate.
An interesting difference between this case and the CArter case is that this case was decided on the Papers. The Carter case had a hearing with arguments. We can only hope those arguments from Kreep and Orly might improve the chance of success in that case rather than in the Apuzzo case.
You state that the courts have denied the cases on their “merit” and that “no reasonable people agree with you.” Do your statment have any “basis in reality?”
I of course read the transcript on the Oct. 5 hearing in Barnett. I don’t think anything happened in that hearing that will make any difference in the outcome.
Simple! Step One: construct a time machine….
It would seem that the birther lawsuits are back at square Berg. I presume they will keep looking for some unique situation where standing exists. I suppose the political candidate in Barnett is still awaiting decision.
Gee, another birther lawsuit dismissed on standing. Sure didn’t see that coming.
I don’t know. I thought Carter was clearly on Kreep and Orly’s side. But as a judge, if Carter wants to get to merits he must have the law behind him. Orly and Kreep gave him arguments. I don’t think Carter was convinced by Orly but I think Carter may be been swayed by Kreep. We just have to wait and see.
I have a feeling Carter has granted standing to someone in the case. But, Carter is trying to figure out the other issues.
Carter did say that if granted standing, he would have resolve the other issues as well. If he denied standing, he wouldn’t have to resolve. Hence, I would have expected a decision by now if he denied standing.
So it’s still possible the case might be still dismissed, but I think it will dismissed if it is on juristication.
Clearly, out of all the judges, Carter seems to be the only judge who is interested in making this work out.
We can only hope and pray what he does.
Clearly, out of all the judges, Carter seems to be the only judge who is interested in making this work out.
Carter is not “interested in making this work out.” Carter will apply the law, just like every other judge has.
On last night’s Land of the Obots broadcast, at around 70 minute mark, your “analysis” of Wong Kim Ark is discussed.
The standing issue makes no sense. Everyone affected by Obama has standing. Why? Because Obama is ineligible and shouldn’t be allowed to do but is.
The same situation could be allowed in a school. Suppose the principal institutes policy changes. Can students claim injury on the part of principal because those policies have negative effects. No. The principal can legally pass those policies and the students can’t claim injury on the part of the principal.
No suppose, a student is allowed to make the same policy changes but isn’t suppose to be making them but is. Are the students injured. Yes. The student are being injured because the student can’t make the policy changes but is allowed to do so anyway. Therefore, any affect whether positive or negative is injuring the students.
I would submit the same example applies to Obama.
Apuzzo’s announcement on the decision.
All of this “what we do next” nonsense can be summed up using the South Park Underpants Gnomes episode as a model:
Everyone affected by Obama has standing.
And that’s why the case was a loser from the outset. If everyone is “affected” there is no particularized injury, which is what standing requires.
you can submit the same example applies to Obama, but you’d be wrong.
The standing issue makes perfect sense. The Constitution requires Federal Courts only hear real cases between real parties. That means individualized and particularized harm. There is no such thing as a generalized harm. That’s black letter law.
That would be a big problem for Apuzzo, because he neglected to serve his pleadings on me and a few hundred million other parties that, according to your rule, have standing in his suit.
It’s depressing, but the fight against standing has been a battle of invention of courts and not the constitution. No where in the constiution is Standing mentioned. The court derived and invented Article III Standing. Its now the barrier that courts have created that we must fight. Over the years, the courts have developed ways of restricting the rights of the American People. Article III Standing has been one of them.
Prior to 1923, it would have been easy to get by Standing and get the usurper out of office.
“The doctrine of standing is generally regarded as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.”
Again, it shows that our Constitution has died. The federal courts are subversives to the Constituion.
I reading the decision, it is blatantly clear that case when in one judge’s ear and out the other. Mario raises numerous legal issues and gave an expansive argument for standing. The court’s decision is very poorly written and it’s clear the court simply didn’t consider and research the merits of Mario’s arguments. Once again, another corrupt Federal Judge let’s us done.
When need to promote Judge Roger Moore to be a Federal Judge.
Standing is derived from Article III, and thus this is a battle of the constitution.
You know what is deliciously ironic? The definition of standing has been narrowed over the years by conservatives.
You are more than welcome to run in a circle, with some false insult as to who said what.
Your time would be better served, if you used Black’s law dictionary to figure out the LEGAL DEFINITION, and perhaps how Rule 11 Sanctions are arrived at.
Or.. if 30+ cases have ALREADY BEEN THROWN OUT OF VARIOUS COURTS.. one might think that a competent attorney would study the reasoning and precedent.
A publicity stunt and hoax from internet sources does not qualify as a “Constitutional crisis” in a court of REAL LAW. And Vattel did not write either the Constitution, or current laws relating to citizenship, anymore than Mozart is the author of current traffic laws.
The federal courts are subversives to the Constituion.
By interpreting the Constitution, as required to do so under the Constitution, the courts are subversives?
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
I reading the decision, it is blatantly clear that case when in one judge’s ear and out the other.
Quite the opposite; the judge realized there was no standing, and tossed it.
Mario raises numerous legal issues and gave an expansive argument for standing.
Actually, Apuzzo’s brief was incredibly bad in this regard. I was stunned by the lack of attention he gave to the relevant cases.
The court’s decision is very poorly written and it’s clear the court simply didn’t consider and research the merits of Mario’s arguments.
No standing; game over.
Once again, another corrupt Federal Judge let’s us done.
Funny how every federal judge that has ruled upon a birther case has tossed it. Do you think they got on the Secret Conspiracy Hotline and made a master plan?
When need to promote Judge Roger Moore to be a Federal Judge.
Roy Moore was thrown off the Alabama Supreme Court for refusing to obey a federal court order.
Roger Moore is an actor, sometimes considered to be the worst Bond. (Oh yes I did!)
Just because it has a recent history in case law, does not mean it’s not rooted in the Constitution. An individual’s right to bear arms is only a year old, and has never been recognized before Heller. So did the court make that one up too? The constitution requires that courts resolve cases and controversies. If there is no case or controversy the court does not have power to hear the case. Thus we have the modern test of individualized harm, causality, and redressability.
Besides, even if you could find standing, you still would get shot down by the political question doctrine…oh, and then the total lack of facts supporting the claims, and being dead wrong on the law. All the defendants would need to do is file a motion for summary judgment and attach the very same document it produced at factcheck and the case would be shot down on summary judgment.
The lament of everyone who loses in court.
Funny how every birther out there is suddenly a Constitutional law scholar. With all of these people who purportedly have JDs (otherwise how could they have the competence to claim a judge’s opinion is wrong, or poorly written, or ignored someone “strong arugments?) I’m amazed that their ring leader is a correspondence school hack, who can’t even get simple procedural issues like service, and signing her documents.
Seriously? Compared to Dalton?
Haha, I was just going to ask – is there now some new birther conspiracy somehow involving Bond? And when did he become a judge? 😛 By the way, Sean Connery will always be THE Bond for me.
numerous legal arguments ignore the facts.
the State of Hawaii knows who the hell was born there.
The rest of the sane world is aware that a natural born citizen is one who is a CITIZEN FROM BIRTH, and not one who applies to become a citizen. Anchor babies, like it or not, are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
There is no “legal argument”.
Man, talk about in one ear and out the other.
I can’t wait to hear Charles and Mario being interviewed. I am sure they won’t be happy. Charles warned that our Constitution is dead. Apparently, he is right.
Dalton gets a pass for his courageous portrayal of Prince Barin in Flash Gordon.
you need to stop being so proud of your ignorance, your hate for Obama will eventually damage your brain.
Occam’s Razor: Or, Charles and Apuzzo were wrong.
The preeminent Lujan case, which is cited many times by Simandle as part of his “narrow” view of standing, was authored by Scalia and lauded by the right, and denied standing to those “environmental hippies”. Ironic indeed that some on the right are now looking for a broader reading of standing.
You thought Carter was on their side??
Just a TINY EXPLANATION OF HOW COURTS WORK…
Both sides get to speak. You know, the right to respond?
The Judge rules ON THE LAW. Not on what they want. Basic law, 101.
Just like Orly didn’t think she was in any ethical violation when she shoved papers at Justice Roberts (attempt at illegal exparte communication). She crowed about it, when in fact, it did nothing but illustrate her total stupidity.
You thought he was on her side..because that is what she told you to think.
I pray that he follows the law, and sanctions Orly for the incredible and incomprehensible efforts to invade the private lives of persons who have NO RELEVANCE to this case.
I have yet to see one rule of Professional ethics that this bat crazy woman has NOT broken.
Or..did you not realize that LAWYERS cannot break the law, to stalk/ harass other persons?
On that much, we agree. Schadenfreude is not the noblest of human qualities, but no one need apologize for celebrating the defeat those so disgusting as the lead plaintiff in this case.
Don’t let Apuzzo’s lawyerly tone fool you. The plaintiff, Charles Kerchner, holds that President Obama is an enemy of the United States. He says that Obama deliberately set out to destroy the Constitution. Kerchner wants to see a “perp walk”; he wants President Obama escorted out of the White House in handcuffs.
Standing is the legal principle which prevented citizens from pursuing lawsuits which argued that the Vietnam War was unconstitutional. I don’t recall that conservatives had a problem with the principle of standing at that time.
More recently, the 1982 case Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United For Separation of Church and State involved the Department of Health, Education and Welfare donating a piece of Federal property valued in excess of $500,000 to a religious organization. Although this action was felt to be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans United had no standing to bring the lawsuit, the Constitutional question notwithstanding. They were no more injured by the alleged unconstitutional conveyance of property than any other citizens, so their lawsuit was dismissed. Conservatives didn’t bellyache over that decision, either.
“Damn…that sob won the election even when Palin called him names” Now what?
Well..let’s impeach the sob. Huh? Whadda ya mean, Congress has that job and he ain’t broken any law.
I GOT IT! We will REWRITE what the definition of natural born citizen is, and keep harassing him in court until he gives up and runs away.
Constitution is very much alive and well, hate to burst your bubble.
“How do these courts get a “political question” out of a plainly articulated Constitutional question? No one is questioning the man’s foreign or domestic policies – just his Constitutional right to even legally make policy – and THIS by his own admittance of ineligible British citizenship.”
I started to laugh but actually it’s pretty sad that Kris doesn’t even understand the term “political question”.
John, if our Constitution was really dead, you wouldn’t be able to be filing these law suits at all. If our Constitution was really dead, Congress wouldn’t have ability to decide whether to impeach. If our Constitution was really dead our President wouldn’t have been elected by the majority of voters, and we would still have Bush 2 in the office.
You want to see what our country would be like if we had no Constitution or rule of law? Look to Somalia. We are no Somalia.
You are part of a small, very small, group of disgruntled or deluded people, who have decided that their interpretation of the Constitution is different than everyone elses.
Oh and John- you clearly don’t know what clearly means. If 999 out of 1000 people disagree with your conclusion, your conclusion is not clearly the correct answer. Its possible it is- but it certainly is not clear that it is.
Eventually damage his brain?? Too late for that.
What happened to Mario? Why is he wasting his time here and not working on the promised appeal? Petty and vicious man, isn’t he?
He has 60 days to file an appeal.
Plenty of time to tend to the PR machine.
Needs to be framed.
Yes, your interpretation of the Constitution is dead while the real document stands strongly.
Real bummer dude..
Now y’all be sweet. It’s not nice to kick a man when he’s down.
I’ll wait for him to stand before I remind him that he called me a loser.
Well, Apuzzo is a hack trying to play in a league nine levels too high, but he is a professional lawyer. There’s no hurry in filing the appeal — he has 60 days — and at this point he probably realizes the legal case is futile, so the best he can do to advance his client’s interests is to blog about how the Court was wrong.
Apuzzo took the case voluntarily and free of charge, so he has no excuse for spreading the hateful lies. Still, poor an excuse for a lawyer as Apuzzo is, the real “petty and vicious man” is Apuzzo’s lead client, Charles Kerchner.
You really have to wonder if he really believes his own B.S. I mean with Orly you can never be sure what is going on in that peroxide fried brain…but seriously, with the exception of those who got their JDs from a correspondence school, can anyone that made it through law school really believe (1) that they could get standing on any of these cases, or (2) that their definitions of “natural born citizen” would be adopted by any court in the US?
That’s why God created the Wikipedia.
I think the lesson here is that one should be well informed and involved in the political process.
Hey, who remembers Barry Nelson as James Bond in the TV version of Casino Royale? (That was back before color was invented.)
Way to go Bob!!
Bob [regarding “standing”]: Actually, Apuzzo’s brief was incredibly bad in this regard. I was stunned by the lack of attention he gave to the relevant cases.
These lawsuits are about publicity, not winning. Therefore, the issue of standing is irrelevant. The doubts have to be raised, the courts used to legitimize the claim, and the attorneys and defendants portrayed as tragic heroes. The last thing a thoughtful birther lawyer wants is for the claims in the case to be examined (and ruled ridiculous) by a court.
Coming here and trying to spar with Wendy is PR? His PR is equal to his legal prowess.
She was citing Land, not Simandle.
Maybe after you finish carefully reading Kim Wong Ark v US, you can reread what Judge Land said
I wasn’t speaking literally. Perhaps since I am a new poster I should have contained the snark. But, really.
To find lack of standing, the courts have to presume merit. They have to pretend, for the sake of argument, that all your allegations are 100% true.
You still don’t have standing!
awwww, thanks. It is a backhanded compliment if the illustrious Mr. Arpuzzo thinks my comment is worthy of dispute. I must be doing something right. Aside from spelling “frivolous” correctly.
Tex can appreciate Texas hospitality, which is what you do when a varmint/ outlaw shows up at the door.
First, you feed him. THEN you shoot his rear. And then be sure to tell him “y’all come back, hear?”
I listened to Mario and Kerchner the other nite on Blogtalk radio. What an eye opening nite that was. Kerchner lead Mario around like a showcase pony. I have never seen a lawyer-client relationship where each would give counter contradicting statement. You could hear Mario wanting stifle Kerchner mouth.
Oh Doc you forgot his middle name.
Mountain Publius Goat AKA mtngoat61
Mario and M Publius Goat will be on MommaE Blogtalk tonite to discuss there case.
In the Where Are They Now file: an update on Scott Easterling.
Dalton was the worst Bond…He was not even believable…Sean Connery was the best…Roger Moore had the misfortune to be in some of the most badly written Bond movies…I mean if you look back at some of the worst Bond movies (villians/plot) “Live and Let Die”, “A View to a Kill”, and “Octupussy”, Moore was in all of them…By the way second best was Pierce Brosnan…
Sorry – while he was never as good as Sean Connery in the role, Roger Moore gets a pass from me for pure sex appeal in his early Bond movies! Yummm!
I am disappointed by decision but not suprised by it. If one reads the decision it is truly a frightening, disturbing, and troubling decision that borders on complete utter nonstop insanity. I will explain why:
The Judge makes a Key Point the everyone must understand: “Where, as here, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is facial, the Court must, for the
purposes of this motion, take all the allegations in the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs.”
If means for purposes of the case the court is assumming Obama is inelgible and Congress completely failed in its duty and assumes all other allegations to be true.
For the court to state they have no juristication, that citizens have no power to affect an ineligible POTUS and that Congress is the only one that can act, and if they won’t do it your only remedy is to go to polls….
This reasoning is complete UTTER NONSENSE.
It implies that we live a Mob Rule democracy and that citizens have no rights under the constitution to do anything.
The constitution is truly dead!
Kevin Bell wrote:
Well, Apuzzo took the case, so that’s on him, but once he did so he’s obligated to advance his client’s position to the best of his ability within the law. His client Kerchner is a disgusting hate-monger who wants to see President Obama, and nearly all members of Congress, and most of us here, handcuffed and lead away to prison. Apuzzo is obligated to represent his client, so he cannot directly repudiate Kerchner, but as an attorney and officer of the court Apuzzo cannot go as far to the kook fringe.
