text:
Thursday, January 22, 2009
NEW CASE FILED: Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - Announcement
The defendants have not yet been served. I am now in the process of requesting that the Court issue to me the summonses so that I can then serve as soon as possible the Summons and Amended Complaint on the defendants.
As you know, the courts have refused to reach the underlying merits of the many lawsuits that have been filed on the question of whether Mr. Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Since no case such as this one has ever been filed in the history of our nation, this case would be precedent setting. My clients and I hope that we will get a court to reach the underlying merits of this question so that the American people will be assured that Mr. Obama is their legitimate President and not an usurper. I will appreciate whatever comments anyone has on the procedural posture and underlying merits of this lawsuit.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
95 comments:
- CreativeOgre said...
Amazing case that will surely make it's mark in History!
We have obtained the court documents, and are happy to host them at:
The documents can be downloaded at:
Best wishes to all the Plaintiffs in this case, and may it be successful in saving our Nation, and teh integrity of our Constitution!
- January 22, 2009 at 2:57 PM
- hokiedokie24 said...
I agree totally, lets up the courts do what is right for our country!!!
- January 22, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Now we know why it's been so quiet on your blog. You've been busy!
As a non lawyer citizen, I'm not sure what it means, but fervently wish it brings out the truth. All the best for your success!
- January 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Great Mr.Apuzzo!
btw. somebody at Citizen Wells said, You should list all aliases of Obama.
- January 22, 2009 at 5:46 PM
I wrote this on Oct 3, 2008. It became clear to me that Obama
was desperate and had no choice but to gain the presidency.
- January 22, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Great work Mario. One suggestion is trying to get more plaintiffs who are active or reserve military. Many already want to know if the are will be required to take orders and possibly die for a commander chief who refuses to prove he is eligible for office.
I am starting think the only way the court system will listen to the citizenry, is if a large number of military personnel file suit. I think Phil Berg's case has an amicas and interpleader from a reserve officer named Anderson. Thank you for defending the Constitution.
- January 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Cheers and applause. I have visited your astute blog more than daily since your last post hungering for your thoughtful commentary. Since the beginning I had hoped that you would enter the cause in this way knowing that you fully understood the issues and desire the truth to be known and had the requisite legal insight to be successful. I will be watching with great interest!
- January 22, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Mr. Apuzo I wonder if you are aware that the state of HI, alone, requires a statement that Presidential candidates are qualified according to the Constitution. A copy of the signed document for HI is here:http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/2008/12/hawaii-answers-two-of-my-questions.html This information from the commission on presidential debates may also interest you: http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/2009/01/big-tip-commission-on-presidential.html
- January 22, 2009 at 8:17 PM
- January 22, 2009 at 8:51 PM
You should amend your Complaint to INCLUDE The SUPREME COURT collectively, and naming each justice individually, and the Executive Branch also. The Court is to be the Guardian of the Constitution and your argument is that since its establishment, the Supreme Court has overturned verdicts, convictions, or proceeding against "innocent", "liable", or "guilty" citizens or entities on the basis of a Constitutional Violation, i.e. due process, equal protection, fair trial, 14th amendment, etc. Now the Courts themselves are subject to the breach. You should take them all on with your suit. They breached their duty and failed to execute orders affirmed in the Constitution. This is similar to a soldier not upholding her/his oath. Each of the Justices, lower Court and Supreme Court, took two oaths. I am concerned with the on that coincides with their Constitutional status "TO Be The Guardian of the Constitution" and this affirms their breach for failure to decide, adjudicate, or hear cases arising under the Constitution. The standing issue is MOOT because if the Judge in Berg' case is correct, then Courts will must make null all Class Actions filed and/or all Individual Actions filed when more than 1 person could have been a party to the case. The Courts are now saying that a citizen cannot bring his or her constitutional challenge unless all 320 million+ Americans, including the person that is being challenged, agree to file the suit. This goes against established and settled law. I can file individually, even if the case is broad and reaches an endless amount of people because I, as an individual, have the right to a fair trial. The Constitution is written primarily upon INDIVIDUAL rights!!! Amend your pleading to include the Supreme Court and its members because if a judge willfully violates your constitutional rights he/she is not immune from prosecution. If there is legal redress, though the President clearly has an interest in this, there is civil redress, especially when the Constitution is the subject!!! Good Luck!!
- January 23, 2009 at 6:29 AM
- Puzo1 said...
To Anonymous:
I look forward to any and all legal challenges to the complaint. I would like to know your intelligent thoughts on why the plaintiffs have no standing and why the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Concerned Americans are not interested in being "Internet famous," but rather making sure that our Constitution is honored to every letter. Regarding the internet, Obama found it to be a place of considerable value since that is the only place he "produced" for the public his alleged COLB. On the letter of the Constitution, Obama and his legal team showed such concerned about one word in his oath. He wanted to quell the internet debate about whether he was properly sworn in to as to follow every letter of the Constitution. But what happened to his concern for the significant number of Americans who have been questioning the validity and/or the adequacy of his internet-posted digital image of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and who have been expressing doubts whether he is an Article II "natural born Citizen?" Obama's expression of concern for the purity of the Constitution is hypocritical when we consider the insignificance of putting the word "faithfully" in a different order in the oath versus whether Obama is eligible to be President.
Why do you characterize those who want the rule of law respected in our nation to be "ignorant?"
I can assure you that no one will be "fleeced." By the way, that was a lot of money that Obama raised.
- January 23, 2009 at 8:47 AM
- Ted said...
Take the test.
FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?
ANSWER: Joe Biden
Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution's Article 2 or the Constitution's 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his 'oath' at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath "before he enter on the execution of his office," then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in 'commencing' an 'Obama Presidency' — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the 'oath' by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first 'oath' was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama's disqualification as not being an Article 2 "natural born citizen" (clearly he is NOT), Biden's automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the 'oath(s)'; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden's legitimacy.
SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?
ANSWER: Hillary Clinton
One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden's wife recently "let the cat out of the bag" on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.
THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?
ANSWER: Yet undetermined.
- January 23, 2009 at 10:15 AM
- American said...
Your lawsuit has no merit. It is about as clear an illustration of the sort of "political question" that courts will not entertain. Basically you say, all these citizens raised all these questions and Congress did not object or investigate and so you want the Courts to intervene. You might as well be arguing that Congress should pass a law changing an evidentiary ruling in an on-going trial.
I am alarmed by some of your factual allegations. They are the usual stuff of Internet rumors. Can you really say you have personally investigated the facts and reasonably believe them to be true?
- January 23, 2009 at 10:22 AM
- Puzo1 said...
To American:
There is no more political question. The people tried but all the political institutions and Congress turned them down. Now it is a legal question.
I said the plaintiffs and concerned Americans filed grievances with their government and political representatives under the 1st Amendment.
Your "evidentiary ruling" analogy is misplaced. We are not asking for Congress to pass any law. We were asking Congress to carry out its Constitutional duty under the 20th Amendment which it did not do.
I am a bit surprised concerning how you are "alarmed" by the factual allegations. They are not new and have been in the public domain and alleged in the many lawsuits that have been already filed in our courts. Also, can you be more specific as to which allegations are so alarming and as to why the allegations are in dispute?
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM
# 58 'no where in the nominating document does it say he is qualified to serve as president per the constitutional requirement'
For the state of Hawaii, N. Pelosi did swear under oath that BO is constitutionally qualified. We can nail her on that! Please make sure you put that in
look at the copy of 'official certification of nomination' signed by NP.
- January 23, 2009 at 5:19 PM
You must be doing something right to bring out all these frantic rebuttals and attacks. Some might even call them paid Obots.
On behalf of all of us who know the Constitution still matters, and choose to live in a Constitutional Republic, thank you!
- January 23, 2009 at 5:30 PM
at about 117, 118, you can insert the fact that many comgressmen claimed that the courts have denied all lawsuits and based on that they are satisfied that the court has deemed BO eligible. You can ask jbjd for the various congressmen's responses in such a manner.
- January 23, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Just to clarify...As I wrote in the FACTS section of the military Complaint I drafted on the promise it would be filed and then posted for the public, when it wasn't...HI law requires the major political Party to Certify not only the name of their Presidential nominee but also the fact he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. So, fact is, the only difference between the DNC Certification submitted to, say, SC; and the Certification submitted to HI is one line. Check out my military Complaint.
- January 23, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Mr. Apuzzo,
Just heard you on MommaE... please announce on your blog the next time you will be on the radio and announce when and where if you would like people to come when your case is in court.
- January 23, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Thank you for explaining your suit on the Momma E show tonight. We will be looking forward to the next time you will be able to join the show.
- January 23, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Attorney Apuzzo explains his case: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels/2009/01/24/Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels
- January 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM
- tim.allman said...
Just a thought, the problem is that all of our appointed and elected officials played a part in this sham of an Election and were duly notified by thousands of letters as to their responsibility to vet or discover Obama or Soetoro's true citizenship in regard to becoming the President of the United States of America, and have been complacent in their positions and allowed this imposter to take over our Country and put us at risk.
My question is, do all of the officials mentioned in the suit, due to their complacency in the usurpation or our country and in violation of the Constitution, fall to possible impeachment and possible jail time? In other words, are they accomplices to this usurpation and equally liable?
- January 24, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Mario, Please get in touch with the Indiana lawsuit. The judge has not thrown it out. It is against the Governor and the DNC and RNC, for not proving qualifications of their candidates.
I called the Indiana court to check on the status of the lawsuit in the Marion Count Court.
It is Cause 49D100812PL055511.
The court phone is 317-327-4740 and one can ask
for Superior Court 10.
Judge Dreyer is the judge hearing this case.
The plaintiffs are Steve Ankeny, New Castle Indiana, and William Kruse.
The defendants have until January 31 to respond. It might help you in your case, if discovery is the hard part to reach.
- January 24, 2009 at 1:41 AM
- Puzo1 said...
To All Supporters:
I have read all your comments with interest. I appreciate all your input. Your points helps me to think about the case in ways that may be missed. If we all work together, we will be able to get our case to SCOTUS and actually have them decide it on its merits.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 24, 2009 at 3:33 AM
Mr. Apuzzo:
You have taken a banner for truth and justice. When the final branch, the Judicial Branch, does not conform with the Constitution, it is no more. Some people, even found on this site, have decided that they want Obama to be President, but those people do not understand that the number of votes he received or time can cure his ills under the Constitution. The "anonymous" posting that challenges your efforts and the efforts of your fellow officers of the court shows that people want the Constitution to expand and contract to their thoughts and pleasures. He/she will be the 1st one to raise a defense citing Freedom of Speech (gained under Amendment 1, Right to Bear Arms (under 2nd Amendment), Right to Due Process of the Law, Right to Equal Protection Under the Law, the Right to VOTE under the 15th Amendment (if she/he is ever denied that right). It amazes me when I visit these sites where these types of people, who seemingly have reckless abandonment for the Rule of Law which is established upon, by & through the Constitution until they are in jeopardy!!! Keep up the Fight because this Country, until this point, is great. Remember: Even Soldiers who come home from fighting for our Freedoms and safety and to protect the Constitution as it is written are ridiculed by those people.
