Category Archives: Mario Apuzzo

Obama NJ eligibility court case update, April 11, 2012, Judge Masin rules in Obama’s favor, Mario Apuzzo files exception, WhiteHouse.gov image irrelevant

Obama NJ eligibility court case update, April 11, 2012, Judge Masin rules in Obama’s favor, Mario Apuzzo files exception, WhiteHouse.gov image irrelevant

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

From Conservative New and Views April 10, 2012.

“OBAMA ELIGIBILITY: NJ ALJ DUCKS ISSUES”

“In the latest Obama eligibility challenge, an Administrative Law Judge cleared Obama for the New Jersey Democratic Primary today. The two men who objected to Obama’s nominating petition vowed to appeal.”

“Obama eligibility issues

Nick Purpura of Wall Township, NJ, and Ted Moran of Toms River, NJ, filed their objection Thursday with the New Jersey Board of Elections. Lawyer Mario Apuzzo of Jamesberg, NJ, delivered the brief and spoke directly to Robert Giles, Director of Elections. Apuzzo argued Purpura and Moran’s case today (Tuesday, April 10) at the Office of Administrative Law in Mercerville. The Elections Division notified the Obama campaign at once, and they sent their own lawyer, Alexandra Hill, to appear. Administrative Law Judge (and Associate Director of the OAL) Jeff Masin presided.

Purpura and Moran objected to Obama appearing on the June 5 Democratic Primary ballot on two grounds:

No one knows exactly who Barack H. Obama is, because he has had three different names in life. Furthermore, he has never furnished a true copy of his birth certificate to the Secretary of State. So no one can be sure that Obama was born in the United States.
Obama’s father was a British colonial subject. He not only was not a naturalized citizen on the alleged date of Obama’s birth, but indeed never sought naturalization. Therefore Obama could never be a natural-born citizen no matter where he was born.
Ms. Hill offered no evidence, but spent her time objecting to the entire case, to every witness whom Apuzzo called, and every document he tried to introduce. In every specific case, she said that the documents were neither originals nor certified copies. More generally, she said repeatedly that New Jersey law did not obligate Obama in any way to prove that he was eligible to the office of President. The only grounds for challenging a nominating petition, said Hill, were whether the petitions were in the proper form, all who signed were registered voters, no voter signed more than one petition, whether the campaign gathered enough signatures, etc.

Apuzzo countered that the New Jersey Constitution and at least one case on point (Strother, 6 NJ @ 565), obliged the Secretary of State to find affirmatively whether a given candidate was qualified for the office he or she sought, or not.

A surprise admission
About two-thirds of the way through the hearing, Hill admitted in open court something that no lawyer for the Obama campaign has ever admitted. Obama never furnished a true copy of his birth certificate to the New Jersey Secretary of State. Furthermore, the PDF file that the White House has served to the Internet since April 27, 2012, is not relevant to the case in any way.

Hill conceded this point after Apuzzo tried to call Brian Wilcox, an expert document analyst. He was ready to show that no one could rely on the PDF file as a substitute for a hard-copy long-form birth certificate. But Judge Masin said at once that neither he nor Secretary of State Kim Guadagno had ever seen a birth certificate, whether on paper, as a PDF file, or on the Internet. He told Apuzzo that calling Wilcox would be “premature.”

Then Masin turned to Hill and asked her directly:

Is it your legal position that the document on the Internet is irrelevant to this case?

Hill replied, “Yes.” Masin then asked:

And indeed you concede that Mr. Obama has not produced an alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State.

Hill at first said, “It has been released nationally,” but then admitted that she did not know personally that Obama had given any such document to the Secretary of State, nor did she intend giving such a document to the court today. But she also argued, after Judge Masin asked her repeatedly, that Obama need not produce any evidence at all.

Apuzzo told CNAV during a recess in the hearing that this was the most stunning thing that any lawyer for Obama had ever admitted, in an Obama eligibility case or in any other case. When the hearing finally adjourned at 12:30 p.m., Apuzzo was confident of prevailing on this point. He observed that Hill, after objecting to everything that Apuzzo tried to introduce into evidence, offered no evidence on her own behalf and even admitted that the infamous PDF document was legally worthless.

A shocking turnabout
But the judge shocked Apuzzo when, at about 7:30 p.m., he called Apuzzo to tell him that the Obama campaign had prevailed on both points. Said the judge, according to Apuzzo:

As far as I’m concerned, Obama was born in Hawaii.