Apuzzo’s complaint was a long-winded joke. As our host Dr. C documented, it was hundreds of rambling paragraphs, several of which said that most of the previous rambling paragraphs were re-asserted as if repeated. Apuzzo did not even know that he was only allowed to amend his pleading once, absent specific leave from the court. On an Internet radio show he said that the one-amendment limit was a local rule, when in fact is is Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 15(a)(1). Mario Apuzzo is widely regarded as the finest lawyer in all of birfistan.
So I’m not exactly disagreeing with you, Mr. Bell. I’m just saying there is more to the story. I think our host Dr. C. does a fine job and a great service to America, but even so, this site treats the plaintiffs in this case (and others) far more charitably than they deserve.
Why don’t you petition John McCain to get back in there and declare he was rob? Surely McCain has standing?
John, You seriously losing it. Using standard any future President would not only have to pass electoral system they would then have to go though a gauntlet of lawsuits based on any delusional claim. At that point the Constitution would truly be dead.
For the court to state they have no juristication, that citizens have no power to affect an ineligible POTUS and that Congress is the only one that can act, and if they won’t do it your only remedy is to go to polls….
Maybe Apuzzo should found a client that had standing, like perhaps Keyes.
It implies that we live a Mob Rule democracy and that citizens have no rights under the constitution to do anything.
Mob rule is bitter losers trying to change the results of an election long after it was certified.
Oh I agree with you on the relationship between a Lawyer and his Client. I just find it unusual that a Lawyer would allow his client to bark off Right wing fringe talking points during a interview as well as contradict his lawyer while his lawyer is making a point.
My point of view is the public talk to my lawyer. In private I talk to the lawyer.
uh… it is exactly what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS. Congress has authority to impeach.
Congress also has intelligence to know that the birth record from Hawaii is completely legit. Congress failed nothing.
Once again, you have things backwards. This country is established with both judicial and legislative branches, each with distinct authority and jobs. CONGRESS IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE (as is the President).
For persons with NO AUTHORITY (let’s not talk about reason) to DEMAND the President step down.. when it is clear he was legally elected…
YOU BIRTHERS ARE THE MOB RULE. YOU want to defy what is written in the Constitution as to who has authority. YOU want to defy the legality of the State of Hawaii, who has TOLD YOU..the certificate and citizenship is REAL.
And, at least some Birthers… have MADE THREATS TO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, if the Judge does not rule in their (illegal) favor.
You want to talk about Mob rule.. I am sure you have a mirror, somewhere in your house.
Judge Simandle’s decision was a frivilous decision. As much as Land’s claim that Orly’s case was frivilous, the decision by Judge Simandle was frivilous.
John, would you care to explain why you found Judge Simandle’s decision “frivolous”, or was your comment frivolous?
john: Here’s a little friendly advice. When many people are laughing at you, you might want to stop what you’re doing, think about how a responsible person would behave, and act accordingly.
It was frivilous because it is complete total untter nonsense. Remember, in weighing standing, Judge Simandle assumed that Obama is indeed a sitting ineligible POTUS, that Congress failed to do its duty and that all other allegations that Mario cited were true.
According the Judge Simandle – The courts have no power to intervene, that citizens have no rights under the constitution and that only congress can effect a sitting POTUS. If Congress fails to act, nothing can compel them act and citizens only redress are voting in the polls.
This reasoning is complete utter nonsense and subversive to Constitution.
It entails a Mob Democracy, and destroys our constutional republic as we know it.
It also destroys the notion that constitution is soveriegn and WE the People Govern it.
Like I said, Complete and utter nonsense.
Judge Simandle’s decision is frivilous.
Charles Kerchner was 100% correct on every point.
Alan Keyes doesn’t have standing either.
John seems to be the only person in the United States that knows less about the Constitution and the legal system than Orly Taitz.
Orly has appealed the sanctions against her. It’s a very entertaining read to say the least!
John, I suppose there is a reason in there somewhere, but I would have expected you to show a little more than unsupported assertions. You contradict yourself, when you say: “It also destroys the notion that constitution is soveriegn [sic] and WE the People Govern it.”
What you seem to suggest is that the people govern through the courts and not through their elected representatives. The power of the courts is limited by the Constitution, so if as you say, the Constitution is sovereign, then the Judge Simandle did exactly what the Constitution requires by dismissing the case. If you assert that “WE the People” somehow should have their will exercised, then I would point out that the majority of WE the People got the candidate WE wanted elected in the last election and YOU are not “WE the People”; you are “WE the Losers”. The last time I read the Constitution, I did not see anything abut the lunatics running the asylum.
Whoa…I just noticed that on page 6 she actually put two living people’s full social security numbers and at least one of their addresses. Isn’t this an extreme case of invasion of privacy? Can she be arrested or at least sued by the owners of the SSNs?
Isn’t she sanctioned for her behavior? What does this appeal have to do with that?
You can get a plug in for Firefox that will check your spelling. Then, you might realize that it’s frivolous, not “frivilous.”
And, like in the Princess Bride, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Frivolous means having no basis in law. The judge cited law. In fact, if you read the cases he cited, they say exactly what the judge said they said. In fact, if you pick up a book on federal courts or Constitutional Law, you’ll find that the law is exactly what the judge said it was.
Today I spent 10 hours working on a brief to disqualify an expert in a death case – a retrial – where the defendant had been tagged with a $1.5 million judgment.
What did Kerchner lose when Obama was elected? Who was killed in his family by Obama’s election?
Standing really is there to protect against people with generalized, abstract claims like Kerchner. It allows people with real injuries to access the courts.
You know, I think the Iraq war was unconstitutional, but I couldn’t convince Congress to act. Should I have the right to sue over that? I think it’s unconstitutional to require me to pay for anything that benefits your state, but I can’t convince Congress to act. Can I sue over that? I’m pretty sure that Alaska isn’t really a state, so Palin can’t be President because she hasn’t been living for 14 years within the United States. Can I sue?
No, it affirms that. The way that you “Govern” it is to convince 60 million people that you’re right. Or, convince the Electoral College. Or, convince Congress. Or vote out Congress and convince the next one.
Not everything can be addressed with a court case.
I’ve never been a supporter of tort reform or its proponents, but the birthers are starting to convince me that we’re a too litigious a society.
That’s actually not her appeal, which is forthcoming, it’s a warning to the court and the other side that she will appeal.
She’s appealing the sanctions.
Ah, I see. Well, it’s still an entertaining read.
No, You like Kerchner needs to take your meds.
The Notice of Appeal is only a tiny appetizer for the complete descent into madness that her brief will be.
And lest we forget we have disproved that Vattel actually said what they think he said.
Considering that you very likely did NOTHING during the last 8 years to defend the Constitution from the repeated assaults of the Bush Administration, your protests are nothing but a transparent lie to hide your bigotry.
If it was up to me, Kerchner would be joining Jose Padilla. Apuzzo too.
Since you were foolish enough to pass the so-called Patriot Act, why don’t you use it on your homegrown traitors.
I forgot, they’re white.
I will now think of Mario like the rodeo clown of attorneys.
Nah, Mario is 100% meretricious. Love that term.
I find people like John just as scary as the Talibans. I hope your FBI has the most vocal of them under constant surveillance.
Superb post. Ought to be framed.
Their constant and pathological harping about defending the Constitution, when they stood idly by while Ms Constitution was being gang-raped by the Bush Mob, really make me angry.
Poor Mario and Kerchner were complaining on Momma-E how unfair the decision was and how it opened the Constitution to mob rule. Ironically they fail to realize that it is them who are trying to open up the Constitution to mob rule.
A good whining, poor Mario is not taking things too well. Kerchner is just upset that the usurper is still in power…
Mario claims that the court took the weakest argument, yet it looked at standing. That the ruling failed to look at the ‘liberty’ argument is according to Mario important. But the liberty argument is hardly convincing for standing. Then again, Mario is not a Constitutional Lawyer as far as I know.
Totally ignored the real issue… If that was the real issue why then the rest of the nonsense that was filed, including the 2nd amended complaint?
The Court clearly observes that since the Constitution clearly spells out who qualifies the President then the Court lacks an ability to intervene.
Mario observes that it’s textually stated in the Constitution (natural born citizen as part of eligibility), yet fails to extend the logic to the 20th amendment.
According to Mario, in Lujan “it does not matter if others are injured, as long as the plaintiffs are injured”.
Which makes me wonder if Mario has even read Lujan which makes quite the opposite argument.
Then again, Mario takes Justice Gray’s observations about who is a natural born citizen as evidence of the contrary.
Oh dear, Kerchner just stated that the State of Hawaii is going to hide behind the President’s executive order.
Is Kerchner really that poorly informed as to the relevance of this order or the Hawaiian privacy rights?
Poor Mario, it’s hard to soar like an eagle when you are flying with dodos
and once again, these repeated losses further demonstrate that if one tried to compile a dictionary of birfistanese, the thing would have just two obscenely lengthy entries … for their seemingly infinite ways of saying “waaaah!!!” and “lalalalala icanthearyou!!!”
It is against court ECF rules for her to file without redacting SSN’s AND birth dates. California bar rules (and maybe law) prohibits publication of SSN’s. BUT as we know, there has to be actual damages (not theoretical ones) to the holder of the SSN because of its publication in order to sue. I’m not sure how that would be argued.
I’m not a lawyer, but I am a private investigator, doing mostly trial preparation work for defense attorneys in civil cases, and I work with Social Security Numbers all the time. I’m not sure that any laws (as opposed to court rules) are broken by publishing the Social Security Numbers, but Orly and her investigators may very well have run afoul of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”) by searching for the SSNs in the first place.
My understanding is that these are the permissible uses for obtaining SSNs and associated data:
For use by a person holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer.
For use in complying with federal, state, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements.
For use for any of the following purposes as necessary to effect, administer or enforce a consumer insurance transaction: account administration, reporting, investigating, preventing fraud or material misrepresentation, processing insurance claims, or as otherwise required or specifically permitted under federal or state law.
For use as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, including location for collection of a delinquent account.
For use in complying with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation, subpoena, or summons by federal, state, or local authorities.
For use to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability.
For use by any Law Enforcement Agency, or any officer, employee, or agent of such agency in carrying out its official duties.
For any other use permitted or otherwise not restricted by law and which may reasonably be expected to be part of the normal course and scope of your business or profession or for use for any non-business client.
Some of the above permissible uses are sufficiently vague that Orly might be able to successfully argue that she had a right to look up Obama’s SSN, since he is a party to her lawsuits, although that may be a stretch. However, generally speaking she has no right to investigate the SSNs of people who are not parties to or witnesses in her lawsuit, and certainly no right to make the names and SSNs of those people public.
However, I suspect that you are correct that the people whose SSNs have been compromised likely have no legal recourse themselves unless and until they can show actual damages.
I’d like to hear an attorney chime in on this.
John, you obviously don’t understand how these things work or you wouldn’t be placing emphasis on the fact that Judge Simandle’s order states that, for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss, the Court took all of the allegations to be true. This doesn’t mean that Judge Simandle believes that the allegations are true. It simply means that any opinion which he may have formed about the truthfulness of the allegations was not a factor in his decision.
Judge Simandle was simply following the law, both in that regard and in his decision to dismiss the lawsuit. The irony here is that if Judge Simandle had ignored existing law and allowed the lawsuit to proceed, he would have been acting like an activist judge. And we don’t want activist judges, do we?
I think John might be saying that if one assumes that the allegations are true, then the consequences are so monumental that they override any other consideration (like standing). Or put another way, “if Obama is not eligible, HOW CAN YOU JUST SIT THERE AND DO NOTHING?”
So in order to protect the Constitution, one must ignore the Constitution?
How exactly does that work?
JoZeppy: How exactly does that work?
You make it up as you go along.
Not to insult dodo’s but dictionaries suggest it may have additional informal meanings. I personal believe 1 and 2 are relevant here. 3 is just too ad hominem.
“Mario Borthers”, a gift that keeps on giving.
Exquisitely apropos since Judge Simandle has dismantled most of the legal arguments which Orly makes in the Barnett case.
NBC, I like your new theme.
not to insult poor John…
5 minutes of actual research would explain that birth certs are protected by law, in ALL STATES.
Of course, that would blow fabrication #794..that “OMG, OBAMA SEALED ALL HIS RECORDS”.
The law was around before Obama. You read some comic book (ie worldnetdaily), and use them for a legal education, then you have no one to blame but yourself.
aside from the specifics on legally posting/ publishing someone’s private information… I come back again to Rules of Professional conduct as an attorney (Taitz, not myself). Those rules prohibit actions that are for no other cause than to harass any third party.
Should one of the birther nuts decide to stalk, harass or otherwise get in the faces of some RELATIVE (I MEAN.. NOT EVEN THE CLERK HIMSELF), THEN she has caused “harm”.
Certain things are public record. Other things are not public record nor should they be.
the question is the MOTIVATION, and how it relates to attempts to fabricate any excuse, or claims that the case in OC is corrupted.
Needs to be framed.
Framed? I’m putting it in needlepoint and hanging it in my bathroom.
New article from the New Jersey Law Journal on case:
Mario has filed his Notice of Appeal.
You’ve got the wrong product. Try Mario Nobama.
On the new theme, make sure to tell the public that “Mario Nobama” is a registered trademark of Mario Apuzzo, Attorney at Law
Now see, THAT’s what a notice of appeal is supposed to look like, not that rambling thing Taitz filed in Rhodes.
The only registered trademark close to this is “NOBAMA”, an abandoned mark registered by a Mr. Wray.
By the way, I have registered two trademarks (for a company I worked for), and did all the work myself.
Oh no, I believe I have the right product. It’s one that keeps on giving, now undermining Orly Taitz’s efforts in the Santa Ana courts. How can we thank you Mario? Your efforts to support the President are admirable 🙂
And unlike Mario’s second amended complaint submission, it is also short and to the point. How did the defendants describe the filing? Something about filing gold and mud? Ah yes
What an appropriate description indeed.
and the comedy just keeps coming. from kerchner’s press release:
with so much at stake, perhaps kerchner should send his statement to judge carter, just to be make sure the judge recognizes the blinding brilliance of their case.
Can Carter fine someone for excessive run on sentences?
Obama and Congress described the Kerchner Complaint/Petition as “Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud.”
But “none are so blind as those who do not wish to see.”
Indeed, it’s only a bucket of mud in the eyes of those who shamefully refuse to see what is really there. But even with all the Obama-created mud, the gold is still there.
Do you not just love how Judge Carter made it such a big part of his decision that Orly/Kreep filed after Obama was sworn in as President. I am curious as to what could be the ramifications for Obama in a case that was filed before he was sworn in? Oh, I almost forgot that the Kerchner case is just one of those cases.
That means that if Kerchner was a candidate for President, he might have had standing.
Oh yeah, you almost forgot, you were representing the type of plaintiff that Judge Carter specifically ruled doesn’t have standing.
I’d note that despite Carter’s ability to draw a bright line as of the time of filing, due to Orly’s stupidity, an action brought prior to January 20th would be mooted out if the plaintiff failed to secure an injunction by noon.
Its kind of a cardinal rule for injunctive relief. You can’t undo what’s already happened.
My plaintiffs do not need to be candidates to get standing. They have constituional rights that were violated that were not involved in Judge Carter’s case.
You are wrong about mooting out. The time of filing is critical for establishing standing. Obama was then only a private person. In Kerchner, we do not need Congress to impeach a private person.
Last time I checked, Kerchner had been dismissed because….. your client lacks standing: “Plaintiffs’ assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, becausePlaintiffs cannot establish an “injury in fact” as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court.”
I’d also strongly suggest that you read the footnote on the last page:
“The Constitution commits the selection of the Presidentto the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures tobe followed by the Electors in voting and the President of theSenate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further,the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process tobe followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,in which case the Vice President elect shall act as Presidentuntil a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.”
To put that in terms simple enough for you to understand — it means whatever time you had ran out on January 8th.
Well you be sure to write that up carefully for the appeals court, as the district court didn’t get it. Let me suggest an attempt to submit something more concise and not make the court fish for… well you know.