- January 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM
When obama 'took the oath' and then had to retake the oath, it was because it did not meet the constitutional STANDARD. I am only a meer dental assistant, but maybe the words in other lawsuits didn't meet the STANDARD in which scotus is looking for.
With the lawsuits which state he doesn't meet the constitutional eligibility, maybe they would have had better luck if they would have said that he does not meet the constitutional standard?
In this article a teacher remembers this about Obama. Words.
This story is totally false, as i researched this Dr. West. He retired in 1956. 5 years before obama was born. Planted story or 15 minutes of fame for this woman?
- January 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM
- Puzo1 said...
To All Concerned Americans:
Below you will find a link to NPR. Listen to the audio "Listen Now." This is a January 21, 2009 All Things Considered interview by NPR Michael Siegel of NPR's Scott Horsley, who is a White House correspondent for NPR News. Horsley was at the White House as he spoke. Horsley recounts how Obama retook the oath of office. Siegel then mentions "that lawsuit" that was brought against Obama which alleged he was not born in Hawaii but rather in Indonesia (just shows how informed the mainstream media is). Horsley laughs as Seigel was referring to the law suit. Siegel then continues that it was a good idea for Obama to redo the oath to avoid "that kind of lawsuit" from being litigated. Go to 2:33 in the segment and then you will hear Horsely say the following:
"It it it reminded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs of that very thing too. He was joking about this this morning and said 'You know we have we have the birth certificate if you if you (Siegel laughs) want to see it . . . .'" Horsely then continues how Chief Justice Roberts re-administered the oath.
Siegel did not say that there are lawsuits still pending and that it would be a good idea for Obama to produce the birth certificate so that those lawsuits may go away. After all, he believed that it was a good idea to redo the oath so as to avoid such litigation, which he flippantly implies was frivolous. He did not express the idea that "Yes, we want to see the birth certificate so that we can put this matter to rest." There was also no mention in Horsley's report that any one from the media after Gibbs made his alleged gracious offer requested to see the "birth certificate" so that they could report to the world that the media finally has seen it and it says that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Please note that we do not know what "birth certificate" Gibbs is referring to. Did he refer to the same internet digital image Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that has already been rejected as credible, objective, and sufficient proof of Obama's birth place or the paper version of the COLB (also insufficient) or the paper original Certificate of Live Birth (BC)? Is this sneaking of information tidbits during a press interview on an unrelted subject just another clever step by Obama and his team to again mislead the American people regarding his birth certificate and his place of birth?
All steps should now be take to communicate with Press Secretary Gibbs and the White House and demand that pursuant to Gibbs' generous offer, "We the People" want to see the birth certificate to which he referred during the Obama's oath do over at the White House. I will appreciate all steps you may take in this regard and to receive your report back to me as to the results that you achieve.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM
For Anonymous:
Obama is either a liar or the Savior, and if you don't believe any other person of the face of this Earth believe Obama, because he told you to believe in his words. In his book penned by himself because he does not reference a ghost writer, he states that his father was Barack Obama, a Kenyan who attended Columbia University in the U.S. and met his mother at some point. On Obama's Website, he admitted that he was a CITIZEN of KENYA until at least his 21st Birthday. Obama also admitted in his book that his mother married an Indonesian and he and his mother moved to Indonesia. He also discusses attending school there in his book. (Fact--No person was allowed to attend school in Indonesia except Indonesian citizens and Indonesia did not accept dual citizenship nor did America with Indonesia). His Sister was born in Indonesia and his mother signed a certificate of live birth in Hawaii as well for some reason because clearly she was an Indonesian also at birth because his mother was no longer an American citizen due to her marriage to a foreign national and naturalization to Indonesia where she remained even after Obama was sent back to Hawaii 4 or 5 years later. My response is that there are so many people who believe that when a lawsuit is thrown out on a technicality, this validates that it has no merit. The merit of the cases, all of them, cannot be disputed based upon Obama's own admissions. So you don't have to take anyone's words for it, but please take Obama's. He is not only ineligible under the Constitution but more importantly, although he wishes he was, He is 99.9% possibly not even an American citizen, although Obama refers to himself on his own website as a Native americans, because during the time that Obama was born his mother was too young to have a child by a foreign national to pass the citizenship to her children. So please just believe Obama because if anyone knows the truth, he does!!
- January 24, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous 8:20
I hope you weren't speaking of me (Anon at 8:04)..i don't believe a word obama says, has said, or will say...ever about his citizenship. I was just pointing out that maybe they should have used the words "doesn't meet the constitutional STANDARD" rather than "doesn't meet the constitutional eligibility clause".
When he took the second oath, it was because the first oath did not meet the constitutional STANDARD as laid out in the constitution.
I've worked with a DA in colorado long enough to know that words and wording are crucial in a case.
- January 24, 2009 at 12:03 PM
yes this is smart and also add immediately after words quoting Roberts that Roberts insisted he take the oath a 2nd time because of the standard.
Tie it all together. Put the responsibility for the problem right on Roberts lap. That will not allow Roberts and the Judges to wiggle out.
- January 24, 2009 at 2:28 PM
he does not meet the constitutional STANDARD for eligibility for President in the same way that he did not meet the constitutional STANDARD in taking the oath of office. Just as he was invalid and took the oath over. Now he must prove he is eligible.
The above can be worded much better. Can someone write up the idea correctly.
- January 24, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I agree with the premise of this suit two hundred percent. However, I don't understand why it will succeed when all others have so far failed. Can someone explain the difference, please?
And, yes, I am shouting.
- January 24, 2009 at 3:59 PM
- tim.allman said...
Mr. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Statements contained in your suit:
56. Nancy Pelosi merely signed an affidavit to each state certifying that Obama
was nominated.
57. She never addressed the issue of his Article II "natural born citizenship"
qualifications to serve in any documents the DNC gave to the respective states.
58. No where in that nominating document does it say he is qualified to serve as
President per the Constitutional requirements, if he is elected.
Vetting by the Secretaries of State on Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the People
This is what I have found:
Nancy Pelosi signed a document which I sent you a copy, stating specifically both the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.
On the DNC Certification, which I sent you via e-mail, OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION it states:
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008 the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:
Signed by: Nancy Pelosi, Chair, Democratic National Convention and Alice Travis Germond, Secretary, Democratic National Convention.
Notarized by: Shalifa A. Williamson, Notary Public, State of Colorado.
In effect Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond signed the documents as per their official position without physically seeing or requesting any documentary evidence, which I believe makes them criminally liable for not fully vetting Obama which was duly sworn before Shalifa A. Williamson a Notary Public.
All I am trying to do is help in any way I can, because I truly believe in the Constitution of the United States and firmly believe that Obama and his gang of thieves do not try to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of Amerika. God Bless you and all you are doing. Best Regards.
- January 24, 2009 at 5:57 PM
I have read a lot of comments that Obama won the election by a huge majority and this has given him a mandate. My question is: has anyone challenged the votes all over the nation? We know that the ballot boxes were stuffed, some people bragged about voting 2 or 3 times, some dead people voted (as I understand it), etc.. His election should have been challenged at once, but no one ever did anything about it. Why? I seriously wonder whether he really did win legally, or whether he won illegally just as he does everything else illegally. Is this not a legitimate issue?
- January 24, 2009 at 7:50 PM
- Puzo1 said...
I am not aware of any hard evidence of voter fraud enough to make a difference in the outcome of the election.
- January 24, 2009 at 10:03 PM
- mtngoat61 said...
Tim Allman,
I believe that the below linked document is what the complaint paragraphs you enumerated are referring to. This is a DNC Party provided and signed document that was provided to the various Secretaries of States. No where in it does it say that the DNC Party nominated a person who is Article II qualified, i.e., and Article II natural born Citizen. Nancy Pelosi who was a participant in the Joint Session of Congress which confirmed the ineligible candidate, aided the process of electing and ineligible candidate along by not vetting the candidate at the nominating convention. She signed the below document and it was passed along to all the respective Secretaries of State. It had the weight of authority carried with it in the public's and SOS's eye of being the nomination of the DNC Party, without mentioning if the candidate was qualified, but they all assumed that if the DNC nominated this person, they were assuming he was qualified by the DNC. The example below has a notary stamp on it done in Colorado but it appears this one was sent to SC.
DNC Party Nominating Document Signed by Pelosi
- January 25, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Just a great big THANKS to you, Mario, and to Mr. Kerchner, Mr. Patterson, Mr. LeNormand, and Mr. Nelsen ... thank you for 'standing up'!
Our Patriots have been alerted and will be contacting you ...
Richard Lawrence
- January 25, 2009 at 6:52 AM
Has anyone ever considered bringing suit against the Commission on presidential debates? They require a candidate be eligible per the Constitution 35 y/o, natural born citizen, resident of USA for 14 years.
How did they determine the condidates were eligible?
- January 25, 2009 at 9:45 AM
- mtngoat61 said...
Dear anonymous poster at 10:55 a.m.
I do not think you have read the case. Have you read all 40 pages, including the Endnotes and the 4 counts? Even the list of plaintiffs are different. This is a very different case.
Multiple parties charged in this case failed to follow the requirements of the Constitution regarding who can serve as the President and Commander in Chief under Article II and the process in electing and confirming the candidate and violations of the rights of We the People represented by the listed plaintiffs in not upholding, supporting, protecting, and defending the Constittuion. The status of Obama had changed dramatically from being just a candidate priot to December 15th, 2008, to becoming the 'President Elect' on the 15th, as he so declared with that big sign on his podium when he spoke, and then to being the "confirmed President Elect" when this case was filed.
Read the case. All of it. If you read it, you will learn that this case is clearly different and unique, ... and a matter of fact it is precedence setting and will be historic too, because never before has a person such as Obama tried to pull off such a massive hoax on the American people ... and got away with it ... up until this point in time. As of the 8th of January, 2009, this battle totally moved from the political arena to a federally legal case under our Constitutional Republic form of government and the supreme law of that government, the U.S. Constitution.
Link to where you can find where to download a current copy of the case as filed with the court
M Publius Goat
- January 25, 2009 at 4:09 PM
- Puzo1 said...
To Anonymous 10:55
If you want to be taken seriously on this very serious blog, you had better support what you say. Just making bold and unfounded assertions is not going to get you very far. On this site, we are dealing with the issue of whether our sitting President is a legitimate President or an usurper. That is a very serious issue that goes to the survival of our nation and Constitution. We are not playing some little political game here. Hence, this is a site for intelligent debate, not for you little diatribe.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM
- Puzo1 said...