Apuzzo could not explain how Judge Masin could rule that way, after observing in open court that neither Obama nor his surrogates had shown that he was born in Hawaii.

Within two hours, according to a deadline that Masin gave him, Apuzzo filed an exception to Masin’s ruling. Apuzzo took exception to the following:

Judge Masin ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii with no evidence on record, after acknowledging that fact during the hearing.
Judge Masin ruled that Obama need not comply with statute to show that he is eligible, solely because he need not “consent” to someone circulating a nominating petition for him.
The judge suggested that Obama might have to show eligibility later. He laid no basis for such a ruling.
The judge misread the precedents and gave short shrift to the historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution defined “natural-born citizen” as one born in-country to two citizen parents. Apuzzo devoted half of his 30-page exception to this analysis alone.

Apuzzo plans to appeal directly to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. He earlier told CNAV that he was ready to argue before the State and even United States Supreme Courts if he had to.”

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/10/constitution/obama-eligibility-nj-alj-ducks-issues/

Advertisements

Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies

Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln
“Why did Indiana Appeals Court Judge Elaine B. Brown place the following in her ruling: “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.””...Citizen Wells

You gotta love Free Republic!

When I first discovered the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal ruling I smelled a rat. I am smelling a much larger rat now.

When I wrote the article yesterday on the GA Obama ballot challenge ruling by Judge Michael Malihi, I based my comments on the Ankeny v Daniels Appeal decision based purely on my reading and analyzing the Indiana “judge’s” ruling. In the article I wrote several times “Was this written by a judge?” There are obvious reasons for my doing so. In one instance, I call the author a liar.

I just came across a Free Republic article posted on January 10, 2012, several weeks before the Judge Michael Malihi ruling. As is often the case at Free Republic, it is interesting and insightful.

From Free Republic January 10, 2012.

“Why Wasn’t Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?”

“As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama’s eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn’t the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.”

Some very interesting comments:

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 14:43:14 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Mr. Lucky

To: Fantasywriter; LucyT; Elderberry; hoosiermama; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; …
This entire issue is like reading Dickens in the original newspaper serial format. It goes on forever. At least Dickens got a penny a word! All we get is a headache.
The Indiana Supreme Court is NOT where one ordinarily goes looking for precedent. But the fact that Team Obama does harp upon it, makes it worthy of some inquiry.

The lack of appeal is troubling. Could it have been a “set-up?””

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 15:15:27 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Kenny Bunk ((So, you’re telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can’t figure out this eligibility stuff?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
“Gold standard” is a misnomer for describing the case. There are a variety of problems with it that, when itemized, turns Obots into namecallers or makes them flee. The case was appealed to the state supreme court, but it’s not clear if new arguments were presented to the higher court. Not sure this would be eligible for SCOTUS appeal. And of course the decision to appeal is up to the plaintiff who filed the case, so it should be asked of him.

This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Even by its own rationale, it can’t, because to date, there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States. None was presented here and the court does NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. This decision’s opinions on NBC are nothing more than window dressing. The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle … failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.

Again, there are several problems and outright contradictions in the section on NBC. I’ve illustrated those before, but can do so again if need be.”
“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:15:45 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
The decision contradicts itself. First it claims guidance and then admits that the decision from which it divined that guidance doesn’t actually make the same conclusion:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution?s Article II language is immaterial.
The court in Wong Kim Ark did NOT pronounce the plaintiff to be a natural-born citizen. IOW, the Supreme Court didn’t follow this so-called “guidance.” Ankeny claims that this inconvenient fact is immaterial. Why do they say this??

For all but forty-four people in our nation?s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
They’re claiming this is irrelevant to everyone but the people who were elected president. This is sheer stupidity. The natural-born citizen requirement isn’t there for the benefit or the convenience of the electee. It’s there to ensure the best leadership for this government of the people. It’s not irrelevant to everyone else. We know this because of John Jay’s letter suggesting that it would help prevent foreign influence. The Ankeny decision does nothing to support this presumption.

The Ankeny decision cites this citation from Wong Kim Ark:

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.
This paragraph is talking about people born in the United States. It’s saying you can be born on U.S. soil and NOT be a U.S. citizen. This citation is describing a passage from Shanks v. Dupont which noted that the Treaty of 1783 said those who were natives or otherwise were either citizens OR British subjects depending on whether the parents adhered to the Crown or United States allegiance. You can’t be both. Under this citation, Obama is a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.