There was the California case, Keyes v. Bowen filed before Obama was sworn in. It was dismissed, although I think there is still an appeal in state court. Judge Carter was plainly concerned with the plight of third-party candidates, but I think he would have still found that the complaint was not justiciable after the electoral college voted and that it involved a political question at that point.
It seems that the most likely way to achieve standing is to have a candidate challenge eligibility in one or more state courts before the primaries. Your case is going nowhere.
As I recall, Keyes v. Bowen was dismissed on grounds of mootness, as it was not heard until sometime in February or March.
Under state law, Keyes likely would have had standing had he commenced his action BEFORE the election. He would have lost the case on the merits — but he would probably have had standing as an opposing candidate on the ballot. He might also have had standing after the election, in whatever time frame exists under state law for challenging election results.
But once the electoral college met in California the action was moot- simply because at that point the matter was no longer in the hands of the California Secretary of State.
Here it is:
Oops – here’s the link to the opinion in Keyes v. Bowen that I quoted from above:
Notice that Mario avoids mentioning Carter’s volunteered assertion during oral arguments, that Congress has (routinely) changed the Constitutional interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen” by passing laws that statutorily redefine what Mario claims are the child’s NBC-producing status requirements for the parents?
Did Obama force you to argue that travel to Pakistan was barred to US citizens and therefore, Obama had to be traveling on a foreign passport?
That’s mud, although mud might be too polite a word for it. Demonstrably untrue, and with only a few minutes of research.
Fool’s gold that is…
Indeed, but facts are perhaps not as relevant as rumor. After all, something may stick and once ‘we get discovery’ we can look for the facts…
Funny how some appear to believe that the conclusion precedes the argument and facts.
Conclusion: Obama is illegitimate
Since you mentioned Obama’s travel to Pakistan, Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 after visiting his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. In his April 6, 2008 speech in San Francisco, Obama said: “I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college — I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.” I guess we can surmise from his having such in depth knowledge about the difference between Sunni and Shia (an understanding that according to him not even Hillary Clinton or McCain had) that he spent a lot of his time while in Pakistan studying the subject.
In 1981, Pakistan was on the State Department list for “travel advisory.” \\Secretary\legalfiles\Political\Obama\Pakistan\Travel Advisory Sheets Archive.mht; http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf. “The advisory is vital to ensure travelers are well-prepared,” insist the State Department travel advisory. ” “We provide advice to citizens so they will be well-prepared,” added the State Department advisory. http://www.eturbonews.com/7010/us-state-department-travel-advisory-london-dangerous-place-travel. “Travel warnings, which the State Department has been making public to American travelers since 1978 and which cover everything from civil unrest to health concerns, originate with the U.S. embassy or consulates of a specific country. Then the Bureau of Consular Affairs—and, occasionally, other agencies—weighs in, with the final decision coming from the office of the Undersecretary of State. The State Department subsequently revisits the warnings, usually every six months.” http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/state-department-travel-warnings-explained/1. That the State Department did not technically put a “ban” on travel to Pakistan does not mean that it was not recommended for Americans to go there in 1981.
When Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, the country was going through a civil war and was under martial law. It was experiencing serious social, political, and religious upheaval. A few years earlier, General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq had overthrown the government of Bhutto by way of coup. Zia-ul-Haq even created a separate electoral system for non-Muslims. Courts were created to make sure the country’s laws were not repugnant to Islam. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan and the Afghan Mujahedeen operated in Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. Government-issued visas to foreign visitors were good only for 30 days. The Government had in place Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, which allowed the Government to prevent any person who was in Pakistan from leaving the country even though they had valid travel documents without, in the name of “public interest,” even giving a reason for the action. Any person violating that ordinance faced 5 years of imprisonment. Because of these conditions, travel by an American using an U.S. passport was very risky to say the least. Also, there is currently a U.S. State Department travel warning for Americans wanting to travel to Pakistan. “The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against non-essential travel to Pakistan in light of the threat of terrorist activity. This replaces the Travel Warning dated February 25, 2009, updates information on security incidents and reminds U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns in Pakistan.” http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_930.html. Hence, while there might not have been a de jure “ban” on travel by Americans to Pakistan in 1981, there surely was a de facto one.
Furthermore, if there was no problem traveling to Pakistan in 1981 as you suggest, tell me the following:
1. How many Americans with U.S. passports went there in 1981.
2. What function (job category) did these Americans have before entering the country.
3. What was the purpose of their trip there.
4. How long did they stay there.
5. How many Americans were refused visas to enter the country.
6. Why were they refused those visas.
7. What passport did Obama use to travel into Pakistan.
8. How did the young Obama finance his trip to Indonesia, India, and Pakistan.
9. Why has Obama since mentioning his Pakistani trip just once never speak about it again even though there have been so many public inquiries about it.
10. Why did the Obama campaign not respond to an invitation to comment on some of the speculation surrounding the visit to Pakistan or to provide further details about the trip.
11. Was Obama one of the many included in the stream of Afro-Americans who–in the words of veteran security analyst, Bahukutumbi Raman, a former Indian counterterrorism chief–visited Pakistan to feel the greatness of the Afghani jihad against communism and their fascination for Abdullah Azzam.
12. For how long did Obama stay in Pakistan.
13. With whom did Obama visit while he was in Pakistan. If he visited politicians while there, how was he able to make such political connections.
14. Why did Obama not mention his Pakistani trip and the in-depth religious knowledge that he gained from it in his autobiographies.
So as you see, playing word games–“travel ban” vs. “travel advisory” really does not get you very far when we consider the realty that existed in Pakistan in 1981 and all the unanswered questions that Obama’s visit there raises.
You were aptly flattened by the government’s stinging description of the discovery fishing expedition you covet, to resuscitate your hapless burden-of-proof-shifting quest for infamy; now you are consoling yourself by fishing for redemption in a sophomoric extended metaphor.
After seeing Greg dismantle every argument you have made here, and watching you become tongue-tied when asked why no state ever specified what exactly would prove Article 2 Natural Born Citizen compliance for a registering POTUS candidate, it is becoming obvious that as an attorney, you are nevertheless fit to lick Orly Taitz’s ethical hip boots.
Ok, I concede, Mario, that you can come up with suspicious sounding questions to ask about a perfectly normal activity. You’re good at sowing doubt with an intellectually challenged jury. Mario’s list has been posted here before and answered by SFJeff http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/check-the-answer-book/comment-page-4/#comment-24195).
Let me pick one for comment:
This combines a smear with willful ignorance.
We know from published accounts that Obama visited with the family of a college friend from Pakistan. Is there any reason to think that Obama visited “politicians”? There’s nothing published to suggest such a thing happened, therefore, Apuzzo (or Kerchner) fantasized it. Now if the visits with politicians are non-existent, why would one raise the question of how Obama made (non-existent) connections?
Apuzzo describes: all the unanswered questions that Obama’s visit there raises
The fact of the matter that Apuzzo’s questions tell us about Apuzzo’s imagination, and his ability to smear mud. My high school English teacher told me such writing was morally wrong.
As we know, Obama and Congress described the Kerchner Complaint/Petition as “Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud.”
A commentator called William posted on my blog the following:
“That is an excellent analysis by Congress and Obama “Fishing for Gold Coins in a bucket of Mud”. This is exactly where you find gold! In fact, one of the largest find of Gold Coins came just a few months ago in England from a farmer’s field of mud.”
Fields of mud are not the same thing as buckets of mud. And complaints filed in Federal Courts are directed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be neither fields, nor buckets of mud.
FRCP 8(a)(2) states that pleadings should contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Judges aren’t panning for gold, you, as the lawyer, are supposed to do the panning before you file suit, and present the nuggets of gold to the judge:
Can you not play by the rules, Mario? Do you not know them?
Oh, and it was the DOJ, not “Obama and Congress” that described the petition as mud.
Mario, within a few weeks of Obama’s travel to Pakistan, the New York Times wrote a travel article about going to Pakistan.
There was neither a de jure, nor a de facto ban.
The fact that the State Department gave advice on how to travel to Pakistan is not indicative of them warning against going. Thus, the different words used: Travel Advisory; Travel Warning; Travel Ban.
Here’s another clue: A travel warning issued in February 2009 has jack-shit to do with travel to Pakistan in 1981.
Your arguments, Mario, are pathetic. They are an embarrassment of falsehoods, innuendo, and supposition.
You should be ashamed, Mario. Your list of questions are as morally repugnant and as grounded in fact as asking when you stopped beating your wife!
Dr. C, if I recall when Mario was called on this a couple of months ago by Greg, Ex, and others, he came up with the same song and dance and questions. It seems that he is going for the classic misdirection ploy. Ignore the question. The fact of the issue is that Mario knowns that there was no Travel Ban against Americans. He attempts to cloud the issue by posting nonsense about travel advisories and asking irrelevant questions because he knows that he cannot answer the original question, which was why did he submit something to the court that he knows is false.
Mario has conceded that there was no actual ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981, but he continues to make the absurd argument that there was a “de facto” ban.
The fact is that any American with a passport and the funds to buy a plane ticket could travel to Pakistan in 1981. How that can be construed as a de facto ban remains a mystery to me.
Mario’s Amended Complaint states “Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time.” In his Second Amended Complaint, Mario asserts “Obama stated publicly to a group of voters in 2008 that he traveled to Pakistan and we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using a U.S. passport.” [emphasis mine]
Both assertions are flat-out misstatements of fact. Travel to Pakistan was not “forbidden” or “prohibited” to U.S. citizens in 1981. But Mario cannot bring himself to acknowledge that he was wrong, so now he concocts some mumbo-jumbo about a “de facto” ban on travel to Pakistan. A travel advisory is not a ban, Mario. The New York Times would not a have published a travel article in 1981 giving Americans advice on what to do and see in Pakistan if Americans were not allowed to go there.
I will admit that after going through the first 100 scoopfuls of mud (allegations) in the Kerchner second amended complaint, I lost hope that there was any gold to be found. If there is any gold in the other 200 allegations in the complaint, Mr. Apuzzo need only list the number under which he buried the gold. But my sympathy is with the court, that I should not be forced to go through 300 painfully ignorant complaints to find something valid.
There seems to be a fallacy of thinking that goes something like “the more allegations that are made, the more likely it is that some are true.” If I make one allegation, I’m expected to prove it, but if I make 300 allegations does the burden of proof magically shift to the target of the allegations? I think not.
“Both assertions are flat-out misstatements of fact.”
Actually I don’t know how they can be taken as anything else but flat out lies.
And come on Mario- you usually do better than the ‘cut and paste’ crowd- reposting your own list of malarky here?
Phil Berg is now making the specious argument that Judge Carter’s ruling means that Berg has standing because he filed his lawsuit before the election. Berg seems to forget that he wasn’t a candidate.
Defendants made a motion to dismiss my “complaint,” arguing that it violated FRCP 8(a)(2). What they and you failed to understand is that my pleading is not just a complaint but also a verified petition in quo warranto. Hence, it would be expected that I plead all the facutal elements necessary to show that I am entitled to the writ.
My pleading also raises issues of fraud (by Obama) and mistake (by Congress), which require averments with particularity and not just a short and plain statement. F.R.C.P. 9(b).
I also alleged that Obama failed to satisfy a condition precedent to his being President, i.e., that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” A denial of performance or occurrence of a condition precedent shall be made specifically and particularity and not by a short and plain statement. F.R.C.P. 9(c).
Finally, if you should not have noticed, Judge Simandle did not grant defendants’ motion to dimiss my complaint/petition on the F.R.C.P. 8(a)(2) ground.
I hope this helps you and Greg to better understand this issue.
Wrong jurisdiction my friend
FRCP 8(a)(2) was in reference to you filing a second amended complaint which size was beyond reason. Since the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, these more trivial matters were no longer relevant and should be accepted as factual for the purpose of the dismissal.
As the Judge explains (did you miss this part?)
So let’s more clearly explain what really happened.
In their motion to dismiss, the defendants observed the lack of standing and also argued that the 2nd amended complaint failed to meet the requirements of rule 8(a) citing rule 12(f)
In addition the defendants moved to strike the 2nd amended complaint because it failed to follow FED. R. CIV. P. 15.
The judge agreed to rule the motion for leave moot.
Mario Apuzzo: Hence, it would be expected that I plead all the [factual] elements necessary to show that I am entitled to the writ.
I don’t mean to sound catty, but in the first 100 allegations I reviewed in the 2nd amended complaint I did not find any that were both “factual” and showed you are “entitled to the writ.” They were all either false, consisting solely of innuendo, or irrelevant. And so those 100 constitute the “mud” under discussion.
The little list of “questions” you listed about Obama’s travel to Pakistan should give readers here a sense of the validity of the kinds of things in the Kerchner complaint. Surely you don’t expect a federal judge to be so unsophisticated as not to know the difference between innuendo and fact.
I’m sorry, where in the law does it allow private citizens to file quo warranto?
*Hence, it would be expected that I plead all the facutal elements necessary to show that I am entitled to the writ. *
Yes, Mr. Apuzzo. EXPECTED is the right word. Where you miss the point is that the rest of the world defines FACTUAL in a very different manner than you do.
The rest of the sane world sees it as valid proof that the State of Hawaii has repeatedly validated the reality of Obama’s birth in Honolulu. And I believe that any rational judge would dispute any allegation that we now require two citizen parents to qualify as a natural born citizen.
All the legalese in the world does not change common sense reality.
You might not want to keep repeating that.
I mean do you really want to draw attention to the fact that someone swore to the truth of facts that are demonstrably false? Indeed, facts that are demonstrably false with only a few minutes of internet research?
Ouch… Touche, that must smart…
You’ve just been eviscerated by competent part timers here again! To paraphrase George Gobel, “Mario, did you ever get the feeling that the Obama Presidency is a tuxedo, and you are just a pair of Orly Taitz’s brown shoes?”
James Thurber wrote a short story, later made into a movie, called “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” in which a sad-sack adult enlivens his lackluster existence by daydreaming about exploits in which he is a world renown heroic figure accomplishing nearly impossible tasks.
It may have been cute when you were a child, Mario, but as an adult, we don’t need to imagine you up trampolining on your bed at home breathlessly recounting another imaginary Presidency overturning closing argument only to hear it end as do all your fantasies, with you proclaiming, “….and then, I, Mario Apuzzo, will be King of the Jungle!”
I am not going to waste my time addressing each one of Obama’s groupies on here so I will address you.
Clearly you all suffer from some sort of personality disorder. I would call it the impulsive need to say anything as soon as someone says something. In the end, it really amounts to nothing.
It appears to me that none of you are really up to really being able to argue about Obama’s eligibility.
By the way, tell Mr. Obama that his grandmother is the only living person on the planet who vouched for where he, the first African-American President, was born. She said she was present when he was born in Kenya.
I know, you are going to stick you thumbs you know where and put it all out of sight. But it won’t be out of your minds.
Very truly yours,
and here I gave you credit for AT LEAST having the courage to stop by..and attempt some reasonable and civil debate.
My qualification includes over 30 yrs genealogical research, meaning FOCUS on knowing quality of source records. Among the first things I learned, “oral history” is the most unreliable item there is. Grandmas, even the most well intentioned.. have memory issues. That is when people are interviewing them with no hidden agenda.
However, I also am familiar with the meaning and intent of Rule 11, and your obligation for DUE DILIGENCE in finding facts. I have no doubt that you would dispute my capacity to evaluate your case. What matters is what the Judiciary sees your case as.
I think I am adult enough to challenge your points without stooping to name calling or being personal. If it is a “personality disorder” to be outraged that persons knowingly WANT to undermine free and valid elections, on the basis of nothing more than hoaxes and publicity stunts.. then label away. I’ll wear that label proudly.
That is an absolute lie. She never said that and there is a readily available tape and transcript of what was said.
But the fact that you repeat that — or would rely on that sort of “evidence” — is proof positive that you are either in this for the publicity or you are totally inept as a lawyer. At BEST you’ve got an ambiguous, contradictory, out-of-court unsworn statement that is likely the result of confusion in translation. And no COMPETENT lawyer would go around making claims that are so easily refutable.