To Tim Allman 1-24-09 2:27
On August 25 to 28, 2008, the Democratic Party had its Nominating Convention in Denver, Colorado. As a result of that convention, Nancy Polosi, as the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, on August 28, 2008, signed and certified, among other things, that Obama was "duly nominated" at that convention as the Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States. The DNC thereafter provided this certification to the various Secretaries of States (SOS). Nowhere in Pelosi's certificaton does it say that the DNC Party nominated a person who is Article II qualified, i.e., an Article II "natural born Citizen." Nancy Pelosi, who was a participant in the Joint Session of Congress which confirmed the ineligible candidate, aided the process of electing an ineligible candidate by causing the party to not adequately vet the candidate at or before the nominating convention. She signed the certification (see the link below for a view of the certification signed in Colorado and sent to South Carolina) and it was passed along to all the respective Secretaries of State. The certification had the weight of authority and it carried that authority into the public's and SOSs' eyes. But the document does not say that the candidate was Article II constitutionally qualified. Both the public and the several SOSs all assumed that if the DNC nominated this person, the DNC must have checked him out and he must therefore be qualified to be President. Pelosi signed the example below before a notary in Colorado. The certification then was sent to South Carolina.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 25, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Nowhere in Pelosi's certificaton does it say that the DNC Party nominated a person who is Article II qualified, i.e., an Article II "natural born Citizen."
The certificate to the Hawaii Secrectary of State explicitly stated the nominees were legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution:
(And deleting comments? The path to Orly Taitz-ism starts.)
- January 26, 2009 at 1:25 AM
- Puzo1 said...
To All Concerned Americans:
Below you will find a link to NPR. Listen to the audio "Listen Now." This is a January 21, 2009 All Things Considered interview by NPR Michael Siegel of NPR's Scott Horsley, who is a White House correspondent for NPR News. Horsley was at the White House as he spoke. Horsley recounts how Obama retook the oath of office. Siegel then mentions "that lawsuit" that was brought against Obama which alleged he was not born in Hawaii but rather in Indonesia (just shows how informed the mainstream media is). Horsley laughs as Siegel was referring to the law suit. Siegel then continues that it was a good idea for Obama to redo the oath to avoid "that kind of lawsuit" from being litigated. Go to 2:33 in the segment and then you will hear Horsley say the following:
HORSLEY: "It it it [sic] reminded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs of that very thing, too. He was joking about this this [sic]morning, and said, you know you know [sic], we have we have [sic]the birth certificate if you (Siegel laughs) want to see it."
Horsely then concludes his report by telling us how Chief Justice Roberts re-administered the oath.
Siegel did not say that there are lawsuits still pending and that it would be a good idea for Obama to produce the birth certificate so that those lawsuits may go away. After all, he believed that it was a good idea to redo the oath so as to avoid such litigation, which he flippantly implies was frivolous. He did not express the idea that "Yes, we want to see the birth certificate so that we can put this matter to rest." There was also no mention in Horsley's report that any one from the media after Gibbs made his alleged gracious offer requested to see the "birth certificate" so that they could report to the world that the media finally has seen it and it says that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Please note that we do not know what "birth certificate" Gibbs is referring to. Did he refer to the same internet digital image Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that has already been rejected as credible, objective, and sufficient proof of Obama's birth place or the paper version of the COLB (also insufficient) or the paper original Certificate of Live Birth (BC)? Is this sneaking of information tidbits during a press interview on an unrelated subject just another clever step by Obama and his team to again mislead the American people regarding his birth certificate and his place of birth?
All steps should now be take to communicate with Press Secretary Gibbs and the White House and demand that pursuant to Gibbs' generous offer, "We the People" want to see the birth certificate to which he referred during the Obama's oath do over at the White House. Will someone contact the White House, tell them that we accept Gibbs' gracious offer, get a copy ot it, and send it to me at firstname.lastname@example.com? I will appreciate all steps you may take in this regard and to receive your report back to me as to the results that you achieve.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.com http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-case-filed-kerchner-et-al-v-obama.html
This is the NPR link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99681708&sc=emaf
- January 26, 2009 at 9:13 AM
- John Greschak said...
Thank you for your efforts.
I would like to clarify some points regarding Vattel's book "Le Droit des Gens", which, in its translated form, was titled "The Law of Nations".
In various places, I have seen statements that suggest that Vattel wrote the phrase "natural-born citizens" in Section 212 of a book titled "The Law of Nations" in 1758. And, since the Framers knew of Vattel's work, it has been suggested that they were influenced by his use of this phrase.
From what I can see, that is incorrect. Here are the facts (as I understand them):
1. In 1758, Vattel wrote a book titled "Le Droit des Gens" in French. There he used the phrase "Naturels, or Indigenes" (with an accent grave on the first "e" of "Indigenes").
2. Subsequently, in 1759, Vattel's book was translated into English and published in London (and called "The Law of Nations"). I do not know who did this translation. Vattel's phrase "Naturels, or Indigenes" was translated into "natives, or indigenes" (with no accent grave in "Indigenes").
3. The first American edition of Vattel's book was published in 1787 in New York. The text for Section 212 in this edition was identical to that of the first English-language edition from 1759; specifically, is used the phrase "natives, or indigenes".
4. I have seen Dublin, London and New York English-language editions that were published in 1792, 1793 and 1796, respectively. There again, the phrase "natives, or indigenes" was used.
5. In 1797, an English-language edition of Vattel's book was printed in London. There the phrase "natives, or natural-born citizens" was used instead of "natives, or indigenes". In this edition, other changes were made to the English-language version of Section 212 as well. I do not know who was responsible for these changes. I believe this is the first time the phrase "natural-born citizen" was used in any edition of "The Law of Nations".
Consequently, I do not believe Vattel wrote "natural-born citizens". Also, since the Constitution was written in 1787 and had been ratified by all 13 original states by the end of 1790, I do not believe that the Framers were influenced by this use of the phrase "natural-born citizens" in "The Law of Nations" (which was not published until 1797).
By this, I do not mean to imply that this particular passage from the 1797 English edition of "Le Droit des Gens" is insignificant. I believe it tells us something about the meaning of the phrase "natural born
Citizen". I take the phrase "natives, or natural-born citizens" as an indication that "natives" and "natural-born citizens" are synonymous terms. The question then becomes: Of the many possible meanings for the word "native", with which sense is the phrase "natural born Citizen" synonymous?
I have published an image of the version of Section 212 from "Le Droit des Gens" and images of various versions of this section from translations of that work. You can find these in the introductory paragraphs of my essay "What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?" at http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm.
John Greschak
- January 26, 2009 at 7:29 PM
- Puzo1 said...
To John Greschak 1-26-09 4:29PM
You have done a fantastic job in analyzing "natural born Citizen." I can see your work being cited to the United States Supreme Court. I agree that there is a lot of confusion in the use of the words "native" and "natural born Citizen." I do not believe that we should get stuck on the use of the words. What is important is what definition is ascribed to the words. Vattel, regardless of whether he used "natives," or "natural born citizens," did define the term to be a child born in the country to parents (plural) who were themselves citizens.
Based on your essay, what I believe we can also agree on is that in ancient Roman, going back to Quintilianus (Quintilian)in the first century AD, "natural born citizen" meant something very special. In Latin, the expression was "Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata." All of Quintilianus' Latin texts use this expression. Of course, he used the expression in terms of a person being able to speak as a true "natural born citizen" and not as a person who only acquired citizenship by "donata" (gift). What I would like for you to advise me on is where would a "natural born citizen" fit withing the different types of citizenship under ancient Roman law. Once you find where to place a "natural born Citizen" within the Roman law, please advise what a "natural born Citizen" is as defined by that law. I am particularly looking for a Roman definition of citizenship which derives from a child's relationship to his mother and father and the soil on which he was born rather than citizenship derived solely from the soil on which the child was born. Your advice in this regard will be greatly appreciated.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 27, 2009 at 12:19 AM
What is important is what definition is ascribed to the words.
John's point is that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution would not have ascribed Vattel's definition of "natives, or indigenes" to the phase "natural born citizen." If the Framers were influenced by Vattel, then they would have used Vattel's nomenclature, i.e. "natives, or indigenes." Since they did not, they were more likely influenced by somone else's definition of natural born citizen, such as Blackstone's.
- January 27, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Please bear in mind that the framers of the constitution were all lawyers. Lawyers trained and schooled in British law, or more specifically, English Common Law. In fact, English Common Law and "American" Common Law were the same thing up until the revolution. Therefore, it is reasonable and a long accepted practice to look at the constitution using the terms and concepts derived from English Common Law.
Even Vattel admits in his work that if one is born on English soil, then one is a natural born subject of the British crown, irregardless if your parents are British subjects or aliens.
Thus, there is no justification to redefine the term "Natural Born" as it is used in the Constitution from the accepted definition under English Common Law.
- January 27, 2009 at 3:07 PM
- mtngoat61 said...
To Anonymous:
It is not true that the founders and framers ignored Vattel's writing in The Law of Nations and used English Common Law as their source of inspiration for the Constitution and the meaning of the words and terms therein. That is the argument of those who wish to bury Vattel and his tremendous influence on our founders and framer's ideas and thinking. The founders and framer widely used Vattel and The Law of Nations from as early as 1764 to protest the British form of government and its oppression of the people in the colonies. Vattel's writings were all the rage in the colonies as a new model and way of thinking of how to govern and for a new form of government and which rejected the English Common law. The founders and framers revolted against the King and England and the applications of those British Common laws which were oppressively applied to the Colonies. And after revolting and in setting up a "new form of government", an "historic new form of government", they drew heavily from Vattel and his treatise, The Law of Nations, as the source and model for that new form of government and the U.S. Constitution, to establish a federal system in a stronger form, and the words, terms, and meaning in said U.S. Constitution and even before in the Declaration of Independence, are from the thinking and writings of the ideas of government from Vattel and the Natural Law, not the British Common law.
M. Publius Goat
P.S. How about providing a User ID with your postings so we can address you personally and specifically by that ID instead of Anonymously posting. It would make the two-way dialog much easier for all participants and avoid confusion.
- January 27, 2009 at 3:42 PM
- Puzo1 said...
To Anonymous 1-27-09 9:02
I totally disagree with your conclusion that the Framers were influence by Blackstone when writing the term "natural born Citizen" in Article II. No way did the Framers latch on to Blackstone. If that statement is correct, there is no way that John Greschak would have come to this conclusion:
"Necessary Conditions. For a given person to be a natural born Citizen of the United States, that person must satisfy the following conditions:
The person is currently a Citizen of the United States.
The person became a Citizen of the United States at birth.
The person was born in the United States.
Both parents of the person were Citizens of the United States when that person was born."