Ankeny makes this ridiculous claim about the Minor definition of NBC:

… the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
A) This isn’t true. Such persons were characterized as foreigners or aliens in the passage they quoted. B) Minor went on to discuss the naturalization act of 1790 which said that the children of aliens could become citizens AFTER their fathers naturalized. Further, Ankney contradicts themselves in their own footnote on this point:

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Here it says the court contemplated situations where both parents are aliens. Note, there’s nothing cited that says they left any questions open on these children, so how do they “contemplate” something and leave a question open?? Contemplate means “to consider at length.” IOW, if they contemplated the scenario, then they addressed it, rather than left the question open.

Then Ankeny says this:

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”
Minor does NOT say anything about considering anything in the light of the common law. The NBC definition is uses is from the Law of Nations, as it matches verbatim. The Law of Nations was a principle and history which were famiilarly known to the framers.

Ankeny stabs itself in the foot here:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment IS the Constitution. IOW, the 14th amendment doesn’t say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, the guidance that Ankeny claims is simply NOT there.

Here’s another error. They quote Justice Story in Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors? Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”
That’s all well and good if we’re trying to determine who British subjects are. The person Story was talking about was born in the U.S. but he was considered to be a British subject (which would mean Obama is too, under this doctrine). This wasn’t about making someone a citizen by birth in the country.

It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219); and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject.
Further, from the same decision, it is acknowledged in the opinion of the court, that citizenship descends from the father:

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.
Finally, I just wanted to address a couple of the sloppy points in the Ankeny decision. They can’t seem to get the facts straight:

As to President Obama?s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States ….

The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs? argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there?s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States? and a „natural born Citizen,? and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
Now, Ankeny says the plaintiffs aren’t arguing place of birth, but just a few pages earlier, the court said:

Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”
Okay, so which is it?? The plaintiffs are or are NOT arguing where Obama was born??? And then stuff like this is just bizarre:

The bases of the Plaintiffs? arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11

11 Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite.
Now, I just showed where a Supreme Court case that Ankeny cited, Inglis, quoted Vattel from The Law of Nations. They don’t seem to understand the Supreme Court has regularly used Vattel as a legal resource. Second, the “ninenteenth century congressional debate” citations were being used as the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. Why does this court downplay original intent?? Then the Ankeny court quotes Wong Kim Ark citing things like Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” …. how is that okay, but not Vattel?? The Ankney court concludes with this doozy:

To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court?s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs? arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
A) Vattel does NOT conflict with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of natural-born citizen. The ONE definition that Ankeny cited matches Law of Nations verbatim. B) This court basically just says it doesn’t have to accept the plaintiffs assertions as true, even though the Supreme Court regularly relies on such authorities as were used by the plaintiffs. This decision is simply an embarrassment to the legal profession.

27 posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 17:38:24 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
You’re welcome. Please feel free to PM me if you ever have any questions or other issues, and I will be happy to answer if I can.

Happy FReeping!”

“posted on Tue Jan 10 2012 18:43:01 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]
To: Obama Exposer
Your link goes to the appellate review.

Not sure if you have been exposed to the term – dictum. It is background used by a judge to then form a ruling. The appellate judges ruling is 99% dictum to reach a simple decision:

“Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial courts grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana (“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2”

That is the entire ‘ruling’. Everything else after that is dictum. Nauseating dictum at that. And unnecessary dictum since the ruling above did not rely on any of it. It was all show to provide fodder for those who want this to stop – basically an politician or government official.

The ruling above relied on this simple rule in Indiana trial law:

“(B) How presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required; except that at the option of the pleader, the following defenses may be made by motion:

(6) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which shall include failure to name the real party in interest under Rule 17; “

See here for expanded specific to the Indian Trial Rules:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/#_Toc313019775

So it is odd that a judge who makes a ruling citing only state trial law rules would go out their way to write so much dictum that used SCOTUS rulings and other material.

….unless someone wrote it for him……”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831111/posts

Again, this was posted several weeks before the Judge Malihi ruling.

Also, the last sentence above:

“….unless someone wrote it for him……”

Law expert and attorney Mario Apuzzo has dissected the Indiana Appeal Court ruling and the improper references to English Common Law.

“Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.”