No competent or honorable lawyer would be involved in these actions. Two cases have already resulted in the imposition of significant sanctions on the lawyers or parties bringing them, simply because the actions are frivolous.
dance for us or dance for doc all you like, mario. we always enjoy your visits. you’re a funny guy.
but that act won’t win anything for you in court. maybe you should take a hint and stick to dwi … ?
Yet another “fact” that is easily debunked with less than 5 minutes of research.
Indeed, less than 5 minutes on this website!
And you had someone swear to this fact?
Wow, I guess that if you still believe that myth then I can understand why you lost your lawsuit.
Perhaps you have not heard the whole interview?
Is that your best ‘evidence’, quoting Sarah Obama out of context?
Better work on the facts before you file another lawsuit, this one was full of errors and omissions, certified or not…
Fascinating… truly fascinating my friend… The Judge may have done you a favor by dismissing it…
And what is so ironic is that Mario accuses us of having a personality disorder 🙂 Or not being up to argue Obama’s eligibility…
Oh the irony…
Oh please Mario. She did not. Coming here and spewing unmitigated nonsense like Pakistan 1981 and Kenya Granny show that your suit was utter foolishness. Those two were the best “evidence” you’ve got out of the, what was it, 150 some odd points in your suit? Gold coins in a bucket of mud indeed. Sheesh. Truly pathetic Mario.
You can be Obama’s expert witness during his trial. Your trial testimony will be very useful for me. I’ll be able to establish that there is NO human being now living to vouch for Obama’s birth that only occurred in 1961.
Frivolous! You have got to get real, my friend. There is NO human being now living to vouch for Obama’s birth that only occurred in 1961.
Additionally, Obama clear as a beautiful sunny day does not meet the Framers’ and Founders’ definition of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.
Like your name, dwi or better know as dim- witted intellectual.
Harp, harp, harp, but no cigar.
My very good friend, if Obama’s own family, his grandmother, is also a myth, then what is left of Obama’s birth-place story? You else on the planet earth will stand up for the President of the United States? Why do we not give that person some big reward so that we can stop spending some much of the People’s money defending Obama on the simple question of where he was born which can be easily debunked by producing a simple one-page document called a birth certificate.
So, that is your way out when you get caught lying? Go on with your useless suits against Obama then, so we can enjoy the spectacle of you being sanctioned like the Queen Bee you now imitate, switching from the birth place to Vattel, and probably then to the Indonesian adoption. For your sake, I hope your house is in your wife’s name and you do not live in a community property state. And she continues to love you when you’ve lost your shirt.
Clearly you cannot read or refuse to see what is written because it does not suit your little trivial agenda. You conveniently omit the fact that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of where he was born.
“by producing a simple one-page document called a birth certificate.”
which he did. Case closed.
Actually, Mario Apuzzo probably thinks that since the judge will have to read everything, he will have to take a longer time to consider – so he can beat Orly in having the longest-drawn cases and being the last man standing. Not that he HAS standing of course.
The Queen Bee uses a completely different scheme: every one of her suits involves more and more plaintiffs (I almost sent this message saying palintiffs) and defendants. That was what the law clerk row is about: trying to create a conflict of interest. You never know who worked for, was defended by or got sued by Perkins-Coie. Brittney Spears, perhaps? Problem with both the kitchen sink and the conflict of interest thing: judges will eventually start to see the pattern. And will not be pleased. I hope.
1961 was 48 years ago. If the OB was 30, he’d now be 78. And you want them to remember a birth out of the thousands they attended?
You are well and truly cracked, Mario.
Good luck with your appeal. Part of me hopes you get to discovery so you can be destroyed in that part of trial practice as well.
Practice tip: If that’s your case, then drop the birth certificate nonsense.
Quit with the easily debunked Pakistan travel myth. Cease referring to the completely debunked grandmother lie.
The Vattel myth has the added benefit that it takes at least 30 minutes to debunk.
Of course, George Orwell showed how the Flat Earth theory might take as much as 45 minutes to debunk.
Generally, lawyers are encouraged to go with their strongest argument. In your case, go with your least terrible argument!
I see they got the cavalry here, too.
Dear Mr. Apuzzo,
Here is an article, from this very website, that provides a full transcript and full, unedited recording of Sarah Obama’s phone call with Bishop McRae:
It is not that his grandmother “is a myth” but the idea that she said he was born in Kenya that is a myth. You want a “birth story”? She very clearly says, through her translator, that he was born in Hawaii, in the United States. As Paul also mentioned, add in the fact that he has provided a birth certificate and you get a very clear “birth story”.
looks like you’re not quite done wasting your time with us, mario. you know you just can’t quit us.
that’s why they invented birth certificates — which hawaii has already vouched for.
Mario, if that will be your arugment your case will fall apart quicker than a cheap suit. To say that No Human Being can vouch for the birth of the President is one of the worst arguments we have ever heard. Mainly because of the HI issued and certified COLB along with the “Full Faith in State Records clause” of the Constitution.
However not to quibble but President Obama’s step-grandmother states on the infamous tape that President Obama was born in Hawaii. So technically you would be incorrect. But since that tape is inadmissible, it doesn’t mean that much.
I’ve heard it all, over, and over, and over again. But still no cigar.
I suggest that you use the little brain power that you have left (assuming you once had more) and read my complaint/petition and brief.
“Frivolous! You have got to get real, my friend.”
Talking about frivolous, let me see if I have your causes of actions right.
First, I think you makes some kind of first amendment claim because Congress didn’t redress your client’s complaints. This is just silly. I think my kids even know the 1st amendment allows one to speak or petition, it doesn’t require anyone to listen.
Second, you makes some kind of novel equal protection claim since Congress investigated McCain’s eligibility and not Obama’s. You’re just making stuff up here. Equal protection, of course, has never, and will never, give anyone a right to tell Congress what they can debate or investigate and the courts have no authority under the Speech and Debate clause or pursuant to basic notions of separation of powers to tell Congress what they can investigate or debate.
Third, you make some kind of novel due process argument which appears to be some kind of claim that the 5th amendment protects one’s right to feel secure or something like that. Again, you’re just making stuff up as there is no authority to support such a claim. Such intangible interests are not protected under the 5th amendment or Bush would have been sued a million times for making most of us feel less secure.
Fourth, you make some kind of claim that Congress has a duty to vet the president under the 20th amendment and that people have some kind of individual rights under such amendment. There is however nothing in the amendment that imposes any duty on Congress nor anything that purports to grant any individual right under such amendment.
Finally, you use the standard argument that you see in all pro se tax protest type claims, some made up right under the 9th amendment. This is where the judge generally stops reading the brief as it means you have nothing. The 9th amendment has never been recognized as a source of substantive rights but rather a limitation on expansion of federal power. Nevertheless, the power to remove of the president has been allocated to Congress so it is silly to argue that it was left to the people.
Yup, I would say these claims are as frivolous.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. I’ve hear them all, especially on this blog. But I repeat, no cigar.
On the contrary, Obama’s birth on US soil makes him clearly a natural born citizen. Just read Wong Kim Ark or some of the other cases.
That you want to use ‘Vattel’ even though there is no evidence that Vattel’s position had any relevance wrt citizenship in the US is unfortunate but not totally unexpected… It has all to do with a trivial agenda…
And so Mario keeps going around and around
So what’s your excuse Mario? You filed a second amended complaint which you claimed to be verified and yet contains many ‘facts’ that can be rebutted with minimal effort. You call them excuses, when in fact they show the vacuity of your claims.
Very good. Thank you for reading my arguments. The rest is up to the higher courts to decide.
I commend you for an intelligent response.
But Mario, what case law are you using? You tried this argument and Greg, NBC, Doc, and others eviserated your arugment. You seem to forget that your argument folds like a cheap suit once the Wong Kim Ark case is referenced. Just to remind you in case you forgot…
The Court stated that:
“The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Since there was no definition of “natural born citizen” found in the constitution, the majority adopted the common law of England:
The court ruled:
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
Wow Mario, English Common law to make its determination. So no crazy De Vattel definition.
But De Vattel is mentioned, by the dissent. Specifically On the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations” which may have influenced the drafters of the original constitution: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Since you are an attorney, we don’t have to explain to you how much value the dissenting opinion is worth. Especially when the majority opinion has been standard for over 100 years. I give you credit though. Even though you know it is a loser, you are sticking with your arguments and your questionable evidence. That could be considered being tenacious or being dumb. We will let the readers of the blog decide which you are.
More cavalry here. But since you are now on the battle field here we go.
So, the grandmother made a mistake when when said two times that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya.
Chief Justice Marshall does not agree with you.
Oh the irony Mario… And your ‘complaint/petition and brief’ have been more than once torn apart on this blog. Now that the Judge has correctly ruled on the lack of standing, I guess we do not have to waste our efforts any further. Or can we expect another submission which exceeds page count without properly filing a motion for leave? Just asking Mario.
You’re a funny guy but now that your case has collapsed, you seem to have too much idle time on your hands 🙂 Use it to reflect on what happened rather than blaming others.
After reading all this, surely the question on everyone’s mind is: Mario, what do you plan to do after you’re disbarred?
Thanks for trying to educate Mario against all odds! Look at his bawling replies – more sophomoric repartee from a junior would-be president ejector. I understand that the latest peer put-down used by new Jersey Lawyers to zing the most incompetent among them is, “Yeah, you’re a regular Mario Appuzo!” It is an insult which if uttered to Mario, would give him a chance to play the fool (but) outside of court (for once) by smugly retorting to the speaker, “I know you are, – but WHAT AM I ?”
And besides Vattel clearly and unambiguously states that only one parent (the father) is enough to make the child a native.
Become one of those Obama bashers on FOX…Or ghostwrite Leo or Orly’s next couple of pleadings…Maybe join the Charles Lincoln “forclosure recovery” scam. I am sure Mario will keep himself busy.
Actually, he does.
“Whether a person born in the United States or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.” Chief Justice Marshall, MURRAY V. THE CHARMING BETSEY, 6 U. S. 64 (1804)
Mario, you misspelled “Did”.
Did you say the readers of the blog. If that’s the case, then get rid of those ridiculous thumbs which is Dr. Conspiracy’s little way of censoring this blog without having the courage to admit that he is doing it. Oh, yes, the devil did it.
On Wong Kim Ark, put your glasses on. The case was about being a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” No one was running for President. What is absurd about your position on Wong Kim Ark is that the Court declared Wong a “citizen of the United States” by the skin of his teeth (the Congress, the Executive, and the People did not believe he was), and you want the case to stand for the proposition that Wong was declared to be eligible to be President. Also, a careful reading of the case shows that the case distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citzen.”
I was looking forward to a Cohiba or an El Presidente….But I will have to be happy with the fact that you continue to be wrong. Your mistake was not picking one argument and sticking with it. And your second mistake was including easily debunked evidence in your pleadings. Either one shows your complete lack of confidence in your own case. If you had some confidence you would have argued one concise arugment. You would have lost because your case is inherently flawed, but it would have been more interesting.
You won’t be able to get past the standing issue. And if this ever did get into court, the COLB would negate any sort of discovery. And since WKA is still the most recent law of the land ruling in regards to citizenship, no court will even hear that argument. But continue to come over here and entertain us by defending your crackpot theories. We like to laugh.
Oh Mario… You do know what a real argument looks like, don’t you? Let’s stop the pre-school ‘no it’s not’ arguments and discuss this at a more mature level? Whaddayasay Mario?
Okay, Justice Marshall did reference Vattel in the Venus where he translated the so often abused phrase to
Nothing about natural born, bummer…
Showing clearly that alien inhabitants of a state are under its full jurisdiction.
Of course Justice Marshall was not interested in Citizenship law but rather the concept of jurisdiction and the right to expatriation, commercial residency and of course trade and who owns the cargo on the Venus
But the most relevant part is that Justice Marshall did not translate indigene to “natural born”
Sorry Mario, no cigar.
Ballantine, nice summary. Of course Mario could not refute your arugment so he goes away with the “courts to decide” response, which means he has nothing.
Mario, she never said it in the first place…It was McRae that said it. Once his step-grandmother understands the question, she says Hawaii. Either way you know that this is inadmissible under the FRE….So why even attempt to use it as evidence? It is because you have nothing….
There is no difference here my dear friend, the Court observed how the term natural born citizen and citizen were equally founded in the existing English Common Law. Any child born on US soil becomes a citizen at birth (natural born) as opposed to an alien or naturalized citizen.
What explains your continued ability to ignore these facts?
Having established that a child born on US soil is a citizen, regardless of the status of the parents undermines any attempt to link to Vattel’s principles which would have made the child follow the citizenship of his father…
English Common Law of those days was clear. And unavoidably leads to only one reasonable conclusion, which history, legislative discussions and legal precedent all support.
You can spin all you want, but as Black Lion points out, the court clearly says that NBC should be defined by the common law and further states that the English common law rule of Calvin’s case “continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established” or , in other words, was incorporated in the consitution. Of course this was dicta, but it was central to the courts conclusion that the English common law had always defined citizenship in America until it was incorporated into the consitution in the 14th amendment. The cases you cite to support your theory generally aren’t even about citizenship
The court did not distinguish between citizen and NBC. I assume you are focusing on a single quote by Horace Binney. In the court’s conclusion, after citing Lord Coke and Calvin’s Case for the proposition that children of aliens where “natural born subjects,” the court ended the sentence by quoting Binney stating that children of aliens “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” If one reads Binney’s paper, the “same principle” he is talking about is the rule of Calvin’s Case. Thus, if we can discern the your argument, the court, immediately after citing Coke and Calvin’s case for the proposition that children of aliens are natural born subjects, then cites Binney for the proposition that children of aliens, made citizens by operation of the rule of Calvin’s Case, are nevertheless not natural born citizens. This is a court that previously cited Chancellor Kent for the proposition that “subject” and “citizen” were interchangeable terms. What Binney is actually saying the children of aliens and natural born children of citizens were both citizens by operation of the rule of Calvin’s Case. Binney was determining who were citizens, not natural born citizens, and hence had no reason to call children of aliens “natural born.”
And then there is Lynch v Clarke
After being disbarred, he probably will sue himself pro se for professional incompetence, and lose by default.
Mario, are you kidding me? It is your belief that the court was deciding that. The court was actually deciding if an individual born in the US was a citizen. This was only an issue because of the racist Chinese Exclusionary laws at the time. No where is the phrase 14th amendment citizen used. That is your way to try and obscure the facts. The Wong ruling was a 6-2 decision so it was not by the “skin of its teeth” as you say. The Executive, Congress and people did not think Wong was a citizen because of their racial attitudes towards Asian people at the time. I am amazed that you would be aruging the racist beliefs at the time to support your argument.
Your reading comprehension skills must be severely lacking. The ruling is quite specific. It specifically references English common law to make its determination regarding natural born citizens and being born in America to non citizens. And you neglect to mention that the De Vattel argument was considered and tossed aside by the majority. So you are attempting to re-argue something that was decided over 100 years ago. And since there are better legal scholars like Greg on this blog that me, I am sure they can explain it to you in more detail if necessary.
oh, please. Let me send my address so you can supoena me.
I’d love nothing more than to explain to a court, WHAT the purpose of the official office of Vital Statistics is, in any state in the country, WHY their records have more value/credibility than oral statements; and WHY it is not relevant to have this dispute. I’d be happy to tell them that I have seen birth records from numerous states, many of which have arbitrary different titles and that a COLB is NOT different from a birth certificate in the least. I will be more than happy to explain WHY birth announcements, on microfilm (not editable/photoshoppable)are not official records but they DO CORROBORATE other records. I’ll explain the difference between the “long” form and the “short” form, and how the name of the Dr. has NO RELEVANCE, since the short document contains the information of concern to Obama’s being eligible.
If you want to put your neck on the chopping block.. and try to claim that Hawaii is committing fraud… I’ll help swing that ax.