It is not possible to come to that conclusion by accepting Blackstone rather than Vattel. On the other hand, that conclusion comes easily from Vattel's writings.
John Jay and the other Founders frequently mentioned Vattel in their writings before and during the Revolutionary War. There is no doubt that John Jay used Vattel before the letter he wrote to General Washington. There is no doubt that John Jay spoke and read French. He lived in Paris at one time during the Revolutionary War as a diplomat, along with Benjamin Franklin and others. We know John Jay read and used Vattel and he believed that the French word "natives" meant born in the country (the soil) to two parents who were citizens and that is what he meant when he wrote the term "natural born citizen." This concept of citizenship would have also been consistent with the concept of citizenship under ancient Roman law (Roman citizenship was granted automatically to every male child born in a legal marriage of a Roman citizen), which would have influenced Vattel, a Swiss legal expert.
You have your argument and we have ours. We will see what SCOTUS has to say about all this.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 27, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Vatell specifically noted that under British law, If you were born in Brittan, you were automatically a natural born subject or citizen.
Under the common law in use in the colonies up until the revolution and the writting of the constitution, if you were born on British soil you were automatically a subject no matter who your parents were.
There is no indication that thei definition was ever changed.
- January 27, 2009 at 10:09 PM
In addition, do not assume that because a writer used the term "parents" he meant both parents. The plural more likely than not is simply an example of a collective noun and should not be construed to indicate two parents. This is similar to the use of the word "Children" instead of "child."
- January 27, 2009 at 10:13 PM
- Puzo1 said...
To Anonymous 1-27-09 7:09pm and 7:13pm
That Vatell was aware of British common law (feudal law tied to the soil) proves nothing. The point is that he was aware of it and rejected it. It is clear he rejected it by his statement that a child inherits the condition of his parents in addition to the condition of the soil on which he/she is born.
When Vattel said "parents," he meant both mother and father. Vattel was concerned with the child inheriting the condition of his parents. The Framers considered this condition to be allegiance to the U.S. Such a status can only apply to the nationality of the child's parents, for there can be no other possible factor impacting the status of a new born baby. Hence, when the Framers put in Article II the "natural born Citizen" language, they were concerned with the allegiance that the child inherits from his mother and father. The fact that the Framers used the word "natural" proves that both Vatell and the Framers required that both parents be citizens. 'Natural' means that quality or property that is intrinsic. Whatever comes into existence naturally does not have the choice of being anything else other than what it is at the moment it is created. For example, once a horse is born, it does not have a choice to be a cat. In the context of citizenship, a "natural born" American citizen does not have the choice to become the citizen of any other country given that the child is born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens. With Obama, given that at the time of his birth his father was a British subject/citizen (later Kenyan citizen), he had the choice to become a British citizen (later Kenyan citizen). Because he had this choice, he cannot be a "natural born Citizen." Hence, the citizenship of his father gave Obama a choice of being a British/Kenyan citizen and therefore his American citizenship is not intrinsic to him because of his capacity to choose British/Kenyan citizenship, allegiance, and influence.
Another reason for Vatell and the Framers requiring that, in addition to the child having to be born on the soil, both the mother and father be citizens is that having no U.S. citizen parents or even just one U.S. citizen parent is not sufficient to give the U.S. born child the allegiance status needed to be eligible to be President. It would not make sense to allow for no U.S. citizen parents, for parents have a great influence on their children. It also would not make sense to allow just one U.S. citizen parent to be sufficient, for each parent has just as much influence as the other on his or her child. "The bond of the family lies at the foundation of national and political life, and attaches the child to the people among whom he is born. The opinion that fixes upon the locality of nativity, instead of the personal tie of the family, as the cause of nationality, abases the person to be a dependence of the soil." (footnote omitted). Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1938), aff'd 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (quoting Professor Bluntschild commenting on Roman law). This language shows that under Roman law which has had a significant influence in the development of law of Europe, citizenship depended upon the nationality of the parents and not upon the place of birth. E. de Vattel was a Swiss jurist and would have been influence by the law that existed at the time in Europe. He would have studied why this ancient law placed such a great emphasis on the nationality of the child's parents. Hence, Vatell believed that a "natural born citizen" was one who acquired that citizenship through nature by being born to two parents who shared the same allegiance as the child and not one who was just tied to the soil.
In Obama's case, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject/citizen and later became a Kenyan citizen. It is quite evident that the foreign influence that his Kenyan father had on him is quite considerable. Obama wrote a book called Dreams from My Father. He traveled to Kenya, whose citizenship his father possessed. He got involved in and raised money for Kenyan politics. The Kenyan nation and government have celebrated his victory. The Kenyan Parliament considers Obama a Kenyan, one with blood that is Kenyan, the son of Kenyan soil, an African American of Kenyan origin, a member of a Kenyan tribe, someone who came out of the Kenyan environment, a product of the migration from an African country to the West, their brother from Kogelo, an African, to be their own, someone for whom a "homecoming" has been prepared, and someone whose home is Kenya. Hence, because one of his parents (his father) was not a United States citizen when he was born, Obama has this foreign influence in the country of his father.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
P.S. All comments that are personal attacks, repetitive posts, scrolling the blog, etc. will be deleted with no reply.
- January 28, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Vattel also wrote about the duties of the sovereign prince. Obviously, the founding fathers did not accept this condition. Vattel noted that "Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner." recognizing that In England, the mere fact of birth in a country was enough to grant citizenship.
Vattel did not like immigrants, either. "The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity."
In any case, you argument that Vattell insisted that both parents be citizens is negated by the following:
"We have observed above, that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth."
Clearly he is talking in the singular here.
You keep confusing collective nouns with plural nouns.
- January 28, 2009 at 10:23 AM
In my opinion alone, although the conversation is fascinating, it deviates from the clear language of the Constitution and intent of the Framers. The definition and intent is not simply found in those 3 words but the words that followed which disqualifies Obama, ", or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,...and live in the United States for 14 years". The statement rejects any argument that any person who is born with 2 dualing allegiances or who has been a foreign national at some point prior to becoming president shall be qualified for president. This statement is affirmed by the qualifications for U.S. Senator, which allows a person who has had dualing allegiances or who has been a foreign national to become a U.S. Senator. More importantly, the phrase "shall have live in the U.S. for 14 years" was addressing the citizens who were on what is now American soil at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution. This language was meant to protect the Document and its intent and now we are faced with people who want to try to broaden the language for their own gains. In February and April of 2008, the Democratic Leadership in both houses of Congress respectively attempted to introduce language that would remove the Natural Born Citizen clause; their action proves that they recognize that Obama is not a natural born citizen, and when a case finally proceeds, I will suspect that the world will find out that Obama is not even a citizen of the United States at all.
- January 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM
- mtngoat61 said...
To A.P.'s post time stamp 7:23 a.m.
Interesting that you have to inject an emotional charge of claiming someone did not like "immigrants" into your argument. Are you planting seeds of emotion into your argument for Atty Apuzzo's reading? Or are you doing that tactically in this debate here to stir emotional flames in other readers of this blog, other than Atty Apuzzo, to try and win your argument in their minds with emotion rather than facts and reason of the subject of this thread, Kerchner et al v Obama et al.
I would ask, since this case is about Obama II/Jr. not being eligible to serve under Article II of our Constitution, and his parents (plural), ... then who in his family unit is an immigrant, ... since you brought up that word?
The relevant section for this thread of The Law of Nations and Vattel is section 212. He said in that section "of a foreigner", not son of an immigrant. Foreigners are foreigners, but not all immigrants are foreigners. A person could be an immigrant and a naturalized citizen. Being born on the soil of the U.S. to two parents who are naturalized citizens at the time of the child's birth satisfies the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II. So it is not about immigrants, but foreigners. So you are confusing things (on purpose?) by introducing the word immigrant to your debate of section 212 rather than the word Vattel used ... foreigners.
Since you used the word immigrant let me ask you a question. Are you referring to Obama II/Jr. as the immigrant since Obama lost any citizenship he had in the U.S. due his step-father Soetoro adopting him in Indonesia. Must be that you are referring to Obama II/Jr. because none of his parents were immigrants. You cannot be alluding to the term immigrant for this case for the mother, since she was a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, I think, unless you know something that we don't know about Stanley Ann Dunham. ;-) Are you alledging that his mother was not a U.S. citizen too and she is not who she says she was in the phony and/or hidden and sealed records of much of Obama II/Jr.'s life?
And Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama I/Sr. was not and never was an immigrant to the U.S. He was here temporarily as a student only. He was not even a permanent resident of the USA. He returned to the "soil of his birth", Kenya where he died and is buried and which is very likely the "soil of the birth" of his son, Obama II/Jr, "a son of the soil of Kenya". Obama I/Sr. was a "foreigner", to use Vattel's words, he was not an "immigrant" to the U.S.!
Therefore, I again ask you who is the immigrant to the U.S. in the Barack Obama II/Jr. immediate family unit of he and his parents (plural)? You must be referring to the Article II ineligible "President?" Obama, since if Obama II/Jr. was born in Kenya, as is alleged, and/or, ... when he lost whatever potential claim he had to U.S. citizenship in Indonesia, then when he re-entered the U.S. without naturalization, he became an "illegal immigrant". And I assume you do not support breaking of U.S. laws by anyone by entering the U.S. illegally. Thus in looking at Obama's family unit, you must be referring to Obama II/Jr. as the immigrant in regards to this case. And, Vattel and his definition of "natural born citizen", and as it is used in Article II of the U.S. constitution, certainly would NOT permit an "illegal immigrant" to serve constitutionally as the President of the U.S.
So it is you sir/madam who is engaging in misuse of the meaning of words in section 212 of Vattel's "The Law of Nations", published in 1758, which was used by the founders and framers of the U.S. Constitution, which was a completely new form of federal government, unlike anything before it in the colonies or in the world. And Vattel's writing had a great influence on the forming of the FEDERAL government and the Constitution of same for the new Nation, the USA.
That Obama is likely an "illegal immigrant" also of the USA, is another aspect of the case, that point is not what is different about this new case. It is who is being sued and the status of Obama when he was sued, i.e., the illegally confirmed President Elect. What is different about this case is the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Congress in confirming a non-Article II qualified President Elect and person to be the confirmed President Elect, and the complaint against Congress and others in this suit.
M Publius Goat
- January 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM
This question is for Mario.
Here is a hypothetical situation. Suppose we have a person named John who was born in New York City in 1960.
Both John's parents are Irish, born in Ireland. They both immigrated to the U.S. In the late 1940's and became naturalized U.S. Citizens in the 1950's.
Thus, John was born in the U.S. to two parents who are citizens. He meets your definition of a "Natural Born citizen."
Or is he?
Based on the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1956 (an Irish law), John is automatically an Irish citizen at birth.