I urge you to read the entire article:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

Orly Taitz has provided an update on her appeal to Judge Michael Malihi’s ruling as well as some interesting comments:

“EMERGENCY APPEAL

PETITION TO SET ASIDE RECOMMENDATION ISSUED BY JUDGE MALIHI IN FARRAR V OBAMA OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALHI, AS RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE IN ERROR, WITH GROSS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF ALL LAW, PRECEDENTS AND FACTS OF THE CASE; AND FIND CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA INELIGIBLE TO APPEAR ON THE STATE OF GA BALLOT AS A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES”

“This behavior of judge Malihi was so outrageous, that not only his advisory opinion needs to be  set aside, as not grounded in any fact or law, but state and county grand juries and the Attorney General of Georgia need to launch a criminal investigation into actions of judge Malihi and possible direct or indirect undue influence by Obama. Decision by Malihi reads, as if it was entirely written by Obama’s personal attorneys Robert Bauer and Judith Corley of Perkins Coie and rubber stamped by Malihi. It is noteworthy, that both Robert Bauer and Judith Corley need to be criminally investigated as well, as both of them were complicit in aiding and abetting Obama  in presenting to the public on April 27, 2011 a computer generated forgery and claiming it to be a true and correct copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Such assumption by Malihi, that Obama was born in the U.S., without any documentary evidence to that extent from Obama, goes beyond an abuse of judicial disretion, it represents judicial misconduct.”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=31271

We clearly have a flawed ruling in GA based on a flawed ruling in IN. It is not uncommon for lower court decisions to be reversed based on errors or misinterpretation of the law. However, the Indiana ruling was either written by a baised or incompetent judge.

Did Chief Judge Margret G. Robb read the ruling?

Judges Crone and May concurred with Judge Elaine B. Brown. Did they read it?

I will contact the Indiana Court of Appeals and find out.

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Indiana Appeals court lies, US Constitution Vs English common law, Supreme court opinions, More Indiana corruption?

Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Indiana Appeals court lies, US Constitution Vs English common law, Supreme court opinions, More Indiana corruption?

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

Indiana has been in the news recently for political corruption.

From Fox News October 18, 2011.

“Shocking election fraud allegations have stained a state’s 2008
presidential primary – and it took a college student to uncover them.

“This fraud was obvious, far-reaching and appeared to be systemic,”
22-year-old Ryan Nees told Fox News, referring to evidence he
uncovered while researching electoral petitions from the 2008
Democratic Party primary in Indiana.

Nees’ investigation centered on the petitions that put then-senators
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot. As many as 150 of the
names and signatures, it is alleged, were faked. So many, in fact,
that the numbers raise questions about whether Obama’s campaign had
enough legitimate signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/18/college-student-credited-with-uncovering-possible-election-fraud-in-indianas
Who wrote the Indiana Appeals Court decision that Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia quoted? The Obama camp? Mainstream media?

Did a judge actually write this?
STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE, Appellants-Plaintiffs,

vs.

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent.

November 12, 2009
OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION
BROWN, Judge

CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.
“B. Natural Born Citizen

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be
President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution”

“As to President Obama‟s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States”

Did a judge actually write the above? If so it is at best unprofessional and inaccurate and at worst biased.

“Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs‟ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there‟s a very clear distinction
between a „citizen of the United States‟ and a „natural born Citizen,‟ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign
allegiance. Appellants‟ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom,
President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.”

Once again, did a judge write the above? First, there is a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen. Secondly, the judge cannot possibly know what most people think. Thirdly, the law is not based on what a group of people think.

“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.”

The following

“and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

is a damn lie!

Anyone who has studied law and or history, anyone who has followed the natural born citizen debate, knows that although American Law was influenced by British Common Law, once we broke from the British Empire, we developed our own set of laws that are not identical to those of our ancestral lands.

For example:

US Constitution

Article I Section 2

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Third Congress,  1795 .

“…children of citizens  of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

Further evidence can be found here:

Citizen Wells January 6, 2011.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/112th-congress-ron-paul-et-al-do-your-damn-job-us-constitution-natural-born-citizen-obama-eligibility/

From Sam Sewell of The Steady Drip.

“The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution.”

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer.  But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

From attorneys and legal scholars:

From Attorney Mario Apuzzo February 3, 2012.

“Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html

I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.

The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.””

Read more:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html

From Attorney Leo Donofrio February 4, 2012.

“There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.

Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:

“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ””

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/

I recommend to the Georgia Secretary of State to have the Attorney General of GA read the Malihi ruling and that Judge Malihi be drug tested.