All of the above does not need an expert to know. It can easily be found by any reasonable researcher, which, by the way, a LAWYER is expected to be, more so than a “normal” witness.
Your argument might fly with gullible people, ready to hit that paypal button. It does not fly with educated researchers. It won’t fly with Congress. As Clay Land tried to explain to Ms Orly- you can believe anything you want out in public, but DON’T TRY bringing that shit into a court of law.
“I am not going to waste my time addressing each one of Obama’s groupies on here so I will address you.”
Translation: I really can’t argue with any of my critics since I am clearly just making things up.
It surely sounds like that. When Mario visited my blog, he thought he could get away with recycling his arguments.
I wonder how his client James is doing. How many NY Times advertisements has it been with no pay-off?
Oh, I doubt Mario will be disbarred. He will return to his DWI practice muttering ‘Vattel, it’s still Vattel’.
by the way…
look at it as a valuable exercise in critical thinking. An OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU, to have people evaluate information as “devil’s advocate”, and point out the holes in your arguments. Is that not the purpose of due diligence in fact finding? Look at the question WITHOUT BIAS, hear all sides then recognize which is more credible?
Or would you rather go before a real Judge, and try to pass off the phrase from Obama’s book about how his father’s British citizenship defined him? Pretty sad, when I can explain to you that Obama’s comment there is not legal authority for anything. What de Vattel theorized in the 1700s does not trump current citizenship standards or laws.
How about PAYING ATTENTION to 30+ cases which have already been dumped? NO ONE has standing for “injuries” that are only in their own fantasy/ imagination, on the ballot or otherwise.
Funny how Mario has ‘no time’ to address this Dr C… Yes, I have read Mario’s work of fiction as well
Oh don’t worry Mario, I always read your comments before giving the thumbs down.
I am still trying to figure out how thumbs up/down is any form of censorship. Unlike several sites where I have posted a dissenting view point…and the moderator/owner simply deletes it.
Open debate is HEALTHY.. and in rare cases, the poster stops to actually THINK about their position and if it really is solid or not.
If one only hangs out in a room of persons who think the world is flat, and no one else is allowed in the door…100% of the support will say that, oh yes.. you are correct. When one walks OUT THE DOOR and hears what the rest of the world says, it does not always hold up.
I hope that folks will only thumbs down posts that are trollish, repetitive, and insulting. Those are the ones that are better off hidden. I will probably rachet up the floor for hiding because the purpose of the rating system is not to hide comments that I disagree with.
nbc: But the most relevant part is that Justice Marshall did not translate indigene to “natural born”
John Marshall did not speak French.
Mario Apuzzo: … get rid of those ridiculous thumbs which is Dr. Conspiracy’s little way of censoring this blog without having the courage to admit that he is doing it.
The purpose of the comment ratings is indeed a form of censorship, that was instituted specifically to deal with trollish posts. In fact, they didn’t work for that purpose, and I was faced with the choice of letting someone hijack the blog or banning them. So I banned them.
I kept Comment Rating because 1) folks seemed to like it and 2) it gives someone the ability to applaud or boo a comment without leaving another comment (which clogs up the discussion). (You may recall that I took a visitor poll on this topic.) This is all about facilitating the discussion.
Nevertheless any form of censorship has negative trade-offs, and one of them is Mr. Apuzzo’s comments being hid from time to time. Mario Apuzzo is a notable person in this Obama business, and the last thing I want to do is make him less visible, or to discourage him from participating.
So given that the troll threat is quiet right now, I am going to adjust the hidden comment parameters so that should all appear.
Mario Apuzzo: I suggest that you use the little brain power that you have left (assuming you once had more) and read my complaint/petition and brief.
I suspect a gambit like that works pretty well on your average birther forum (which wouldn’t exist if folks read the primary sources), but it’s not likely to be effective here because some of these folks will call your bluff, and the last thing you want is some with critical reasoning skills to wade into the complaint. Ooooooooooooooohhhh noooooooooooooooo, nooooooooooooooooooo.
I think the Indonesian adoption and loss of US Citizenship will stay in the ring the longest. At least the base document for it isn’t a fake.
Mario Apuzzo: You conveniently omit the fact that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of where he was born.
For those who wonder what the connecting argument is:
Mario Apuzzo: More cavalry here.
I don’t know how it is in New Jersey, but here in the south the analogy would be fire ants.
Expelliarmus: No competent or honorable lawyer would be involved in these actions.
Just as a theoretical question: does this mean that some one who wants to bring a nut case lawsuit is not entitled to a lawyer?
Mario Apuzzo: Clearly you all suffer from some sort of personality disorder. I would call it the impulsive need to say anything as soon as someone says something. In the end, it really amounts to nothing.
I might add that you suffer from the same disorder. It’s probably why we are on discussion venues like this and other people aren’t.
However, I wouldn’t gainsay the substance of some of the comments here. As for me personally, I have written over 500 articles on the blog, many of which are substantive, and after a while replying substantively to the same old garbage gets old.
if i may volunteer: i wouldn’t draw that conclusion.
certainly everyone is entitled to representation, but we should be wary of the motives of lawyers who take up the hopeless causes of hapless cranks, especially when they promote falsehoods.
Oh I can read, hon. But really, why do you need 150 points when there’s just one you keep coming back to? Can’t you find that one metal object in the mudbucket? ( It’s not a gold coin,really, it’s a pop-top, but it’s still metallic. Clean it off shine it up and you’ve got another 15 minutes.)
Are we back to misreading Wong? Mario, you’re going to have to step up your game.
Everyone involved in the case, Wong Kim, the US Government, everyone knew that if Wong Kim was declared a citizen, he would be eligible for the Presidency. George D. Collins wrote about that horrifying proposition in his amicus brief. Wong’s side responded saying that if the son of Confucius ran for President and won, that really wouldn’t be a bad thing.
The dissent, who clearly had more opportunity to hear the arguments and understand them, and clearly had more insight into what Justice Gray was writing than you, understood that the Court was saying quite clearly that anyone born here was a natural born citizen. If they understood the decision to be saying anything different, maybe they wouldn’t have dissented!
As for your appeal to popular sentiment, that’s what the Supreme Court does – it protects the minorities against the tyranny of the mob. The Lovings only got to marry by the skin of their teeth, Congress, the Executive and the People didn’t believe people should be allowed to have interracial marriages. If we let the majority run roughshod over Constitutional principles, then we’d still have separate schools, you couldn’t buy condoms without a prescription, and oral sex would still be a crime.
And you’re carefully misreading the case if you think it made a distinction between a citizen born here and a “natural born” citizen.
If the whole world thinks you’re crazy, you might be a genius, but more likely, you’re just crazy! If the entire set of Constitutional law scholars who have looked at Wong think it means X and you think it means Y, you might have stumbled on the one true reading, but more likely, you’re just crazy!
Just think, there will be a place for you in heaven.
Non-legal arguments do not count. Either go to school so you can have someone teach you how to argue like a lawyer or at least learn on your own how to argue like one or get out of this game.
“Non-legal arguments do not count.”
Then why do you keep using them Mario?
Which law school did you go to that taught you it was okay to sign your name to pleadings which contain factual allegations that are obviously and demonstrably false? They didn’t cover the obligation to do pre-suit investigation under Rule 11 in your law school?
Touched a nerve, eh Mario?
Well to give Mario credit I doubt if his conduct so far merits disbarment.
As I hope I already replied to Mario, i always read his posts even before thumbs downing them. There are a few posters (nameless) that are just forum disruptors and at times I think out of a sense of frustration Mario, can fit that bill. But I do read his posts.
this is just a portion relating to CA professional ethics, which I believe applies elsewhere….
However, where a client instructs an attorney to pursue a course of action that is frivolous or taken purely for purpose of delay, then the attorney is required to inform the client that the attorneyÕs professional responsibility precludes him or her from taking such action, and to withdraw from the representation. See Cosenza v. Kramer (1st Dist. 1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1100, 200 Cal.Rptr. 18. [See also, Rule 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation, infra for further discussion on withdrawal of attorneys]. An appeal is frivolous when it is prosecuted for an improper motive, such as to harass or delay, such that any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit. See In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650, 183 Cal.Rptr. 508, 646 P.2d 179.
in other words, the nutcase is not expected to know the law; a lawyer IS. If the case is completely nut based, lawyers should decline the case.
This is incomprehensible.
You really do need to retire.
Just wondering, Mario, I’ve asked this question to other people, but I want to hear your take on this.
Exactly which 5 Supreme Court Justices do you expect to uphold your warped view of the Constitution? Which 5 Supreme Court Justices do you expect to say that Natural Born citizenship is Jus Sanguinus, when the only court in the history of the United States that has held this is Scott v. Sanford?
Do you expect for Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, themselves born to Italian and Sicilian Immigrants who traveled to the United States? Do you expect them to be part of the 5 that rule that if they were born 1 day before their fathers Naturalized, they’d be ineligible for the Presidency?
Do you expect Clarence Thomas and Sonya Sotomayor to uphold Scott v. Sanford, a ruling that said in part that the founders considered them too inferior to ever hold citizenship in the first place?
Do you expect Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer to rule that because Israel, an independent country considers them to be Israeli Citizens, that they’re ineligible for the Presidency?
Do you expect John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, or Anthony Kennedy to rule your way?
If you get your wish, and your warped theory of Jus Sanguinus ever reaches the Supreme Court, which of the 9 Supreme Court Justices do you think will uphold your warped view of the Constitution?
I do agree that Mario will not be disbarred (although he might be fined), but I would argue that he SHOULD be.
In effect, Mario is a troll (as defined in internet parlance). He is not sincere in his beliefs, he is not defending someone who needs to be defended, he is not trying to redress a specific harm, he is just trolling the courts with preposterous arguments.
We routinely ban trolls for good reasons, and the courts should ban Mario for the very same reasons.
There was a lawyer in France around 1999 who used the courts to go on some kind of crusade against the freemasons. I didn’t follow the case, so I’m a bit vague on the particulars. I think it took from 1999 to 20003, but the end result is that he was disbarred because, in effect, he was abusing the process and wasting the Courts’ time with crazy conspiracy theories (which even if true, weren’t within the courts’ powers to fix anyway).
I think that that French attorney was actually sincere in his beliefs, which is not even something I’m willing to concede in Mario’s case, since he has never bothered defending the Constitution until a black man got elected.
I don’t understand a competent attorney who blatantly ignores that the State of Hawaii trumped Granny-in-Kenya, a long time ago.
I don’t understand a lawyer taking a misleading quotation from a book, and an obscure philosopher… and attempting to convert that into accepted law.
It is beyond any comprehension for any sane person to fail to know, that ANY govt authority in this country, has the ability to investigate any allegations (including the illustrious “vault” copy).. and their lack of action is proof that no fraud happened.
It is bizarre that with the number of cases filed and dumped, with explanations, that ANYONE can read them, and understand why any further filings are an exercise in futility…not to mention, BEGGING for sanctions.
It didn’t happen, Mario. Call him a socialist or whatever demeaning label you want.. but Obama is eligible and was legally elected.
Take the observations from here, and use them as a friendly tip that you are stuck on the WRONG hoax. Work to create some system or legislation, that insures that there is never room for doubt, for any candidate, without this mindless disputes.
Give up this windmill, before it falls over and fractures your skull.
The “natural born Citizen” clause is not my “warped view of the Constitution” but rather part of our Constitution. I did not write the clause. As we can see from the sources cited below, I also did not define it. The Framers put the clause there to protect the new nation from insidious attack from within. Only a constitutional amendment can remove it.
I would expect our Supreme Court justices to interpret and apply the Constitution as the Framers intended it to be done. There is nothing discriminatory about the clause today so the Court is free to interpret and apply it as the Framers intended it to be done at the time they included it in the Constitution.
“Natural born citizen” means born in the country to citizen parents. The clause does not discriminate as to color or race either on its face or in its application to Obama or any other person.
You are clearly mistaken that Scott v. Sandford is the only U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized that a “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. It was Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition) (1760 first English edition), who defined for the Framers what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. It was Vattel, who stated in Section 212: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . .” Vattel, Section 212 (1797 London edition)(and as translated by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (repeating Vattel’s definition without citing him); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of “natives or indigenes” which is later translated to “natives or natural born citizens”); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (repeating Vattel’s definition and stating in referring to his definition: “The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. . . This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case. . . .”); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (citing and quoting the same Ex parte Reynolds references to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor and its recitation of Vattel’s definition of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”).
Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment, repeated Vattel’s definition when he said: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866). So as you see, you have failed to recognize the many sources that define “natural born citizen.”
By citing to Scott v. Sandford, you attempt to appeal although unjustifiably to the decision maker’s duty to act without discrimination, just like when Obama supporters say that people question his eligibility because they are racists. You want to win the issue by appeal to race rather than to justice. You miserably fail to show that there is any real connection between the clause and discrimination. Dred Scott concluded that blacks were property and therefore not eligible to be citizens. That holding in no way proves that the “natural born Citizen” clause is discriminatory. The Court could have used jus soli as a concept of citizenship and come to the same conclusion. Hence, it is not jus soli or jus sanguinis that drove the decision but rather the fact that the Court felt compelled because of history and social norms of the day to consider blacks, whether free or not, to be property or from an inferior race and therefore not eligible to be citizens. The Court would have reached that conclusion no matter what definition of citizenship it may have used. Finally, if Dred Scott’s definition of “natural born Citizen” was discriminatory, why did not any cases following that decision declare the clause to be discriminatory, including the cases of United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cas. 785 (C.C.D.Ky. 1866), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)?
Also, if you are going to argue that the clause is discriminatory on its face, then you will have to throw out every other clause of the Constitution that provides for eligibility requirements for public office along with so many of our immigration laws that define the rights and benefits of legal permanent residency and citizenship.
As you well know, Lady Justice is blind. That means that it should not matter what the Justices’ backgrounds are. They swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. They have to do that no matter what their personal circumstances are. They are sworn to uphold the law and I would expect them to do so regardless of any extraneous factor not part of the rule of decision.
Finally, on your Jewish example, first, “natural born Citizen” status is determined as of the time of birth. Hence, becoming a citizen of another country later in life does not constitutionally disqualify that person from being President. Second, we are a sovereign nation and do not allow other countries to dictate who should be our President. As long as a person satisfies United States constitutional law as to what a “natural born citizen” is, then that is all that is constitutionally required in that regard. Again, if a child is born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, then he or she is a natural born citizen and satisfying the age and residency requirements is eligible to be President.
You are really hitting bottom. This debate is really out of your league.
Oh, the irony….
Mario might suffer from delusions of competency, at the service of some obsessional pursuit, like that French lawyer who kept suing the freemasons until he was disbarred.
Or alternatively, he might be a snake oil salesman peddling his phony goods to make a profit.
Honestly, does it matter which is which?
And, Mario, reread Vattel: “parents” is a group plural. One parent, the father (later footnoted to include the mother) is fine.
Since I assume you’ve figured that one out already (like the Pakistan travel and grandmother “issues”), you’re either a knave or a fool.
Any theories on why you, Mario Apuzzo, are one of only four active lawyers advancing this theory?
Obama wrote an autobiography which was published in 1995 in which he told of his father’s Kenyan ancestry. He spoke at the DNC in 2004, he gave a very memorable speech, in fact, in which he spoke of his father, a Kenyan.
It has never been a secret. Despite this, not a single lawyer for Hillary, McCain, Romney, Richardson, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Giuliani, Palin, etc. etc., noticed this issue. Not a single Constitutional lawyer noticed this. Not the scholars who were thinking about McCain’s eligibility as someone born in the Panama Canal, not the Eagle Forum lawyers who argued that Hamdi wasn’t a citizen because his two parents were temporary workers from Saudi Arabia. And going back 100 years, not a single scholarly article advances this idea. They’re all of one mind that NBC means born here.
Only Donofrio and Apuzzo know the truth. Even Berg didn’t know it originally, and Orly’s only been a recent convert to it.