So, John has dual citizenship at birth, U.S. And Irish. Is he still eligible to become POTUS?
- January 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Barack Obama Jr. had dual citizenship when he was born. I will not dispute that.
He had U.S. Citizenship under U.S. Laws due to the fact that he was born in Honolulu. I'm not even going to argue this fact. If you can't accept it that's your problem)
He was a British subject under British Laws due to the fact that his father was a British subject.
So the crucial question here is, Do we, in the United States, allow the laws of foreign nations to dictate who is eligible to be POTUS?
If your dual citizenship theory holds out, then we will be placing ourselves at the mercy of foreign powers who will have the power through their own legislative systems to decide who has dual citizenship in the U.S.
I'm not sure that I want to go down this road. Do you?
- January 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM
M Publius Goat wrote:
---"when he lost whatever potential claim he had to U.S. citizenship in Indonesia, "---
Obama only lived in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10. It has been long established by the U.S. Supreme Court that a U.S. Citizen who is a minor child can not lose or renounce, his or her U.S. Citizenship before the age of majority. Sorry, but that claim is a dead end.
- January 28, 2009 at 1:33 PM
- Puzo1 said...
To A.P.
You appear to be an intelligent fellow and I will continue to assume that. I will also allow you to post here provided that you keep your comments intelligent and free of personal attacks and bias. I got your hypothetical about the Irish immigrants. There is no need to pile it on with your Italian example. Now the beast is coming out of you and you are engaging in personal attacks, for clearly what my citizenship status is and what the activites of the Frank Sinatra Lodge are have nothing to do with whether Obama is Article II qualified to be President. Be warned that if you continue such falacious postings, they will be deleated.
- January 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM
One more question for Mario.
Suppose that the court does agree to hear your case. Suppose that the defendants produce the original Certificate of Live Birth whose scanned image we have all seen by now.
On the bottom of that document it states: "This copy shall serve as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
What legal argument will you use to counter that?
- January 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM
oop, sorry about that, I speed read your response.
Never mind :)
- January 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM
So, as I see it, the only real argument that is left is the "both parents have to be citizens" claim.
I think that this one is pretty much dealt with by the 14th amendment and "United States v. Wong Kim Ark"
In addition, as I pointed out earlier, most of the arguments to this point have failed to make the distinction between plural and collective nouns. Collective nouns, although they have the form of a plural noun, can and do refer to a singular object of the group.
- January 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM
- Puzo1 said...
To AP:
Regarding the Irish hypothetical, for the two Irish individuals to become naturalized citizens of the U.S., they swear allegiance to the U.S. They no longer have any allegiances to any other country. Based on our laws, no other country can lay claim to their allegiance. Part of the reason we fought the War of 1812 against Great Britain is that we do not recongize some other country's claim of allegiance to our citizens. If those two naturalized persons then give birth to a child on U.S. soil, the child is an Article "natural born Citizen."
- January 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM
- mtngoat61 said...
To A.P Anonymous entry at 10:39 a.m.
It is now obvious to me that you are posting here to bring up specious arguments and to "plant FALSE information" as facts!
You said, "Suppose that the court does agree to hear your case. Suppose that the defendants produce the original Certificate of Live Birth whose scanned image we have all seen by now."
You are too intelligent to have posted that false statement erroneously. Obama and O-Bots like you have fooled America long enough with that false statement.
Obama and his campaign and supporters have NEVER posted and image ANYWHERE of a "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth", aka a BC or Birth Certificate from Hawaii, which would be the original long-form birth document certificate and would have been typed not computer generated as it was created in the 60s. They have only posted an image of a computer generated "CERTIFICATION of Live Birth", aka COLB. And you know that and you are being deliberately deceptive and misleading!
See this webpage for the difference between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth, Hawaiian forms. And you know the difference! You obviously have been writing about this issue for a long time and are intelligent to not know that what you posted was factually wrong.
You are deliberately trying to mislead the readers and obfuscate the issues. You are obviously and O-Bot, possbily O-Bot attorney, sent here on a mission to plant false and misleading statements and threads in this blog. You've been exposed. Soon Obama's giant hoax and fraud on America will not only be exposed and recognized by the majority of Americans, but it will be exposed in the Courts too.
Have a nice day and go somewhere else if you are going to post information known to be false and misleading, and said online COLB is alleged to be forged the image the image altered. Either way, the name of the top of the document and form is CERTIFICATION, not Certificate.
M Publius Goat
P.S. The term on the bottom as being Prima Fascia evidence is just that Prima Fascia, if challenged it falls in the courts and its usefulness for anything other than to deceive as not being sufficient, and the original, long-form birth "CERTIFICATE" must be produced. I believe you know that too as you are likely a lawyer or legally trained. Or are you a statistician and poll taker?
- January 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM
- mtngoat61 said...
To Anonymous A.P. posted at 10:43:
Now you are making the error of omission in your arguments. You know, I believe, that Obama traveled to Pakistan after the age of majority (age 18), likely using an Indonesian passport which he had from his youth and which he renewed, and in doing so declared himself a citizen of Indonesian in said passports and upon entry to Pakistan and possibly India and Indonesia in his travels in that region as an adult over age 18. He thus ratified and confirmed his Indonesian citizen gained by the adoption. He thus has denied by these actions as an adult that he is a U.S. citizen. He has given up any claim to U.S. citizen by the combination of being adopted as a male by his step-father in Indonesia, which act required them to renounce his U.S. citizenship, if he had any, and then Obama himself confirmed that fact by traveling as an adult to Pakistan and declaring himself and Indonesian citizen, and not a U.S. citizen, since U.S. citizens were banned from Pakistan at that time in c1980.
Again you are making and planting misleading arguments by deliberate omission of relevant facts.
Regardless of the other facts, one fact that cannot be dogged. Obama's father was NEVER a U.S. citizen, thus under our Constitution he can never be a "natural born citizen", to which I cite our Constitution, The Law of Nations section 212 by Vattel, and the Perkins v Elg case of 1939. See this post of mine in another forum:
All these facts will be presented to the Court at the appropriate time and I believe Obama will be disqualified and removed from office by the Court directly OR by Court ordered hearings in Congress, after which he will be tried impeached and removed.
M. Publius Goat
- January 28, 2009 at 3:45 PM
If Biden countersigns all legislation and Executive Orders that Obama signs as President, and Obama is ultimately determined to be ineligible, would the legislation and executive orders still be the law? It appears to me that under the 20th Amendment they would be.
- January 28, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Let's take a look at the three main arguments presented by some that Obama is not qualified to be POTUS. Note that in the following when I use the term Plaintiff I am not referring to any particular case or plaintiff, but to those who hold this position in general. .
The first argument is that he was not born on U.S. Soil, and therefore he can not be a natural born citizen.
To counter this argument, the defendant needs only to produce the original, certified Certificate of Live Birth whose image we have all seen on the internet. This document in and of itself is sufficient legal proof that Obama was born in Honolulu unless the plaintiff can somehow refute this evidence. What are the possible ways of refuting the evidence?
1)The plaintiff can claim that the man currently occupying the oval office is in fact, not the Barack Obama listed on the COLB. Since I have not heard anyone yet make a claim to this effect, I think we can all agree that this is not a valid rebuttal of the COLB evidence.
2)The Plaintiff can claim that the document presented has been altered or forged. There are two possibilities here.
a)You can make the claim that the document was altered after being issued by the state of Hawaii. The problem with this is that the plaintiff would have to present proof that the document has been altered and all the court would have to do is request that a new certified COLB be sent from the Hawaiian DOH directly to the court. Conspiracy theories aside, It is highly unlikely that the document in question has been altered. It would simply be too easy for any such alteration to have been noticed. For instance, given the curiosity that this document has elicited, it would only take the Hawaiian DOH a few seconds to verify that the data as shown on the image is consistent with the data in their records. Presented with evidence of fraudulent abuse of their document, they would be obligated to prosecute the fraud. That this has not been done is a pretty good indication that the data on the document is consistent with the records in the DOH files.
b)You can make the argument that the actual records themselves in the DOH have been tampered with. This argument goes seriously into x-files conspiracy theory. The old adage, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I have yet to see any evidence that the Republican Governor of Hawaii and her appointed head of the Department of Health are somehow part of a vast conspiracy. I highly doubt that any court would entertain this claim for anything other than the laugh factor.
3)The final form of rebuttal would be to present evidence of an alternative birth site. The problem with this is that such evidence is, at this point, non-existent. No definitive evidence has yet to be presented by anyone indicating that Obama was born anywhere but in Honolulu. Now some of you may wish to put forth the questionable statements by Obama's paternal Grandmother. However, it is doubtful that that statement will ever be admissible as evidence. How many of you have actually heard this so-called evidence? At best it is a hearsay statement from someone who is not proficient in the language being spoken. At worst it is an out and out scam perpetrated on the person who obtained this so-called evidence. No, I don't think that any court in the land would ever consider allowing that so-called evidence to be presented, Even if it was presented, it has so little reliability that it is totally useless.
Based on the above, I think that it is fair to say that if this issue ever did go to trial, trying to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii would be a totally useless endeavor.
- January 28, 2009 at 8:41 PM
The second common argument that is presented is that Obama is not qualified by virtue of his father's status as a British subject at the time of Obama's birth. Note that this argument and the first argument that he was not born in Hawaii are mutually exclusive. If you are making the argument that Obama is not qualified due to his father's citizenship status, then you are tactically accepting the fact that he was born in Honolulu. There are several different components to this argument that we need to look at.
1)First is the proposition that there are three types of U.S. Citizenship. In order for this argument to work, the plaintiff needs to prove that there are three distinct classifications of U.S. Citizenship. There are: A natural born Citizen, A citizen who has citizenship by virtue of birth, yet is not a natural born citizen, and finally a naturalized citizen.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs there is no real evidence to support this claim. No one has ever made a successful case for this proposition. As far as the courts have ever determined there are only two classes of citizenship. Citizenship by birth (i.e. "natural") and citizenship by choice (i.e. "naturalized")
While Vattel postulated a number of different classifications of citizenship, there is no legal bases for these classifications in the U.S. There are no statutes, constitutional amendments or case law that defines or puts forth the concept of three types of citizenship.
Then there is the concept of dual allegiance. As I mentioned above, this argument suffers from one fatal flaw. It allows foreign governments to pass laws that effectively control our election system. For instance in the Irish hypothetical posted above, it was pointed out that the oath of allegiance taken during naturalization renounces foreign citizenship. That is fine, however, Irish law still recognizes the parents and the child to be Irish citizens. Furthermore, there is no process for a child born in the U.S. to Irish born parents to renounce his Irish citizenship and again, even if there was, It would not change the effect of the Irish law.