Winston Churchill birthday, God bless Churchill, Never never never give up, Citizen Wells open thread, November 30, 2010

Winston Churchill birthday, God bless Churchill, Never never never give up

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“Never, never , never give up.”…Winston Churchill

It is fitting that we celebrate the birthday of Sir Winston Spencer Churchill today, November 30, 2010, the day after the US Supreme Court abdicated it’s responsibility in Kerchner v Obama to interpret and clarify the US Constitution and perform it’s sacred duty to check usurped power.

If one man can be attributed with saving the world from Nazi domination, that one man would be Winston Churchill. Thank God for the life of Sir Winston Churchill.

From The  Churchill Centre and Museum at the Churchill War Rooms, London.
“Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill (1874-1965) described himself as “an English-Speaking Union,” being the son of Lord Randolph Churchill and the American heiress Jennie Jerome. He was educated at Harrow and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, and was sent to India with a cavalry commission in 1895. He won early fame as a war correspondent, covering the Cuban revolt against Spain (1895), and British campaigns in the Northwest Frontier of India (1897), the Sudan (1898) and South Africa during the Boer War (1899). Churchill had authored five books by the age of 26. His daring escape from a Boer prison camp in 1899 made him a national hero and ushered him into the House of Commons, where his career spanned 60 years.”

Read more:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/

The lying, narcissistic, corrupt usurper of power, Obama, rejected the bust of Winston Churchill.

From The Telegraph February 14, 2009.

“A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government’s art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush’s tenure.

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: “Thanks, but no thanks.””

Read more:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html

Think of the irony. Churchill and Obama were both born to British fathers and American mothers. The two men could not be more different.

If one institution can be attributed with saving the world from Nazi domination, that would be the US Military. Stay tuned for more.

Kerchner v Obama, Supreme Court fails, Duty as checks and balances, Duty to interpret Constitution, Duty to uphold Constitution, Marbury v Madison

Kerchner v Obama, Supreme Court fails, Duty as checks and balances, Duty to interpret Constitution, Duty to uphold Constitution, Marbury v Madison

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

The US Supreme Court has denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Kerchner v Obama.

“(ORDER LIST: 562 U.S.)
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2010
CERTIORARI”
“CERTIORARI DENIED”
“10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to
file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a
writ of certiorari is denied.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf

The two main reasons for the existence of the US Supreme Court are as follows:

1. Serve as checks and balances for the other two branches of government . Executive and Legislative.

2. Interpret the US Constitution.

Once again they have failed to do their duty and they should be impeached.

Irrespective of any birth certificate issues surrounding Obama, and those are enough to warrant involvement from the Supreme Court, Obama is clearly not a Natural Born Citizen and the justices know it. They are avoiding the Obama eligibility issues for some reason and should be removed from the court.

For those on the far left, those still in denial, or those incapable of rational thought, the decision to deny the petition is not a ruling on the Kerchner v Obama or any other eligibility case. The justices do not have to give a reason and have not done so. They have simply chosen the coward’s way out. I quoted Marbury v Madison again for a reason.

The swearing in of Obama by Chief Justice Roberts and the difficulty in  stating the oath and the subsequent reswearing in are unprecedented in my lifetime.

The oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

CNN has covered the Supreme Court denial.
“The Supreme Court has again cast aside an appeal that raised doubts about President Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a grass-roots legal issue that has gained little legal or political footing, but continues to persist in the courts.

The justices without comment Monday rejected a challenge from Charles Kerchner Jr., a Pennsylvania man who sought a trial in federal court forcing the president to produce documents regarding his birth and citizenship.

Kerchner’s attorney, Mario Apuzzo, had argued in a petition with the Supreme Court that Obama did not fit the definition of a “natural-born citizen” required for the nation’s highest office, as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

That clause states, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.””

“State birth certificate records show he was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. His mother is a native of Kansas; his father was born in Kenya, which at the time was a British colony.”
“Obama and his staff produced copies of his birth certificate when he was running for president in 2008”

Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/29/scotus.birther.appeal/

There is no corroboration of the following:

“State birth certificate records show he was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

The following is an outright lie and CNN knows it.

“Obama and his staff produced copies of his birth certificate when he was running for president in 2008”

From an honest journalist who once worked at CNN.

Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama birth certificate and college records, Simple question

Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama birth certificate and college records, Simple question

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“I discovered this article, folded away among my BIRTH CERTIFICATE and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,”…Obama, “Dreams of My Father”

I have been asking the simple question about Obama going to great lengths to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records for many months. Apparently some folks are confused about this. They mistakenly assume (assuming is one of my pet peeves) that the birth certificate issue is my main focus. They are wrong as many assumptions are.