Have you asked the Eagle Forum why they haven’t signed onto your brief? If your two-parent theory is so clearly true, they, who are predisposed to it, must be its natural defender!
The whole world is crazy, Mario, but you. Or, you’re crazy, and the whole world is sane.
Actually, it pretty much doesn’t matter, since you aren’t on the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court subscribes to the “crazy” view of natural born citizen.
*Second, we are a sovereign nation and do not allow other countries to dictate who should be our President. As long as a person satisfies United States constitutional law as to what a “natural born citizen” is, then that is all that is constitutionally required in that regard.*
Which is the reason the comment made by Obama relating to his father’s status being relevant to Obama’s…is in error. He was ENTITLED to both British and American citizenship. Neither precluded the other.
Nor do I believe that DUAL citizenship cannot coexist with NATURAL BORN.
His comment was not accurate. And, more important.. it does not “admit”, and is not legally binding in any way.
If the Founders were adopting Vattel for the definition of natural born citizen, why did they:
1. Use a phrase, “natural born citizen,” that didn’t appear in his work at that time?
2. Use a phrase, “natural born,” that was well understood by lawyers of the time to mean something different?
3. Use a phrase, “natural born,” that was used in territorial charters and state constitutions and state laws to mean something entirely different?
4. Not tell anyone they were defining “natural born citizen” by reference to Vattel?
5. Not tell anyone that they were changing “natural born” to mean something 100% different than what the phrase was then used to signify?
6. Not implement any other portions of Vattel’s theory of citizenship? The children of aliens don’t become “inhabitants” as imagined by Vattel, but full citizens, except unable to run for President.
7. Not write a single sentence explaining their break with common law? They knew how to limit the meaning of common law phrases, like treason.
These founders, then, must have been real dunces, or they were playing hide the ball.
Maybe the founders are like the God of the creationists who sprinkled fossils throughout the soil to confound the non-believers? Did the founders write the Constitution in such a way that only Apuzzo and Donofrio can understand the one true meaning?
It’s comments like the preceding for which comment hiding was intended.
You should not be asking me those questions. Rather, why do you not ask the United States Supreme Court, starting with Chief Justice Marshall who acknowledged Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born citizen” is in The Venus (1814), and ending with Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Justice Marshall in fact does not use the term natural born when citing Vattel and neither does Justice Gray.
That you keep desperately looking for some hints that would support your position is endearing but destined to fail.
So Mario, why are you avoiding these questions?
Exactly why Obama’s double allegiance has no relevance on his natural born status. And you are right, if a child is born in the US to citizen parents, he is eligible, however so is a child born in the US to alien parents.
Such is the law and justice should be blind… And yet, some seem to want to force, in the name of ‘justice’, a revised interpretation of the term natural born which is totally at odds with how the term was commonly understood.
So in other words you don’t have an answer or reason, right? Especially in Wong where it explicitly states that the majority used the English Common law definition to define what a natural born citizen is. Your answer is intentionally opaque because your theory cannot make it past Wong. The dissent was specific is stating that they believed the De Vattel theory that you expouse but the majority rejected that theory and in turn De Vattel. So bringing up “The Venus” case(which you love to do even though it is irrelevant) and Minor case doesn’t help you because Wong was decided after and throws a brick through your innane theory.
You have got to be kidding me. And you would let Lupin’s drivel pass your censorship test? Do you think there is any basis to her calling for my disbarment? If anything, she and you for publishing her defamatory statement should be sued for libel. You and your irrelvant blog (there is no conspiracy in my case) are a joke, Dr. Conspiracy? Make sure to get your little thumbs on this one.
Mario, honestly come on. If you were/are so confident in your so called theory (which is a rehash of George Collins and 100 years old) then you should have a thicker skin. The fact is that with the exception of citing some irrelevant cases that had nothing to do with citizenship to attempt to prove your point, you show the rest of us that you are either unqualified to participate in a Constitutional eligibility discussion or to stubborn to acknowledge that your theory has more holes than a Swiss (cheese) philospher.
When it was pointed out that your filing contained “proof” that could be disproved within 5 minutes, instead of accepting that you go on and try and misdirect the forum but never address the fact that you submitted erroneous information. When ballentine, who actually refuted your filing and used specifics, you ignored him and failed to address the issue. Just right now Greg challenged you and instead of responding you attempt to change the subject by pretending to be indignant about Lupin saying you should be disbarred. Lupin said that 2 days ago and you are finally getting around to being offended? Come on Mario. We are all adults. Stick to defending your sieve like theory. It is much more entertaining.
Indeed. How can one reject the hypothetical case of a Jewish child because he (or she) is merely ENTITLED to Israeli citizenship, but find issue with Obama because he was equally ENTITLED to British citizenship.
Marshall’s opinion concurred in part and dissented in part. The part where he cites Vattel is the part in dissent. He cites Vattel for the proposition about domicile, the NBC stuff is dicta.
Justice Gray spends at least a dozen pages explaining why Vattel is not a good source to look to for definitions of citizenship. He explicitly rejected the use of Vattel or international law for defining citizenship and nothing he says gives any hint that he accepts it for some “natural born citizenship” definition.
You really should work on your answers to these questions, Mario, if you haven’t already, because they formed the backbone of the analysis in Lynch v. Clarke and Wong’s brief. They’ll be critical questions to answer in your argument. They point out the absurdity of your position.
You and I are evidently on two different blogs.
To be accurate, I agreed that you would not and could not be disbarred according to what I know of the professional codes of ethics in the US.
I did express the wish that you could be disbarred, because of a somewhat similar case in France where a lawyer who abused the system to pursue some weird personal vendetta against the freemasons was eventually disbarred after 4 years of due process.
A while ago Dr. C published a very eloquent post about the waste in time and money caused by you, Orly, Donofrio, etc.
If you were a stalwart, even if misguided, defender of the Constitution, like the folks who argue about the constitutionality of income tax, one might disagree with you, but still respect your strong convictions.
But you clearly have NO convictions of the kind. You have been unable to point to any articles, publications, etc. in which you might have defended your interpretation of the Constitution prior to Obama’s appearance on the national scene.
Whether the trigger in your lunatic campaign was his race, his policies or merely the desire to enrich yourself, I do not know.
If you were to pursue your apparent obsession by lobbying Congress, organizing protests, registering voters against Obama, etc. I would consider it also entirely acceptable. That is what Democracy is all about.
But instead you abuse the system, with no hope of redress, you drain scarce resources, by putting forth long-discredited theories and patently false facts.
Frankly, I admire the patience, fortitude and generosity of your American Bar Associations who tolerate such behavior.
I am not a distinguished lawyer like you are, so I will not attempt to argue the law with you. For all I know, contrary to every lucid argument presented here refuting your position, the Supreme Court may eventually agree with your interpretation of what a Natural Born Citizen is.
But even you must admit to yourself on occasion that the theory you advocate is neither widely accepted or even widely even heard of. If your theory was the commonly accepted definition of a NBC, then why the heck would Chief Justice Roberts swear President Obama in? Obviously he at that time did not consider the two citizen rule that you have made up to be the ruling criteria.
There is obviously no ‘clearly defined’ requirement in the Constitution for two citizen parents. The best result you could hope for would be for the Supreme Court to agree with your theory, and have them change the commonly accepted definition of NBC. Conservatives call this judicial activism. And even if they did, it would have no effect on President Obama’s current term. At best it might disqualify him for a second term.
But if you truly believe this is real reason why President Obama is not eligible- why do you keep asking about all the other crap? Travel to Pakistan? Kenyan grannie? Really.
On the contrary, the two cases are very similar from the perspective of the child
I’m reading the book “Democracy’s Constitution: Claiming the Privileges of American Citizenship” (2001) by John Denvir. He talks about “two” constitutions, the Constitution of 1787 and the second Constitution, that one amended by the 14th, 15th and 16th amendments. In the second Constitution the relationship of the states to the federal government fundamentally changed as did the definition of citizenship from state citizenship to federal citizenship of all those born in the United States and under its jurisdiction. I think it would be naive to gloss over the 14th amendment’s effect on the natural born citizen clause just because it doesn’t use the word “natural.”
Even if a translation of de Vattel with the phrase “natural born citizen” had traveled through a time warp back to 1787 and even if all the incredible and implausible events Greg discussed had happened, and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had adopted (in secret) your interpretation of the “natural born citizen” phrase, that definition was changed by the 14th amendment. Looking at the chapters of de Vattel, we see that he talks about two classes of citizens, those born citizens (which a later translation calls “natural born citizens”) and those naturalized. The 14th Amendment removed any qualification of parentage when it defined who is born a citizen of the United States. While the 14th Amendment doesn’t use the word “natural”, in context it clearly applies to de Vattel’s first class, those born as citizens. Even if the original intent of the Constitution were that natural born citizens were those born in the country to citizen fathers, the 14th Amendment would have changed that notion. The reason: because the 14th Amendment’s purpose was to override the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which itself is predicated on the ideas of de Vattel.
Dred Scott said that the United States was a country club whose members there those who founded the club (citizens at the time of ratification) and those voted in (naturalized citizens) and their descendants. If Dred Scott were in force today without the 14th amendment, Jesse Jackson (born near here) could not run for president because neither he, nor his parents, nor his grandparents (all born in the United States) were citizens. Now I would not concede for a moment that Dred Scott would withstand a modern challenge before the Supreme Court (14th amendment or no) and every writer of note that I know of holds Dred Scott as a huge error on the part of the Court. But even if Dred Scott were good law and it’s unique (among Supreme Court decisions) bigoted interpretation of citizenship were true, the 14th amendment changed everything. It said that the Country club had to accept as members everyone born in the country regardless of whether their parents were citizens or not.
One simply cannot sustain a parental requirement for natural born citizenship after the 14th amendment for those born in the country. The Constitution today repudiates in no uncertain terms the Dred Scott mistake, and thereby anything that follows in the path of its faulty reasoning.
Of course based on the scholarly decision in Lynch v. Clarke (pre Dred Scott and pre 14th Amendment) it becomes clear that it was always the case that our natural born citizens included those born in the country without regard for the status of their parents. But even if all that is discounted, still the 14th Amendment makes it impossible to maintain a parental requirement for those born in the country, those who were born citizens, i.e. “natural born citizens.”
The reasoning contained in Dred Scott is Frankenstein’s Monster, a horror that left half a million dead. Are you sure you want to hook those electrodes up and crank up the lightning attractor again?
I seriously have trouble believing anyone who went to law school thinks that when a judge quotes an authority on a particular subject, it can in any way be claimed that the court is approving of anything in the quote dealing with other subjects for which the quote is not being cited. I do think it is unethical to even make such a claim.
Again, I see in all your rambling, you did not point to one U.S. Supreme Court Justice that you expect to uphold your warped definition of Natural Born Citizen.
Mario, I disagree. Like many have said here before we respect that you will come here to argue your case. However we have been equally critical of you when you have been proven to be incorrect but instead to accepting that and moving on you either change the issue or ignore it. Specifically the so called “Kenyan granny tape” and the so called travel ban to Pakistan. When you laid our your legal argument it was addressed and refuted by at least Greg, NBC, Ballantine, and Dr. C. Each time they cited case law and rulings to support their arguments like you are taught in law school However instead of researching more and finding more case law to support your point, you pass the buck or fail to address the response. So if you don’t realize that or remember doing that, then you may be right. We may be on different blogs. Either that or there are 2 Mario’s out there.
For someone who considers this to be an irrelevant blog, you are surely spending a lot of time attempting to defend your position.
Your actions speak louder than your words my dear Mario.
What is so libelous about expressing one’s belief why you should be debarred? While I disagree, I also respect that others may hold a different opinion.
But back to the facts or at least your interpretation of them.
Excellent point Greg, I had missed the dissent part.
There is a huge difference between Taitz and Apuzzo. Apuzzo doesn’t go around soliciting plaintiffs and getting them into trouble. I don’t consider him a menace.
Mario Apuzzo says:
I’ll be able to establish that there is NO human being now living to vouch for Obama’s birth that only occurred in 1961.
The only people living who can vouch for my birth in the United States are my older brother and my godmother. My New York State birth certificate (New York calls it a “Certificate of Birth Registration”) contains my name, date of birth, city and state of birth (but does not identify the hospital), the names of my parents, and the date it was filed. There is no identification of the doctor who delivered me.
Suspiciously similar to Obama’s COLB, wouldn’t you say? Yet this birth certificate was sufficient for me to get a Social Security Number, sufficient for me to enlist in the U.S. Navy (where I was given a Top Secret clearance), sufficient for me to register to vote, and sufficient for me to obtain a U.S. passport.
If I were to run for president, would you challenge my standing as a natural born citizen, since I don’t have a “long form” birth certificate or any impartial witnesses to my birth? Oh, wait, I almost forgot – I am white and I have an Irish surname. Never mind.
That’s why birth certificates are prima facie evidence. Silly argument…
The blog’s central theme is conspiracy. The blog owner (I assume) is named Dr. Conspiracy.
Dr. Conspiracy chose to include the Kerchner case as food for fodder on this blog. Then all the vultures here went to work on it.
Can you show me where is the conspiracy in my cause of action?
You will find no conspiracy, my friend. Rather the only thing you will find is this blog’s attempt to denigrate and ridicule the case and its lawyer.
You are the silly one. Where is the birth certificate? Where have you been all these months?
Faithfully, your answer proves my point. So I’ll explain: You are blissfully unaware that you have become an Orly Taitz wannabe in the eyes of your professional colleagues. Typical of a gadfly, it is only incomprehensible to YOU that your name has become a metaphorical insult. And how better to characterize the ineptness of your repartee than to have you resort to using the lamest generic universal retort in the only situation in which it doesn’t work at all: Someone savages you as being “a regular Mario Apuzzo” and you, Mario Apuzzo, refute it with, “I know you are,- but what am I?”
So now you are changing your tune once again. First of all failing to understand the focus of this blog.
What you find on this blog is a variety of contributions. First of all Dr C’s excellent analyses of the various cases and issue surrounding the eligibility issue. Then there are the comments which are contributed by people who have a varied interest. There are some who focus on rebutting your claims and arguments by showing the shortcomings in your arguments and filings. Then there are those on the opposite end of the scale who may ridicule your filings and the lawyer, although there are few. And then there are those who tie together your arguments and your case to show why it failed and why it would continue to fail, even if the Constitutional issue of standing were ever resolved in your favor.
Instead of focusing on the issues, you are now raising a red herring because of the title of the blog and its contributor.
What does that say about someone’s intelligence I wonder?
If you cannot handle the discussion then you are under no obligation or even expectation to continue to respond. It’s a free world where the exchange of ideas is not limited by deletion or censorship
This is fascinating. Have you missed the COLB which is the only official birth certificate of the State of Hawaii. You may be confusing it with the long form which provides no relevant additional information as to the time and place of birth.
To quote your own words, where have you been.
You’re selective presentation of things sounds so nice.
Oh the irony Mario, the irony.
Remember how you limited your representation of this blog and its intentions? Remember how you claim
Which fails to accurately describe the total breadth of contributions here and certainly does not give credit to Dr C’s contributions here. That you refer to others as ‘all the vultures’ further undermines any of you complaints.
If you cannot handle the discussions here, then, as I said before, you are free to pick and chose or avoid any discussion.
That people have found enough weaknesses in your claims, filings and assertions would be seen as some as helpful in formulating a better case, others may consider it to be the work of vultures.
Have you argued many cases in a courtroom?
Surely you must realize or may have heard, that the opposing counsel will do exactly this.
Mario Apuzzo: Can you show me where is the conspiracy in my cause of action?
This blog examines Conspiracy Theories about Barack Obama, wherever they arise. The Second Amended Complaint in Kerchner v. Obama alleges things that are generally considered conspiracy theories, for example (numbers from the complaint, bracketed notes mine):
While I do not see the word “conspiracy” in the Complaint, the concept is inescapable in the text.