In addition, this argument is effectively shredded in the SCOTUS decision "United States v. Wong Kim Ark" In this decision, the court was careful to note the historical basis of the concept of a Natural Born Subject in English law predating the U.S. Constitution. The court quites clearly pointed out that mere birth within the Realm was sufficient to make one a natural born subject to the crown even if ones parents were aliens.
As quoted within the above decision, In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
The decision itself determined that birth within the territory of the U.S. Was sufficient to make one a citizen (by birthright) even if ones parents were not citizens and subjects of the Chinese Emporer. In addition, the fact that Wong Kim Ark himself was also a subject of the Chinese emporer had no bearing on his status as a U.S. Citizen. In light of the fact that there is no legal basis to assume that there are three classifications of citizenship (point 1, above), then it is clear that Wong Kim Ark was indeed a natural born citizen.
2)Finally, there is the argument that both parents have to be U.S. Citizens for one to be a natural born citizen. This argument is also based on the preposition in Point 1, above. This argument fails in that in the evidence presented by the plaintiffs to support it, the plaintiffs clearly fail to distinguish between collective nouns and plural noun forms. This is not a trivial grammatical error, as this is the key to the whole argument.
Often quoted is the line from Vattel's Law of Nations: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens " Note that the terms "citizens" and "parents," are collective nouns, not plural nouns.
In Minor v. Happersett , the court was quite explicit in this regards. --"It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."-- In this case the terms "children" and "Parents" are clearly collective nouns.
Based on the above, It is clear to me that this argument is seriously flawed. There is sufficient precedence against this argument to the point that it is doubtful that any court would accept it as valid.
- January 28, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Finally there is the last argument that Obama is not qualified because he became an Indonesian citizen when he was a child. This argument does not deserve much effort to debunk. Simply see the decision in the Supreme court case, Perkins v. Elg. It is not possible for a minor child to renounce or loose their U.S. Citizenship.
Obama was only in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10 when he returned to the U.S. To live with his maternal grandmother. Therefore, this argument "has no legs."
Some have postulated that Obama attended college under a foreign aid program, yet there is no evidence to support this. There is also nothing untoward about his travels abroad. There were no travel bans to any of the countries he visited. This argument, even if true, is simply not sufficient to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen. The fact that the argument has no basis in reality only makes it more pathetic.
- January 28, 2009 at 8:42 PM
If I can be of any assistance. I'm a former military officer/fighter pilot. I'm on inactive reserve. I've followed most all of these cases and tend to agree with Leo's case the most. I sent emails to my Senator/Rep and to Cheney prior to the certification asking them to verify/challenge eligibility. None of them have responded. firstname.lastname@example.com
- January 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM
mtngoat61's comment at 12:23 P.M. is replete with personal attacks; why wasn't it deleted?
- January 29, 2009 at 1:36 AM
If those two naturalized persons then give birth to a child on U.S. soil, the child is an Article "natural born Citizen."
If a naturalized citizen and a foreigner give birth to a child on U.S. soil, the child is a "natural born Citizen." See Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
The term on the bottom as being Prima Fascia evidence is just that Prima Fascia, if challenged it falls in the courts and its usefulness for anything other than to deceive as not being sufficient
Key word being "if"; there's no competent evidence challenging the COLB.
- January 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM
- Puzo1 said...
To Anonymous 1-28-09 1036pm
mtngoat61 had every reason to be angry with you for your stating a very serious falsehood on this blog and who knows where else. You stated that Obama "produce[ed] the original Certificate of Live Birth whose scanned image we have all seen by now." This is a false statement. For reasons known only to him and who knows who else, Obama to this day has yet to produce his Certificate of Live Birth. Plain and simple. Why can not you understand that Obama could make so much of the public anger go away by simply producing a simple piece of paper. This story will never go away. People are just too angry. How can the President of a country such as the United States of American treat his people in such a way? I suggest to you that you are going to have to camp out at these blogs for the rest of Obama's political life in this country.
- January 29, 2009 at 1:54 AM
- mtngoat61 said...
Hi Anonymous at 10:36:
Why no name or at least initials?
Hey, I didn't look up your or A.P.'s personal life and lodge membership and post it in this blog like A.P. did to Atty Apuzzo. Atty Puzzo had a right to object to that kind of personal attack. Now that was a real personal attack and even a veiled personal threat or attempt at intimidation, imo, if you ask me. You know, like we know who you are and we are investigating you, and maybe even your family, etc.
By the way, your comment sounds like a Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" tactic to be used in confrontational debates or in confrontational situations by people trained with the Alinsky school of tactics and politics ... people like Obama, ... who consider the opposition to be the enemy to their Socialist agenda for America. The agenda put forth by Alinsky and Professors Cloward and Piven for bankrupting America via massive spending programs passed in a fear environment created by "orchestrated crisis", and embraced by Obama, with the end goal of installing a full fledged national socialist form of government. Specifically your plea sounds like Rule #4. ;-) That is, when "the target or enemy" gets a little aggressive back, and returns fire a bit, you Alinsky trained operatives appeal to the nobler motives and the higher path, while the throwing of personal attack bombs by themselves started it all.
Have you read Alinsky's "radicals" book? I have, so I usually recognize immediately those tactics when debating O-Bots and supporters and our new "leader" with his new vest pocket "blue book". Reminds me of that little "red book" that Chairman Mao put out. Did Michael Klonsky help write Obama's? You're pretty good at the Alinsky stuff. By the way, are you still A.P. going under cover again, or are you a team mate of his?
Alinsky's Tactics Rules:
The Cloward-Piven Strategy:
Just curious, did you ever attend one of Obama's Alinsky tactics classes? I heard he was very good at it. If you did, was it with ACORN during his "Leadership Training" sessions training them. As I understand it, only the best of the best got to get into one of Obama's classes. And you know he promised to take care of them if he won. And he is. I see he is rewarding ACORN and like organizations with $4.2 billion in the new "stimulus package".
Chicago politics have come to Washington.
M. Publius Goat
P.S. Can you get back to the case. What do you think of the lawsuit against Congress itself as a defendant in this case? You and your buddy A.P. don't start throwing personal attacks at the Attorney and our host in this blog and I'll not fire back. ;-)
- January 29, 2009 at 2:31 AM
- mtngoat61 said...
To Anonymous at 10:40:
You once again have posted a bald faced FALSE statement in this blog when you said, "If a naturalized citizen and a foreigner give birth to a child on U.S. soil, the child is a "natural born Citizen." See Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)."
You said citizen, singular, which is not the factual evidence of the case in Perkins v Elg.
In the Perkins v. Elg case of 1939 ... BOTH parents of the child were "naturalized citizens" of the USA when their daughter was born in the USA. Not one citizen, but both.
Again you post false statements. I would not blame Atty Puzzo if you are persmanently banned from this blog.
Again, in the 1939 case, both parents were citizens when the child was born in the USA and thus the requirements of Vattel's definition of Natural Born Citizen in section 212 therein, and which was used by John Jay, which is the meaning as used in the Constitution were met. The child was indeed a natural born citizen because BOTH her parents were citizens of the USA when she was born in the USA.
Maybe this link and chart will help you get you facts straight:
M. Publius Goat
- January 29, 2009 at 2:41 AM
mtngoat61 had every reason to be angry with you for your stating a very serious falsehood on this blog and who knows where else.
So those that agree with you can post personal attacks, but those who don't get deleted. What evenhandedness.
You stated that Obama "produce[ed] the original Certificate of Live Birth whose scanned image we have all seen by now."
I didn't state it, but the difference between a certificate and a certification is a rather subtle distinction to all but those rather versed in these issues. More likely an innocent mistake; hardly worth all that bile.
For reasons known only to him and who knows who else, Obama to this day has yet to produce his Certificate of Live Birth. Plain and simple.
What part of "isn't required to, has better things to do, and no downside if he doesn't" is unclear?
Why can not you understand that Obama could make so much of the public anger go away by simply producing a simple piece of paper.
It would be nanoseconds before the first cry of "FAKE!" It is a rather naive to think producing the birth certificate will end all this.
- January 29, 2009 at 3:39 AM
- mtngoat61 said...
Hi all,
A simple point in debating the issue of Obama's lack of "natural born citizn" (NBC) status to understand a key flaw in Obama's lack of NBC status, ... that flaw is not what Obama's father was in 1961, ... but was his father was NOT!
That is, his father was NEVER a citizen of the country of the USA, when Obama was born in 1961, or for that matter ever.
Obama's father was not even a permanent resident of the USA when Obama was born in 1961. Obama Sr. was a complete "foreigner" and had no allegiance to the USA whatsover. And this foreigner status is what Vattel and John Jay were very concerned about in their writings, respecitvely in defining natural born citizen and in placing that term in the U.S. constitution as a requirement to service as POTUS and CINC, to minimize and chances of foreign influences on the person who can serve as POTUS and CINC of the Army (military).
Thus we don't really care what the foreign allegiance of Obama's father was ... a British subject, a Kenyan citizen, or whatever. The key fact is NOT what he was but what he was NOT. Obama Sr. was NEVER a U.S. citizen.
Thus Obama Jr. is disqualified from being an Article II Natural Born Citzen (NBC) by both the definition of (NBC) in Vattel's Law of Nations, the source by John Jay for that term when he had it inserted into the Constitution.
And Obama also does not meet the necessary standards to be condidered a Natural Born Citizen in the excellent analysis and essay by John Greschak.
Obama's father could have been a subject of the British Empire, a Kenyan citizen, or a citzen of Brazil or China for that matter, for the facts at instant case at hand. The key is he was NOT a citizen of the U.S.A. ever.
Again, Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen, therefore Obama Jr. is not an Article II "Natural Born Citizen" of the USA under our Constitution. Thus Obama is a usurper in the office of the President and the Congress committed violations of the Constitution and U.S. Code in confirming him to allow him to be sworn in.
M. Publius Goat
P.S. Again, can we move on the part of this unique case which is suing Congress for them not doing there Constitutional duties and denying the Plaintiffs their 1st amendment rights and their due process rights by failing to address the grievances about Obama's citizenship flaws. The Congress aggressively listened to the grievancess filed by concerned citizens about questions about John McCain's citizenship flaws and even having a Senate hearing about McCains. Why did Congress hear one set of grievances from the people and hold a hearing and indifferently stone-wall and ignore the grievances of other people asking questions about Obama's citizenship questions and flaws?
- January 29, 2009 at 3:40 AM
- Puzo1 said...
To Anonymous 12:29am
Your response is on the verge of pathetic. Please refrain from appealing to pity and sympathy. Your failure to address facts is also noted. We will not waste time on this blog answering your repetive pat answers. We will only tolerate intelligent discussion here. We are serious.
- January 29, 2009 at 4:24 AM
- Peter said...
Mario and Mr. Goat:
I've seen a few statements concerning the Natural Born Citizen (NBC) issue that I'd really appreciate your insight on.