The hidden birth certificate and college records are but puzzle pieces in the larger picture of many years of Obama deception. The reason that I pose the simple question is that it is non debatable by rational people. There is only one answer, one conclusion to be drawn from the question. Obama is hiding something(s). It is the “deer in the headlights question.” I strongly suggest that you use it. I used it yesterday.

It is clear that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen for at least one reason and probably more. His father was a Kenyan and therefore British citizen. Some have debated that Natural Born Citizen was not defined in the US Constitution. The answer to that is simple. Among educated people of that era, it was understood that to be a Natural Born Citizen, one had to be born of two citizen parents.

An analogy is presented in the movie “A few good men.” Tom Cruise, portraying a military defense attorney, questions a Marine witness in response to the prosecution attorney stating that “code red” was not mentioned in the Marine Handbook. Cruise asks the witness if mess hall was listed in the handbook. The witness responds that it is not. Cruise then asks how he knows where the mess hall is. The answer is that it was common knowledge.

Mario Apuzzo, attorney in Kerchner v Obama, provides excellent research and background on what Natural Born Citizen means and how our founding fathers understood it.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

A more recent document from the US Senate, one signed by Barack Obama, acknowledges the importance of having two US Citizen parents to be a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be president.

“SRES 511 ATS

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2008

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Read more:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

Hollister v. Soetoro aka Barack Obama update and history, Judge James Robertson biased or incompetent, Bias or conspiracy?

Hollister v. Soetoro aka Barack Obama update and history, Judge James Robertson biased or incompetent, Bias or conspiracy?

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

Is Judge James Robertson biased, incompetent or part of a conspiracy?

Citizen Wells December 30, 2008.

“Berg today, with co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire, filed another lawsuit in Federal Court in the United States District for the District of Columbia on behalf of Retired Colonel Hollister against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama demanding to know Obama’s real name and if he is constitutionally qualified to be President. Plaintiff, Gregory S. Hollister, is a resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and Hollister has “standing” and needs a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any Order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/philip-j-berg-lawrence-j-joyce-esquire-retired-colonel-hollister-lawsuit-december-30-2008-obama%e2%80%99s-lack-of-qualifications-challenged-gregory-s-hollister-hollister-has-standing-inter/

Citizen Wells February 5, 2009.

“The following Order from DC District Court Judge James Robertson was issued for Hollister v. Soetoro yesterday:

ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is denied. His motion to shorten time for defendants to respond to his complaint [#3] is moot and is denied. The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/hollister-v-soetoro-philip-j-berg-dc-district-court-judge-james-robertson-february-4-2009-colonel-hollister-motion-for-response-time-denied-interpleader-motion-denied-motion-for-pro-hac-vice/

Citizen Wells March 6, 2009.

“The following is from a Memorandum issued by
United States District Judge James Robertson
on March 5, 2009. The Memorandum is a response
to the Hollister vs Soetoro lawsuit.”

 
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve
mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is
foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to
do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the
blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do
is to bring it to an early end.”
“The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force
colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief
(because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is
tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven — to the
colonel’s satisfaction — that Mr. Obama is a native-born
American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be
President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised,
vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/hollister-vs-soetoro-us-district-judge-james-robertson-march-5-2009-philip-berg-hemenway-obama-not-eligible-col-hollister-barry-soetoro-judicial-judge-robertson-memorandum-air-force-colonel/

The following statement by Judge Robertson should be sufficient to have him impeached:

“The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised,
vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”

Obama’s citizenship may be an issue, but it is not the critical issue, which is his natural born citizen status and eligibility for the presidency per the US Constitution. Judge Robertson’s reference to the vetting of Obama on social media sites stands on it’s own for a high level of stupidity. The quote from Marbury v Madison above is the final arbiter of Judge Robertson’s guilt.

From World Net Daily November 26, 2010.

“Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter”

“The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.

The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.

He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution’s demand that presidents be a “natural born citizen,” a qualification not imposed on other many other federal officers.

The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.”

“The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:

  • “Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?”
  • “By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a ‘natural born citizen’ as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?”
  • “In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that ‘the issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency’ combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?”
  • “Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?”
  • “Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?”

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=233177

Thanks to commenter GORDO.