Do not try to sugarcoat the repulsive conduct that goes on in this blog and slick talk your way around to what you know I am referring. You are not talking to some unsophisticated audience in me. I am referring not to the sometimes good legal debate that has gone back and forth. Rather, I am talking about the personal attacks and ridicule which the operatives here so cherish and adore. But I know, the ridicule is in your manual.
I can take it, especially knowing that mine is the correct and higher moral ground. Why else would I be on this blog but for my hopes to find the little crumbs of legal debate amoung the fields of sarcasm and mockery.
Thank you for your little summary. Now it is even clearer that there are no conspiracy theories in my complaint/petition.
As I said, feel free to ignore the ridicule, however to claim that the ‘operatives cherish and adore’ this is without any merit.
Ridicule has a time and place when the behavior or the arguments of one’s opponent calls for such.
Then stop whining and engage in some debate. It’s about time. Claiming that you are right, especially in light of the debate, seems rather ironic. And if you were to claim a higher moral ground why then stoop to very much of the same behavior you seem to object to?
Oh the irony of the denial and the absence of a real debate.
What were you complaining about before? Oh yes… hmmm.
Argument by equivocation. You must know that the common usage of the phrase “conspiracy theory” includes fringe beliefs, like yours, that have no, or very little, factual backing.
Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories
Your complaint makes each of these arguments. I guess you’re just upset that you’re not specifically mentioned in that article.
Mario Apuzzo: Now it is even clearer that there are no conspiracy theories in my complaint/petition.
Well we will just have to disagree on that point.
I will say that the ratio conspiracy to innuendo is much lower than I had intuited before I started “counting”.
I got the opportunity to refresh my memory about what was in the last 200 articles of the complaint so as to have a working characterization of them. Among the clutter at the end, I will say, you make the case that the vetting of eligibility for presidential candidates is somewhat haphazard. I don’t see, however, that this gives rise to any legal cause of action on behalf of Mr. Kerchner. If you see a problem with the vetting of presidents, I suggest advocating for a change in the law. Recalling the State of New Jersey’s response in Donofrio v. Wells, perhaps that’s a good place to start.
I expect more substance from you. I would expect you to know that just calling something a conspiracy does not make it so.
like claiming that you are correct? Greg explained his reasoning, you seem to be ignoring his argument again.
if it quacks like a duck …
I like you. My exact point. “Natural born citizen” “quacks like a duck. . . .
Needless to say, having just fought a revolution, the Founders were very cautious of persons having allegiance to the United States.
Now they had the task of creating the Office of President.
The Framers put in the Constitution the “natural born Citizen” clause.
We know that Obama was born a dual citizen which carries with it dual allegiance.
The State Department web site says:
“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
Do you believe that with such allegiance problems, the Founders would have allowed a person born with dual citizenship and allegiance to be President?
Natural born as opposed to naturalized making the two classes of citizens.
Of course since these problems only occur when traveling not when serving as a President in the United States where such a citizen is under full jurisdiction of the US and owes full allegiance to the United States.
Owing allegiance only happens when under jurisdiction of said country.
All of this is very clearly explained in Wong Kim Ark and other enlightened explorations of citizenship.
Huh? But you are wrong, the Founders were open to anyone joining their cause and the Union however they were somewhat concerned that a foreign prince could become naturalized (a simple process in those days) and run for president.
United States. Dept. of State, James Brown Scott, David Jayne Hill, Gaillard Hunt, Citizenship of the United States, expatriation, and protection abroad, Issue 326 of House document, GPO 1906.
Similarly, Hamilton wrote
Born a citizen of the USA. Sounds a lot like natural born now doesn’t it?
Allegiance is a tough concept and one has to be careful not to fall victim of equivocation.
Yes, I do, Mario, because, as you’ve noted today, our country doesn’t care what other countries do. The child born of Jewish parents is no less eligible to become President because Israel thinks he’s a citizen. Even you are eligible to be President, even if one of your ancestors forgot to naturalize in the United States and therefore Italy thought you were one of their citizens at your birth (assuming you were born here)!
Why do you come back to this dual citizenship nonsense, when it is clear that dual citizenship is imposed on the child by the other country?
I mean, you can’t even be consistent about this dual citizenship argument for a full day!
You’ve only got one half-way plausible argument (that’s generous, 0.002% plausible). It’s the Vattel two citizen parent argument. This nonsense about dual citizenship is basic sovereignty – you have to assume a nation willing to give up the right to determine who are their own citizens – a right no nation has ever given up. The nonsense about birth in Kenya, or adoption in Indonesia, or travel to Pakistan, or foreign-student scholarships are non-legal, conspiracy-based nonsense.
You want to pretend to be a “serious” lawyer, Mario? That you’re not part of the fringe, conspiracy-theorist nutjob crazies? Drop the stuff that has no possible basis in the law and stick to the stuff that was explicitly rejected by Wong Kim Ark.
“Needless to say, having just fought a revolution, the Founders were very cautious of persons having allegiance to the United States.”
Says who? Again, you are making stuff up. Some framers were concerned about foreign influence, but many were not. There is no statement from a framer or any legislative history to back the proposition that duel citzenship would be prohibited. The only proposals made were for longer residency periods or native birth, and no, they didn’t define “native” by Vattel’s definition.
The point you seem to be missing is that in the founding period, “allegiance” was defined by place of birth, not parentage, and you can point to no early authority to the contrary. Here is some help with your research on allegiance:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
“The people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state. It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subjeft to the state, and in confequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.” Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
“This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former sovereign and residing within his dominions, are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. If they return to the country of their birth, they will be protected as subjects.” Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Alligience”: It is natural, acquired, or local. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of that character. Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign.” Justice Story, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155 (1833)
The founders did not recognize ‘dual citizenship’ so they did not concern themselves with that issue.
Obama is NOT a “dual citizen”. He may have been *born* with dual citizenship, but whatever claim he had to British citizenship expired when Kenya became independent, and whatever claim he had to Kenyan citizenship expired when he reached the age of 23 and did not affirm the Kenyan citizenship or renounce his US citizenship.
The issue is not what YOU think the Founders ‘would have’ wanted, and no court in the world would follow that rationale. The issue is what the law IS, and that would be determined under the legal rubric of the 14th Amendment and case law such as Wong Kim Ark and subsequent holdings.
There are standards as to how rules and statutes are interpreted, and as a matter of law, provisions regulated eligibility for public office are interpreted broadly, in favor of eligibility. You would know this if you read any treatise on election law — you could start with Am Jur if you need to look it up now. So if the phrase, ‘natural-born citizen’ is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which makes a given candidate eligible, and the other which doesn’t — and you don’t have any firm case authority to support the narrower reading — then the Courts are bound to follow the broader reading.
A competent lawyer would know this.
The Framers rejected Hamilton’s formula.
It can be seen that the Framers did not consider just being born in the United States to be sufficient to be President. The Framers did not accept Hamilton’s formula, i.e., “born a citizen of the United States.” Rather they accepted “natural born Citizen. . .” This standard was more stringent than that proposed by Hamilton, for just being born in the United States was not sufficient. Indeed, under the final test adopted, one would have to be naturally born in the United States. It was the addition of the word “natural” to the word “born” that shows that the Framers had Vattel’s definition of “naturels” in mind when they finalized the clause. This use of language shows that the Framers did not give categorical importance to just being born in the United States, for that condition alone did not include who the child’s parents are. Being simply born in the country could be sufficient to make one a “citizen” under the future naturalization powers to be exercised by Congress under the Constitution. But it would not be sufficient for a would-be President. It was the addition of the word “natural” that shows that the Framers wanted future Presidents to be born in the United States of parents who were both United States citizens. It was the use of the term “natural” which reveals that the Framers took away from Congress the authority to declare under their naturalization powers who was a “natural born Citizen” and who could be President.
This quote from Hamilton also shows that the founders considered Fourteenth Amendment type jus soli born citizenship for Article II Presidential eligibility long before there was a Fourteenth Amendment, but they rejected it. They wanted and adopted the more stringent definition from Vattel.
“Do you believe that with such allegiance problems, the Founders would have allowed a person born with dual citizenship and allegiance to be President?”
The Founders would not have allowed a Black man to be President. Its not what the Founders would have allowed, its what the Constitution states, and how the courts have interpreted the Constitution.
So tell me- why did Justice Roberts swear in the President if he knew that Barrack Obama was not eligible? The answer is that Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t agree with your theory, nor do the millions of voters who voted for him. Your theory is novel and advanced only because we elected a black President.
Why do I come to that conclusion? Because you have offered motley of reasons why President Obama is not eligible. If you only were concerned about eligibility you could have stuck to the one you ‘knew’ to be correct. But you throw out Kenyan Grannie and fake Pakistani travel bans as if they matter. If the two citizen rule is really settled law, then all of that is immaterial. You know it isn’t settled law so you grasp at any innuendo on the web to hopefully upset the Presidency you despise.
There is nothing to support your argument my poor friend.
Is that what remains of your argument?
Natural born means born on US soil per common law tradition. All these point to born on US soil as being the relevant part.
Support for my position can be found also in an opinion by Mr Pierrepont Attorney General of the US (15 Op Atty Gen 15 12 Alb L.J. 23)
There is no logic to your argument.
First you have not shown that Hamilton’s formula was rejected–only that that the wording is not the same. There is nothing in the record of debate to support this. You have not even shown that the meaning differs. And you have not shown “[the natural born citizen] standard was more stringent than that proposed by Hamilton” and you have not shown by any argument that “[the framers] wanted and adopted the more stringent definition from Vattel”. Since de Vattel’s translation at the time didn’t even use the phrase, this argument is virtually impossible to make. Basically you have begged the question by assuming a definition of natural born citizen and making inferences from that, arriving at nothing more than your assumption at the start. Argument: circular: invalid.
Even de Vattel rejects the notion that the laws of one nation can have any influence in the selection of a sovereign in another:
Mario Apuzzo: Needless to say, having just fought a revolution, the Founders were very cautious of persons having allegiance to the United States.
Did you inadvertently omit a footnote to this?
In both the eligibility clause and the post ratification translations of the Birther’s favorite Vattel cite, there is a comma followed by the word “or”. It could mean “alternately” or it could mean, “also known as”. In each case, they arbitrarily parse that combination differently to bolster their claims.
There is NO Vattel’s two-citizen parent argument. None. zero. Nada. Zilch.
Can we be clear on this?
It’s entirely made up.
Mario has never ever responded to that point either.
Mario Apuzzo: The Framers rejected Hamilton’s formula.
I think you gloss over one important fact: Hamilton, an influential framer of the Constitution, said plainly and unambiguously that he didn’t sign on to your de Vattel bull hockey. As far as I am concerned “born a citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen” have the same meaning, only the second may have been selected because its particular phrasing has a foothold in British common law. They certainly didn’t use the phrase to get a foothold into de Vattel’s The Law of Nations because it contains no such words in 1787.
[Of course you might argue that the phrase “natural born citizen” does not appear in British common law either, but the courts have consistently affirmed the translation of “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen.”]
Well, yes, that’s why traditionally anti-immigration groups like the Eagle Forum, who argued that Hamdi wasn’t really an American citizen (so could be denied Habeas Corpus) because both his parents were non-citizens when they were here haven’t signed onto Mario and Leo’s Excellent Adventure. They realize that an American citizen mom makes this case significantly different than the “anchor baby” threat they are fighting against.
The two parent theory, though, unlike the birth in Kenya can pretend to be a legal argument as opposed to a conspiracy theory. Arguing just that theory one can pretend to be a serious lawyer. Add the rest in, however, and you’ve got just another crank arguing that an 8-month pregnant mom would get on a plane to take the days long series of flights to get to Kenya, travel by bus the hundreds of miles to Mombasa, have her child there and call Grandma on an international phone to have her forge a birth certification, so that someday your child would be eligible for the Presidency.
Vattel is actually quite clear — only a non-French reader could mistake his group plural use of “parents” as meaning both parents.
Understandably considering the times, Vattel said that, under jus sanguinis, the child inherits his father’s citizenship — and that’s all he wrote.
In the later edition, one of the editors thought it useful to add the precision that, in the event on an unwed couple, then the child would inherit his mother’s citizenship.
Seriously, how does this help Mario’s cause? He keeps bringing up Vattel, but how does that bit help him exactly?
In the Appeal Mario filed he makes some outlandish claims. I found this one to be rather extreme in its misquote
Mario writes in his Appeal Brief submitted in the case of Kerchner v Obama
However, this is a clear misquote of what Sen Jacob Howard actually stated (Mario further complicates matters by misquoting the page which should have been 2890)
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Follow link to see a screenshot
Note how Mario has added the word ‘or’ not present in the original? See my earlier posting on this topic.
You attempt to obfuscate the words of Senator Howard. You would like us to conflate “aliens” and “ambassador” and “ministers” as if “aliens” did not exist as a separate category. Your interpretation makes little logical sense, for why would the Senator include a separate category which he called “aliens?” He would not have referred to ambassadors and ministers as aliens. He surely would not have described aliens by referring to them as being ambassadors and ministers. The meaning of the word alien is quite clear and does not need any further explanation by way of reference to ambassadors and consuls.
Our United States Supreme Court also does not agree with you. In Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872), the Court understood Senator Howard’s statement the same way that I do and not the way you do. In telling us what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment meant by the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the Court said:
“The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Id. at 73. The Court could not make it any more clear. What the Court said clearly shows that you are wrong.
By the way, you just love to conflate words that do not suit your purpose. You also do it with Article II “natural born Citizen” and 14th Amendment “citizen,” telling the whole world that they mean the same thing, just “citizen.” You just want the words “natural born” to disappear, just like you want the word “aliens” to disappear from Senator Howard’s statement.
Mario, you missed this part of The Slaughterhouse Cases:
Born in US = citizen of the United States. (at p. 74)
Of course when I read the quote, the extraneous “or” jumped right out. Mr. Apuzzo has certainly been free with his misrepresentation of sources, but actually misquoting them takes things to a new level that I find troublesome.
I (correctly) cited that text on this blog a year ago:
“By the way, you just love to conflate words that do not suit your purpose. You also do it with Article II “natural born Citizen” and 14th Amendment “citizen,” telling the whole world that they mean the same thing, just “citizen.”
We can tell the world that because the supreme court in Wong Kim Ark based its holding on the fact that the 14th amendment and the article II term are both defined by the english common law. You can cite the orbiter dicta in Slaughterhouse all you want on the 14th amendment, the rest of the world looks to the holding in Wong. Howard did not say who was born foreigners. He did not say that were children of foreigners, you are reading that into it, and if he meant to exclude all children of foreigners he would not have included the common law exception for ambassadors or foreign ministers, as such would be superfluous. People who try to rely on this quote probably haven’t read the legislative history which makes clear that children of aliens were to be citizens. Here is my summary of the debates for anhone who wants to learn:
Any analysis of the 14th amendment must begin with a look at the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act stated:
“That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States…”
This clause was written by Senator Trumbull who repeatedly said such clause was declaratory of existing law. See.e.g., William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868). He said that his intent was to remove any doubt that all person borns in the United States were citizens, See, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 475 (1866). Trumball also made clear that he intended native born children of aliens to generally be considered citizens as he made clear that the Act would make citizens of children of the chinese born in this country, id. at 493, said it was his understanding that under current law “children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens,” id., and, in his reply to President Johnson’s veto said “even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Barnes, supra, at 255. At one point Trumbull described the Act in accordance with the common law rule saying it was his desire to make a citizen of “everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States, ” and adding that “[w]e cannot make a citizen of a child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here.” 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess., at 572. However, he added that he didn’t want to make citizens of temporary residents who only owed a “sort of allegiance” to the United States. Id. He didn’t say anything directly about children of such temporary residents. Rep. Wilson introduced the bill in the House stating it was declaratory of existing law which he made clear in a long speech was the English common law rule of Calvin’s Case citing, amongst others, Blackstone, Rawle and Kent. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115- 1117 (1866). However, Wilson seemed to think that the English common law rule did not apply to children of temporary sojourners. Id. at 1117. Numerous other members of Congress made statements tying the Act to the jus soli common law rule without mentioning any exceptions for temporary residents or sojourners. For example, Congressman Broomall said the Act was declaratory of existing law and defined citizen as someone “born within the jurisdiction of the government.” Id. at 1262. Congressman Thayer said the Act made citizens of “all men born upon the soil of the United States.” Id. at 1151. Senator Morrill thought the language declaratory of existing law and stated “does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone.” Id. at 570. Senator Johnson stated that “that as far as the United States is concerned, all persons born within the limited of the United States are citizens.” Id. at 1780. Sen. Cowen seemed to want to exclude children of Chinese aliens, but didn’t appear to have issues with children of aliens from Europe becomong citizens. Id. at 493. Rep. Raymond said the Act made citizens of all person “born within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Barnes, supra, at 234. President Johnson made clear in his veto message that the Act would make citizens of children of the Chinese. Id. at 246. Rep. Bingham, as discussed, made his bizarre claim that parents must no owe allegiance to a foreign country. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. at 1291. It does not appear that anyone else in Congress expressed agreement with Bingham’s view. Accordingly, the general consensus from the debates seems to be that the Civil Rights Act generally conferred citizenship on children of aliens leaving perhaps only a question of whether it applied to temporary residents or sojourners.