The most common perception is that a NBC, per the framers intent, is a citizen born of two citizen parents. Keeping it simple, has this ever been challenged in court?
I have followed several other blogs and recall that, while the NBC issue was touched on in both US v. Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett, it was not at issue in those cases and thus never part of those Court's opinions. (Those cases were specifically about citizenship, not NBC.)
As a naturalized citizen I know that the only time my "status" would be at issue is if I wanted to run for President. Unless I am missing something, this would never have been an issue unless it was raised, as it is now, in challenging the eligibility of a President, and therefore not likely EVER part of any past case law.
So my question really boils to, how sure are we that a NBC must be born to TWO citizen parents?
Obviously if it were that simple Obama would not be President since there is absolutely no doubt about his father's allegiance.
I have also seen on Atty Phil Berg's site that some people close to him also don't necessarily agree with a NBC having to be born of two citizen parents.
- January 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM
- Natural Born Citizen said...
Attorney Apuzzo,
I applaud your patriotism, zeal, and expertise in marshalling the facts and arguments.
I hope there is enough of the same zeal of patriotism and integrity in the courts for them to hear your case.
Can you comment on Walker vs US (2000) and Walker vs. Congress (2004), and explain if it is possible to sue Congress, and what is necessary to have a standing in such a case?
Also, what is the difference between filing such a suit, and getting a Federal District Attorney to file one: civil action vs. criminal action?
Is there any way to compell a Federal DA to take action through mandamnus?
Thank you...
- January 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Puzzo1 said:
---" 1) The Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certification of live birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence for its Homeland Security program."---
"Homeland Security Program?"
You might want to double check that. The Hawaiian Home Lands program is a program to grant leases to persons of ethic Hawaiian decent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with homeland security.
- January 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM
- Puzo1 said...
To Anonymous 1-28-09 10:40pm
I do not agree with your statement of what the Perkins v. Elg case stands for. The facts of that case are that the Elg child's father emigrated from Sweden to the U.S. sometime before 1906 and naturalized in 1906. Under the naturalization laws existing in 1906, upon the naturalization of the husband, the wife automatically also became a U.S. citizen. In 1907, Elg was born in the U.S. Hence, when Elg was born, both her mother and father were U.S. citizens. While the decision has nothing to do with what is an Article II "natural born Citizen," the court correctly ruled that Elg was a "natural born citizen."
On the COLB:
1) The Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certification of live birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence for its Homeland Security program. From its web site: "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
2) The COLB does not provide the name of the hospital where the birth occurred or the name of the doctor or other person assisting in the birth, all vital corroborating evidence as to where a birth has taken place.
3) The Hawaiian law that existed in 1961 when Obama was born (Chapter 338-178 Hawaiian Statues which applied for all births prior to 1972) which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii were lax in terms of assuring the integrity of the documents and did not adequately safeguard against fraud in the process.
4) Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii;
5) The document posted on the internet is a scanned document that can be easily manipulated and changed using modern computer software technology.
6) At least two document examiners opine that the digital image and the source documents to make the images were forged. This doubt alone is sufficient to require Obama to produce the original birth certificate.
7) Obama's grandmother stated that her grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present during that birth.
8) The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction.
9) Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, has made conflicting statements concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born. She says he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii but Senator Obama in his biography posted on Wikipedia says he was born in Queens Hospital in Hawaii.
10) There is no Hawaiian hospital that has confirm that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu.
11) Attorney Philip Berg has served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned by Obama and his half sister as the place where Obama was born to obtain the medical records which would show the fact of Obama being born in either one of them but Obama has refused to sign the consent that the hospitals need to release the documents.
12) Not a single person has come forward, not a doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, nor any one else to confirm Obama's birth in Hawaii.
13) For some unknown reason and relying on state privacy laws, Obama has refused to publicly release his original Certificate of Live Birth (BC)even though in his book, Dreams from My Father, he stated that he has it.
14) fightthesmears.com's and factcheck.org's have maintained silence on the birth place issue after the questionable COLB was posted on the internet.
15) Obama has refused all effort to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records, Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of original Birth Certificate, Harvard Law Review articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama's travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any;
16) Obama stated publicly in San Francisco to a group of voters in 2008 that he traveled to Pakistan and we know that such travel could not be done then with a U.S. passport.
17) Obama has used various other names in the past, one of which is Barry Soetoro and there is no known evidence that he did any legal name change to Barack Obama
18) There does not exist one known corroborating document of any kind showing that Obama was born in Hawaii.
19) Obama has remained silent and has not declared publicly after his COLB was been put into question that he was born in Hawaii.
20) The Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.
21) No member of the media, political party, the Executive Branch of Government, Congress, other political institution, Judiciary, or law enforcement entity has publicly stated that he or she has independently confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
22) New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson publicly stated during the 2008 campaign that Obama is an "immigrant." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo.
23) Despite all the law suits that have been filed against Obama, he continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate and has opted rather to spend large sums of money using lawyers to defend himself and to cause the courts and litigants to expend large amounts of time and resources pursuing litigation against him and other third parties. He relies on procedural and other threshold arguments such as jurisdiction, justiciability, standing, political question, separation of powers, mootness, and ripeness rather than simply produce his original birth certificate and make a motion for summary judgment with prejudice as to the merits so that no other future cases can be brought against him and others which would then put an end not only to the ongoing drain of money, time, and other resources but also to the great public outrage that continues to be brew regarding his constitutional eligibility.
This Himalayan mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall. So as to satisfy one of the necessary elements of an Article II "natural born citizen," Obama has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to prove that he was born in Hawaii. To date, he has failed to come forward with that evidence. Hence, under these circumstances, how can the American people in good faith conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii? How did Obama in good conscious twice take the oath to be President on January 20, 2009 when so many Americans have put forward all this contradictory evidence regarding where he was born and he refuses to come forward with any other convincing evidence (like a certified copy of his original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii? Again, an Article II "natural born Citizen" is a person born in the U.S. to a mother and father who at the time of the birth are both U.S. citizens.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Mr. Apuzzo, how is the Hawaiian Home Lands Program applicable in this case?
As I understand it, applicants for this program have to prove that they are 50% or greater native Hawaiian. Thus they have to submit not only their own, but also their parents and sometimes their grandparents records as well.
How is this the same as proving that you were born in a certain city or county?
Also, that Hawaiian PDF file is at least 8 years old. Are you sure that the requirements are still applicable?
- January 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Mr. Appuzo,
You mentioned Hawaiian Revised Statute §338-17.8 being in effect in 1961. Based on the notation at the bottom, of this page
That law didn't exist until 1982.
Do you have a copy of the law prior to that?
- January 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Mario, I too have posted a backup copy of your filing. It is located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/11273555/Kerchner-V-Obama-Filed-1202009
Could you go into more detail with regard the history and significance of Petitions for Quo Warranto? I would really appreciate it. I am finding conflicting information and was hoping you would be kind enough to help me gain a better understanding of the process.
Thank you
- January 29, 2009 at 7:36 PM
- John Greschak said...
Thank you (and M. Publius Goat) for the kind words.
I have expanded the "Law of Nations" section of my essay "What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?" (at http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm). In addition to what was there previously (i.e. copies of the original French from 1758, and translations from 1760, 1787 and 1797), I have added translations from 1792, 1793 and 1796. Also, I have added a detailed description of the differences in the text in these various versions. The essay is relatively long; for those who wish to see the Vattel-related material, search the essay for the first occurrence of the word "Vattel".
Over the coming days, I plan to expand my essay to comment on what I have found in the material that I have compiled from: Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria", "The Naturalization Acts of Massachusetts", and "The Law of Nations". Here is a brief outline of one line of thought that I shall be considering:
1. Observation: Translations of "Institutio Oratoria" from 1756, 1856 and 1920-2 use the noun "native" or "natives" (in Chapter I of Book VIII). A translation from 1774 uses the noun phrase "natural born citizen".
2. Observation: An edition of "The Law of Nations" from 1797 translated Vattel's phrase "Naturels, ou Indigenes" (with an accent grave on the first "e" of "Indigenes") as "natives, or natural-born citizens".
3. Conclusion: The noun "native" is a synonym for the noun phrase "natural born citizen".
4. In discussions concerning citizenship, often a "native" is taken to mean "one born in a particular place". However, this particular sense may be disqualified in the current context:
(1) Vattel states that the individuals he calls "Naturels, ou Indigenes" are those born "dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens", which has been translated as "in the country, of parents who are citizens"; clearly, his "Naturels, ou Indigenes" are a proper subset of those born in the country.
(2) Quintilian is referring to the type of individuals who would speak a pure, genuine or true form of their language. That one is born in a particular country would be an insufficient requirement to achieve the desired effect. For example, a person who was born in France of English-speaking parents, who moved to the United States early in life, would be unlikely to ever speak a pure form of French.
5. In Guthrie's translation (from 1756) of Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria", he writes "every word is either native or foreign".
6. In Noah Webster's "An American Dictionary of the English Language" from 1828, the definitions for roughly 16 words contain phrases like the following: "foreign; not native." or "native; not foreign". For example, there is the following definition for the word "genuineness": "The state of being native, or of the true original; hence, freedom from adulteration or foreign admixture; freedom from any thing false or counterfeit; purity; reality; as the genuineness of Livy's history; the genuineness of faith or repentance."
7. (Tentative) Conclusion: The noun phrase "natural born citizen" is synonymous with the noun "native", which in this context is an antonym for the word "foreigner". Said another way, a "natural born citizen" is "a person who is not foreign".
John Greschak
- January 29, 2009 at 9:32 PM
I'm sorry but I'm not intelligent enough to argue all these points, but it is interesting to read them.
The only comment I want to make is did any of you ever think that the reason "some" people are making these points is to see how Attorney Apuzzo will answer? Maybe they are testing you and what arguements you will use so they can counteract them? Stradegy? Just a thought, but I do think that this is a very interesting discussion and I'm learning a lot in the process.
May God bless your efforts Attorney Apuzzo.
- January 29, 2009 at 11:16 PM
- Puzo1 said...
To AP 1-28-09 5:42p.m.
It is a pleasure to see you addressing the legal issues here rather than throwing personal attacks at your oppostion. You state: "As far as the courts have ever determined there are only two classes of citizenship. Citizenship by birth (i.e. "natural") and citizenship by choice (i.e. "naturalized")"
Would you comment on Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. In discussing who citizens of the United States are and whether women are such citizens, the Minor Court explains that we did not need the 14th Amendment to create U.S. citizens. It explains that before the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Constitution itself did not prescribe what a citizen was. While the Court does not cite E. de Vattel's, The Law of Nations (1758), the Court discusses concepts which can be found in that treatise. The notions of "nation," "political community," "association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare," and "member of the nation formed by the association" are all concepts that are found in that treatise. The Court then says that each person so associated with the community was a member of that community and owed that community his allegiance. The Court says that citizens were then those persons who "associated themselves together to form the nation" and who were later admitted as members of that nation. The Court then explains that an individual's desire to ban together with others to form the new nation was actually that person's allegiance to the new nation. The Court continues that it was the individual's giving of this allegiance to the cause of creating the new nation that made that individual a citizen of that nation. The Court explains that for his allegiance, the person received the protection of the nation (calling these reciprocal obligations). Finally, the Court comments that any person who participated and helped in politically separating the new nation from Great Britain and in the military cause against that nation became a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court explains that anyone who was part of these people at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were the "original citizens" of the U.S.
The Court then says that citizenship would not be limited to only this original category, for the Constitution at Article II provided for allowing more citizens to be created by birth and in the clause giving Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization by naturalization. The Court then tells us that the Constitution does not define what a "natural born Citizen," is and states the following in explaining what a "natural born Citizen" is:
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.
This "natural born Citizen" formulation was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898). The Court in Wong Kim Ark declared a person born on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents who were legal residence of the United States to be a citizen under the 14th Amendment. It is important to understand that the Wong Kim Ark only addressed what a 14th Amendment birth citizen is and not what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. Even Justices Fuller and Harlan in their dissent doubted that the Framers would have allowd a child born on U.S. soil of parents who were not U.S. citizens to be Article II eligible for the Presidency.
You response will be most appreciated.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 30, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Mario, could you expound on your position that there are three classifications of citizenship?
What is the difference between someone who is born a citizen and someone who is a natural born citizen? If one is not natural, then one must be naturalized to become a citizen. Where does some one who is merely born, but not natural born fit in?
- January 30, 2009 at 10:19 AM
The Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certification of live birth (COLB) as conclusive evidence for its Homeland Security program.
The Homeland Security program requires proof of native Hawaiian ancestry, which is not constitutionally required to become POTUS.
The COLB does not provide the name of the hospital where the birth occurred or the name of the doctor or other person assisting in the birth, all vital corroborating evidence as to where a birth has taken place.
Corroboration not constitutionally required.
The Hawaiian law that existed in 1961 when Obama was born (Chapter 338-178 Hawaiian Statues which applied for all births prior to 1972)
HRS 338-17.8 (not -178) was enacted in 1982. Even assuming there was a comparable predecessor statute, that would not explain how a foreign-born child would have a COLB
stating the place of birth as "Honolulu."
Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii
William of Ockham turns in his grave. Under what state policies and procedures does Hawaii maintain foreign issued birth certificates in its records?
At least two document examiners opine that the digital image and the source documents to make the images were forged.
Anonymous debunkers, who have themselves been debunked.
Obama's grandmother stated that her grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present during that birth.
Obama's grandfather's third wife played a game of telephone that will never, ever see the inside of a courtroom.
The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction.
A statement that he has since repudiated.
Obama's half sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, has made conflicting statements concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born.
Ng corroborates that Obama was born in Honolulu; the specific hospital is not constitutionally required.
There is no Hawaiian hospital that has confirm that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Attorney Philip Berg has served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned by Obama and his half sister as the place where Obama was born to obtain the medical records which would show the fact of Obama being born in either one of them but Obama has refused to sign the consent that the hospitals need to release the documents.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Not a single person has come forward, not a doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, nor any one else to confirm Obama's birth in Hawaii.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
For some unknown reason and relying on state privacy laws, Obama has refused to publicly release his original Certificate of Live Birth (BC)even though in his book, Dreams from My Father, he stated that he has it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
fightthesmears.com's and factcheck.org's have maintained silence on the birth place issue after the questionable COLB was posted on the internet.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Obama has refused all effort to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records, Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of original Birth Certificate, Harvard Law Review articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama's travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any;
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And with the exception of the birth
certificate, none of those would prove his place of birth, and thus are not constitutionally required.
Obama stated publicly in San Francisco to a group of voters in 2008 that he traveled to Pakistan and we know that such travel could not be done then with a U.S. passport.
We do not "know" such things; it has been repeated often enough on the Internet that
people presume it to be true. Even assuming it is true, if Obama has a Kenyan passport,
he could have traveled on that.
Obama has used various other names in the past, one of which is Barry Soetoro and there is no known evidence that he did any legal name change to Barack Obama
There no evidence that he ever legally changed his name to something other than his birth name.
There does not exist one known corroborating document of any kind showing that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absenese. And corroboration is not constitutionally required.
Obama has remained silent and has not declared publicly after his COLB was been put into question that he was born in Hawaii.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (And the reliability of this allegation's source is doubtful, at best.)
No member of the media, political party, the Executive Branch of Government,
Congress, other political institution, Judiciary, or law enforcement entity has publicly stated that he or she has independently confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And Nancy Pelosi did certify to the Hawaii Secretary of State that Obama is legally qualified to serve.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson publicly stated during the 2008 campaign that Obama is an "immigrant."
Setting aside Richardson's lack of personal knowledge, much rhetoric said during a political campaign is not true.
Despite all the law suits that have been filed against Obama, he continues to refuse to release his original birth certificate and has opted rather to spend large sums of money using lawyers to defend himself
Irrelevant to eligibility issue. And there is no proof of how much Obama has paid (and such legal bills were likely paid for by the campaign).
to cause the courts and litigants to expend large amounts of time and resources pursuing litigation against him and other third parties.
It is the plaintiffs, not Obama, that chose this course of action; they are the ones to be blamed for the costs they've imposed upon the courts and third parties (and themselves).
He relies on procedural and other threshold arguments such as jurisdiction, justiciability, standing, political question, separation of powers, mootness, and ripeness
All of which are required under the U.S. Constitution.
rather than simply produce his original birth certificate and make a motion for summary judgment with prejudice as to the merits so that no other future cases can be brought against him
That's not how claim preclusion works, at all. (No privity.) And it is rather naive to think that would end the filing of these suits.
would then put an end not only to the ongoing drain of money, time, and other
Not filing the lawsuits in the first place would have the same effect. (And the same
the great public outrage that continues to be brew
Some never-will-be-satisfied souls on the Internet is not a "great public outrage."
- January 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Thank you for your courteous consideration of my point of view. I apologize if any previous posts may have seemed insulting or offensive (and I apologize to the F.S. lodge as well) First of all, I would like to point out that I am not a lawyer (although I have taken law course at the graduate level pursuant to other studies) and my take on the situation has no stamp of legal expertise on it whatsoever.
In the Minor v. Happersett case, I think the single most important and pertinent statement applicable to this discussion is this:
--"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."--
I think it is pretty clear in that paragraph alone that what Justice Waite is stating is that there are only two classes of citizens, natural-born, or naturalized.
When Waite makes the oft quoted statement:
--" it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."—
I do not think that he is making a distinction between a natural-born citizen and someone who is merely born a citizen, but rather he was addressing the question of whether children of non-citizens, born in the U.S. were citizens under the 14th amendment.
Now, you and I might say "of course such a person is a citizen, that is what the 14th amendment was all about," however, I do not think that such a clear understanding of the 14th amendment existed at that time.
Looking at the situation in the context of the times, it is easy to see why such questions were considered valid. Institutionalized racism such as the Chinese Exclusion acts, Jim Crow laws and the denial of citizenship to Native Americans was commonplace and would continue well into the next century.
The fact that this question existed was the very reason why United States v. Wong Kim Ark was adjudicated in the first place.
Mario, you stated:
-" It is important to understand that the Wong Kim Ark only addressed what a 14th Amendment birth citizen is and not what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is."
I must respectfully disagree. The majority opinion went to great lengths to establish that the term "natural-born" was independent of the citizenship status of the parents based on historical common law usage and understanding.
Furthermore, I seriously doubt that any court, then or now, would ever consider Vattel's philosophical treatise to hold precedence over long established common law principles recognized at the time the constitution was written.
- January 30, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Mario, one more point,
While some might argue that it is a mater of semantics, I think that the issue of collective nouns versus plural nouns is a key point in this discussion.
In Minor v. Happersett, Waite states"
-"It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."-
the word "children" is clearly a collective noun as and not a plural noun, otherwise Wait would be saying a person who is an only child can not be a citizen.
It is my contention that the word "parents" is a collective noun also and that the intent of Waite's statement can just as easily be expressed thus: "A child born of a citizen parent within the jurisdiction is himself (or herself) a citizens"
To support this contention, I direct you the next paragraph where Wait talks about the naturalization law
-"In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also."
Clearly the term "Fathers" is collective and singular in intent (Unless there was an early version of Prop 8 – LOL).
Furthermore, a modern interpretation of that would include mothers as a separate but distinctive class as well.
This, of course weakens the "both parents have to be citizens" argument considerably.
- January 30, 2009 at 2:34 PM
- mtngoat61 said...
To Anonymous at 10:41 on the 29th:
You said:
"Also, that Hawaiian PDF file is at least 8 years old. Are you sure that the requirements are still applicable?"
What is most important is what law regarding issuing birth documents was in effect in 1961. The laws for getting a birth registered in Hawaii were more liberal then than they are now. Under the law in effect in Hawaii in 1961 children born in a foreign country to a Hawaiian citizen mother while she was out of Hawaii could be registered in Hawaii under its delayed registration of birth laws.
M Publius Goat
- January 30, 2009 at 4:09 PM
- John Greschak said...
In my previous comment, I stated that I would be considering the following line of thought: the phrase "natural born citizen" is synonymous with the word "native", which in turn is an antonym for the phrase "not foreign".
I have considered this alternative approach and rejected it for the following reasons:
1. There is a counterexample; there are stateless persons (i.e. those who belong to no country) who are "not native" and "not foreign".
2. The synonym relationship is not an identity; the word "native" and "natural born citizen" are not equivalent.
3. In going from a 3-word phrase such as "natural born citizen" to a single word "native", there will be a loss of information (and meaning).
4. Problems will result if the word "natural" is removed from the discussion. I believe it is this word "natural" that contains the most significant factors that distinguish a "natural born citizen" from other types of citizens.
Consequently, to establish the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen", I believe it is better to work directly from the words of the given phrase "natural born citizen" rather than from the word "native". This is the approach that I have taken thus far in my essay.
John Greschak
- January 30, 2009 at 4:49 PM
- Puzo1 said...
Hi all on this Kerchner v. Obama announcement and discussion thread:
This Kerchner et al v. Obama et al announcement thread is now closed. It is getting to lengthy. I have started a new post and thread dated January 30, 2009, to continue these discussions. Please post your comments and questions about this case and continuation of these discussions at the new post. I will post replies to any unanswered questions and comments you posted in this thread in that new thread. But please do not post anymore new comments or questions here. Click below to go directly to the new discussion thread for the Kerchner v. Obama case.
Thank you,
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
- January 30, 2009 at 5:37 PM