As is well know, the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act was doubted, leading to the introduction of the 14th Amendment shortly thereafter. The first draft of the amendment did not define citizenship. However, Senator Howard did define “citizen” generally in accordance with the English common law rule at that point:
“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws….. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”
Id. at 2765-66. Senator Wade shortly thereafter suggested adding language defining citizen in the amendment as “persons born in the United States or naturalized by the laws thereof.” Id. at 2765-66. Wade also made clear he was talking about the English common law rule:
“The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States.”
Id. A few days later, Sen. Howard introduced the first draft adding “subject to the jurisdiction” to Sen. Wade’s proposed language that we now know as the citizenship clause. In introducing this amendment, Sen. Howard stated:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Id. at 2890. Birthers try to assert that this ambiguous statement supports their theory. Howard, however, did not say what persons are born foreigners. He didn’t say they are children of foreigners. Indeed, if he meant to exclude all children of foreigners why would he include the common law exception for children or ambassadors or foreign ministers, which would then be superfluous? Accordingly, the most sensible reading of this statement would be “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” was intended to modify both “foreigners” and “aliens,” in which case the entire quotation reads like a recitation of the common law. Only this reading makes sense when looking at Howard’s statement on citizenship a few days earlier and the statement of Senator Wade, whose language he was supplementing, which both reflect the common law rule. It seems implausible that he meant to completely change the meaning, particularly considering the fact he raised no objections to Wade’s statements or the other many other statements about children of aliens being citizens in the Civil Rights Act debates discussed above or the 14th Amendment debates discussed below.
Following Howard’s statement, Sen. Cowens stated that he thought children of gypsies and Chinese should be excluded. Id. at 2890. Sen. Conness replied that he was in favor of making children of Chinese parents citizens stating he had “voted for the proposition to declare that children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be citizens of the United States” and he was in favor of the proposal to “incorporate the same provision into the fundamental instrument of the nation.” Id. At 2891 No other Senator contradicted this statement including Howard and Trumbull, though Howard remarked that the supreme court of California overturning discriminatory laws against the Chinese to be a “very just and constitutional decision.” Id. at 2892
There were a number of senators who thought Howard’s proposed language would include Indians. Trumbull and Howard resisted. Trumbull insisted the “subject to the jurisdiction” meant “complete jurisdiction… Not owing allegiance to anybody else…” Id. 2893. Sen. Howard stated that the provisions should be “construed to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States …” Id. at 2895. Several senators thought that Indians were subject to the laws of the United States were not convinced by the explanation of Senators Trumbull and Howard that they would not be made citizens. Id. at 2892-97. The quotes by Trumbull and Howard are relied upon by the Birthers to support their theory. However, these remarks read in context are clearly an unsuccessful attempt to convince skeptical senators that Indians would not be covered by stretching the plain meaning of the language. We know Howard defined the current law he claimed not to be changing as requiring a person to be “born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws” just a few days earlier and this seemed to be the definition the other senators had in mind. We know Trumbull specifically stated that children of aliens were citizen in the Civil Rights Act debates and a few years after these debates he would state the 14th amendment to be declaratory of the English common law with no qualification for children of temporary residents:
“in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872). Senator Johnson described the Amendment by stating “I know of no better way togive rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” Id. 2893
Finally, several members of the 39th congress spoke of the amendment in debate a few years later. They included Rep. James Garfield, the future president, who cited Paschal, Kent, Attorney General Bates and Justice Swayne in arguing the 14th amendment declaratory of the common law doctrine that already existed. Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. __ (1871). Similar opinions were stated by Rep. Wilson and Rep. Kerr. Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 47, 260, __ (1871). Two other representatives (Holman and Williard) made similar statements, however they were not members of the 39th Congress. Id. at __.
James Ho wrote about Senator Howard and the attempt to misread his statements about aliens in Defining American.
Your reading of Howard has the same problem you ascribe to NBC. Why would Howard have mentioned ambassadors and foreign ministers if all aliens are excluded?
You don’t have to look years after Howard’s statement to the Slaughterhouse Case to find out that you’re completely wrong. You need only look at the debate that took place as soon as Howard sat down.
Senator Cowan stood up to object to the amendment, saying that it would allow the children of the Chinese to become citizens. He objected, especially to aliens who:
In response, proponents
Mario, if your interpretation of Howard is right, you’d think someone would have stood up at this point and said, “No, the Amendment forbids Chinese from becoming citizens because it forbids all aliens – look at what Howard just said.”
Instead, Senator John Conness (R-CA) stood to endorse Cowan’s interpretation, but defend the grant of citizenship to Chinese:
And, again, no Senator stood up to say, “Look at what Howard just said, it doesn’t make the children of aliens into citizens!”
As for the notion that the 14th Amendment somehow requires full allegiance to the United States, thereby denying citizenship to children of aliens because they would also have allegiance to another country, Cowan objected to the Amendment because it would allow citizenship to those who had no allegiance to his state:
It’s clear from the Cowan/Conness debate that the Senate understood the Amendment to grant citizenship to all who were born here, except the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers and Indians.
As you can see from the date on Ho’s article, the debate about the meaning of the 14th Amendment, especially with respect to birthright citizenship, has been going on for years (because of illegal immigration). Your argument, Mario, is entry-level stuff that has been debunked for years.
Regarding Mario’s nonsense over Cheney’s not calling for objections, here is how it was handled in 2005
As soon as Ohio (the state whose votes were objected to) was called, the clerk read the objection, filed, as required by law ,in writing and signed by 1 Representative and 1 Senator. They then retired to their separate chambers to discuss the challenge. The Republicans controlled Congress, so the challenge was rejected.
All anyone had to do in January 2009 was file a similar objection to Obama signed by 1 Representative and 1 Senator and the count would have been stopped at the first Obama state (California, I think) and the objection taken up. Of course, as everyone including Mario knows, there was no such objection. Therefore, the count was 100% kosher.
Here is a quote from the article that the birthers should take to heart:
White House press secretary Scott McClellan dismissed the challenge as “partisan politics.”
“The election is behind us,” he said. “The American people now expect their leaders in Washington to focus on the big priorities facing this country.”
Well said, Scott….
James Ho has a number of good papers on the subject. The bottom line is that Howard does not say children of foreigners or aliens are excluded he says it would not “include persons born in the United States who are foreigners” without defining who is born a foreigner other than the common law exception. Not very honest. If anyone actually reads through the legislative hisory of both the amendment and the preceding statute, it is hard to argue that they were no adopting the common law rule.
Mario, explain to us why you added the “or” to the quote without indicating that you had edited what Howard really had said?
As to your claim that the quote without the or does not make sense, I believe that to be quite ironic… You force the reader, and the court to an interpretation which is hardly self evident.
Thanks, I have added how Congress historically has dismissed with unanimous consent the part of reading the individual returns from the States.
Cheney did nothing much different from his countless predecessors all the way back to 1866 I believe.
And yet, these words exist and cannot be ignored. Thus, in proper context, the interpretation that Howard was referring to children born to foreigners, aliens who are consuls and ambassadors does make sense as it explains the minor exception to the common law rule that any child born on US soil is a US citizen, regardless of the status of the parents.
Here is the actual vote count on C-SPAN from January 8, 2009
They read the individual state votes, as they did in 2005. Cheney did not call for objections because they have to be in writing and he knew there were none. Mario would have us believe that there was some properly executed objection and the makers of said objection simply sat there like lumps and didn’t protest when their objection was ignored. And yet, to this day, no Congresscritter has come forward to say that they made an objection. Not even one.
scientist, living up to his moniker by dealing with facts:
birfoons, of course, need to delude themselves with the ongoing fiction (among many) that there is a senator and a representative still walking around with objections serious enough to halt the count, who nonetheless looked at each other, shrugged and said “meh” when cheney forgot to call on them …
I don’t know aarrgghh, maybe they had some but their dogs ate them???
My main concern is with the fact that you added an “or” to the quote which is at odds with what we find in the Congressional Globe.
Since the addition appears to change the meaning of the phrase, such a substitution needs to be noted and explained.
I to am interested to know how the spurious “or” came to be. I somehow can’t believe Mr. Apuzzo intentionally faked the quote if only because he’s not so stupid as to be caught with pants down like that.
Given the reference to the incorrect page, perhaps the quote was obtained from a third party source?
Here we go and this one. Both also contain the incorrect page reference.
Perhaps Mario will get a do-over when the motion to file an overlength brief is rejected. Of course, the respondents may not want such an opportunity to arise. This is going to be interesting.
If, as the evidence suggest, the addition of the “or” may have been accidental, the question now become: How to rectify this oversight with the Courts?
Does the question even make sense?
I seem to have been wrong, according to the Free Republic
From yet another attorney, Mario Apuzzo:
How could I have missed that one… I should have kept my website better up to date with Mario’s filings.
So Apuzzo has abandoned his contention that Natural Born Citizen was defined by international law, and admitted that it is defined by the common law. This means he can move forward in his argument to the misrepresentation of common law.
Wherever this originated, I speculate that the erroneous page reference was done intentionally to cover up the faked quotation.
I quite like the “original common law is what Vattel revealed later on” shtick, for its entertainment value. It betrays such fundamental misunderstanding about… well, everything involved, that it can’t help but be funny.
If he actually read the debates of the federal and virginia conventions, he would see they talked about the law of nations when discussing international issues and the common law when talking about common law issues. It is clear they were seeparate spheres.
his the law of nations became the common law nonsense apparently comes from his finding a quote from Hamilton that said something like the law of nations was adopted by the common law. This, of course, comes directly from Blackstone who said the “law of nations (wherever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.” What Blackstone meant was that courts should look to the law of nations on issues of international law, it didn’t it replaced the municipal laws of England with repsect to domestic law such as who sit in Parliament.
And you have discovered the crux of Linda and the rest of the birhter’s argument regarding “commonm law” and Blackstone…They parse his quote to try and get people to think that the Law of Nations superceeded English common law for domestic issues…When in reality it didn’t…
Yes, of course, he will run into some real troubles here. But in the end it does not matter as his clients lack standing
Exactly. But that does not serve the ’cause’
It’s also kind of amusing in the sense of there being an “original” common law, as if it were some kind of found object, something to be discovered, when the essence of common law is that it is something which evolves over time and is created as it goes.
That rather tickles me, I must admit.
Mario is now claiming that he did not technically ‘quote’ Howard. I am not sure to what extent that argument will be found credible by the Courts. However, technically speaking Mario provided an incorrect reference to a source which he believed defined the term natural born and when the actual quote, made of an earlier page of the Cong Globe was compared to Mario’s paraphrasing of said quote, a discrepancy was noted between the actual quote and Mario’s interpretation. Mario argues that Puffendorf, Vattel, Jefferson’s Naturalization Laws, and Court rulings support his interpretation of Howard’s quote. While I have doubts as to the relevance of Puffendorf and Vattel to issues of Common Law, I believe that Jefferson’s naturalization laws which assign citizenship to all whites born on Virginia Soil, do not really support Mario’s premise. As to later acts by Congress, I assume that Mario is referring to the act which was passed soon after the Constitution had been signed, which declared children born abroad to US citizens to be natural born. This indicates that the Founders realized that a statutory act was needed to grant these children citizenship, indicating their doubts that Common Law practices were sufficient. Indeed, Common Law practices had never granted citizenship to children born abroad, even in England, a statutory law had to be passed to that extent.
When the Courts finally came to rule on this issue, the Court, in Wong Kim Ark settled, once and for all, that any child born on US soil, with minor exceptions, is a natural born citizen. A concept the Fourteenth Amendment merely confirms.
In other words, even if we accept Mario’s explanation that he was not quoting but rather paraphrasing Howard, I believe that the context of the debates, as well as history and legal references fail to provide support for Mario’s interpretation.
It’s too bad that likely the Court will not get to this issue as the 3rd Circuit will apply its Precedential Opinion in Berg v Obama. Just a hunch though.
NBS, cross posted this on your site:
Again, so much nonsense. The change in Howard’s quote clearly tries to separate the common law exception from the portion of the quote stating who is born a foreigner or alien to support his position. Of course, Howard’s actual quote does not say who is born a foreigner or alien and no where says all children of aliens are foreigners. Actually, the only people he specifically exludes from his definition are people covered under the common law exception with respect to foreign ministers. This is now the common practice among birthers, as they cannot find authority that directly supports their fringe positions, they need to try to read their positions into any language that is the least bit ambiguous. Of course, Howard, a few days earlier, defined a native citizen as someone born in the county and subject to its laws. Does anyone really dispute that aliens are subject to our laws. After Howard’s statements, Senator Wade then clarified that ambassadors were the only people not subject to are laws. No on disputed these claims, nor did Howard dispute the multiple comments during these debates that native-born children of aliens were citizens. This is again, just making stuff up.
Mario has already been told that Jefferson’s statutes do not support his theory, particularly the 1783 law which leaves no ambiguity at all. I don’t know why he thinks Puffendorf or Vattel are relevant to these debates, as no one raised them during the debates. The statements of Bingham might be interesting except for the fact that none of the couple dozen of congressmen who spoke on the issue during the debates seemed to agree with him. Exactly why is Bingham’s opinion important if he didn’t write the citizenship clauses in either the civil rights act or the 14th amendment and pretty much everyone else who spoke on the issue disagreed with him? The answer is that his opinion is not important and for the convservative originalists on the court, their mentors, the godfathers of the modern originalist movement, spend decades trashing Bingham as a confused thinker based upon his nutty views on the constitution. See, e.g., Charles Fairman, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 Stan.L.Rev. 5 (1949); Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary, pg. 1445 (1978; Alexander M. Bickel, The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 5 n. 13 (1955).
Of course, the naturalization laws do not support his position either. He cannot cite any early authority that any native born person needed to be naturalized as “naturalization” was understood to apply only to the foreign born.
As previously, discussed, his brief contains a number of other false statements that he should really consider correcting. For example, the Minor court in no way said it was doubtful that native born children of aliens were natural born. It just said that thery were doubts by someone without approving or disapproving of such doubts, or even telling anyone who had such doubts or what those doubts were. When a court takes no position and does not examine an issue in any way other than to say someone, somewhere had doubts, it is simply beyond the pale to claim the court said such provision was doubtful. I would move for sanctions for such nonsense.
Another devastating quote, this time from the Senate discussions around the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Another recent find
Note: The same principles which determine allegiance and protection and thus citizenship under English law were adopted by Congress on 1776 (Calvin Case: Protectio trahit subjectionem)
On June 24, 1776 Congress requested that the colonies pass laws against treason, defining citizenship, allegiance, and treason in terms of the colonies:
Resolved, That all persons abiding within any of the United Colonies, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of such colonies, and that all persons passing through,” etc, owed allegiance thereto.