Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Apuzzo knocks it out of the park!! (vanity)
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ^ | April 10, 2012 | Mario Apuzzo Esq.

Posted on 04/10/2012 5:19:45 PM PDT by jdirt

Mario Apuzzo argued for 3 and a half hours today to knock President Obama off the NJ primary ballot. Obama's attorney argued Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Ankeny. Apuzzo has been spring loaded for this argument for years and Obama's attorney's argument was no match for Apuzzo. He destroyed Obama's attorney!!

The Judge will write an opinion and publish it tomorrow morning.

No matter what the outcome, appeals will be filed. Wouldn't it be great if the US Supreme Court had to take the case because the NJ Supreme Court rules in our favor....

Check out Mario's account of the proceeding today at his website. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: ballot; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; challenge; eligibility; naturalborncitizen

1 posted on 04/10/2012 5:19:57 PM PDT by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Any info on the judge?


2 posted on 04/10/2012 5:22:49 PM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

I wish you well................


3 posted on 04/10/2012 5:30:51 PM PDT by basil (It's time to rid the country of "gun free zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Yay birfers! This will save us all!


4 posted on 04/10/2012 5:32:11 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

No info on the Judge. I don’t think anyone would be wanting to analyze the Judge before the ruling. But he did interrupt Apuzzo repeatedly asking him questions. He seemed to perk up when Apuzzo pointed out that Obama’s daddy was never a permanent resident unlike Wong Kim Ark’s parents who were permanent legal residents. So Apuzzo really knocked him out !!!


5 posted on 04/10/2012 5:33:04 PM PDT by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

No info on the Judge. I don’t think anyone would be wanting to analyze the Judge before the ruling. But he did interrupt Apuzzo repeatedly asking him questions. He seemed to perk up when Apuzzo pointed out that Obama’s daddy was never a permanent resident unlike Wong Kim Ark’s parents who were permanent legal residents. So Apuzzo really knocked him out !!!


6 posted on 04/10/2012 5:33:23 PM PDT by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jdirt
"Obama’s daddy was never a permanent resident unlike Wong Kim Ark’s parents who were permanent legal residents"

OML! excellent!

7 posted on 04/10/2012 6:10:54 PM PDT by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

If it was ultimately ruled that 0bama was ineligible for the primary ballot, what would his standing be in the general in NJ? When is the NJ primary?


8 posted on 04/10/2012 6:38:33 PM PDT by FrdmLvr (culture, language, borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrdmLvr

the NJ primary is June 5th.

if Obama was off the primary ballot, i believe he would be off the general as well. but more stupid things have happened.

this would be ruled on by the US Supreme Ct before that would happen and the US Supreme ct will only hear it if the ruling is in
Mario’s favor. In other words if Mario loses, the Supreme ct wont hear it. But if Mario wins, the. Supreme Ct will be forced to hear it. imo


9 posted on 04/10/2012 7:04:38 PM PDT by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jdirt
"In other words if Mario loses, the Supreme ct wont hear it. But if Mario wins, the. Supreme Ct will be forced to hear it. imo"

Most likely you are correct, unless they are still mad about Obama calling them unelected justices.

10 posted on 04/10/2012 7:16:14 PM PDT by Godebert (NO PERSON EXCEPT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

“The Judge will write an opinion and publish it tomorrow morning”

The judge will throw it out tomorrow morning just like the Judge here in Atlanta did. No lower court judge is going to take a chance that the SCOTUS won’t take.


11 posted on 04/10/2012 8:30:25 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2; jdirt

Breaking: Obama Eligibility: NJ ALJ Ducks Issues

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

JUDGE RULES FOR OBAMA AFTER ADMITTING THAT NO EVIDENCE EXISTS OF A U.S. BIRTH by Terry Hurlbut, reporting at ConservativeNewsandViews, ©2012 (Apr. 11, 2012) — In the latest Obama eligibility challenge, an Administrative Law Judge cleared Obama for the New Jersey Democratic Primary today. The two men who objected to Obama’s nominating petition vowed to...


12 posted on 04/10/2012 9:23:56 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ ducks issues

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

SNIP

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

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

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

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

Judge Masin ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii with no evidence on record, after acknowledging that fact during the hearing.

Judge Masin ruled that Obama need not comply with statute to show that he is eligible, solely because he need not “consent” to someone circulating a nominating petition for him.

The judge suggested that Obama might have to show eligibility later. He laid no basis for such a ruling.

The judge misread the precedents and gave short shrift to the historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution defined “natural-born citizen” as one born in-country to two citizen parents. Apuzzo devoted half of his 30-page exception to this analysis alone.

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


13 posted on 04/10/2012 9:37:08 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt
...because the NJ Supreme Court rules in our favor....

I wouldn't count on that. The NJ Supreme Court is corrupt.
Refer to the Torricelli case for unassailable proof.

14 posted on 04/10/2012 9:41:58 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue

Mario didn’t present his evidence of forgery:

“I called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr. Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version. Obama’s lawyer objected to my proffered testimony. I then offered that I would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth.”


15 posted on 04/10/2012 11:13:25 PM PDT by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Sorry the Judge ruled Obama was Born In Hawaii


16 posted on 04/11/2012 3:58:46 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer
Sorry the Judge ruled Obama was Born In Hawaii

The Law is what those in power says it is.

George Orwell explained this clearly in his book "Animal Farm."

" Some animals are more equal than others."

17 posted on 04/11/2012 9:26:09 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer; DiogenesLamp

Actually, he didn’t rule that he was born in Hawaii. He said there were two issues raised. The first had to do with the candidate proving proof to the SoS about his qualifications. The second issue is the two citizen parent theory.

As to the first, the judge ruled that President Obama did not provide any proof of eligibility and that New Jersey law did not require him too.

And for the second issue, the judge would assume that he was born in Hawaii for the purpose of the discussion and that the citizenship of his father was immaterial to whether he was a natural born Citizen.

Footnote 2 is the killer:

2. The Wong Kim Ark decision was preceded by Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167, 22L.Ed. 627 (1874), where the Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution did not say “in words” “who shall be natural-born citizens” there were “some authorities” who held that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were citizens. The Court concludes that it was not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims.


18 posted on 04/11/2012 1:18:49 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
and that New Jersey law did not require him too.

I hate these legal nit pickers. It is an axiomatic necessity to verify the credentials of any candidate running for office, and ought not need specific coding in statute. Only a legal @sshole would assume this is a valid argument.

I would further offer the argument that if "New Jersey law did not require him to" verify credentials, then a 10 year old boy could run for President, and nobody would be able to challenge his credentials.

19 posted on 04/11/2012 3:10:01 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“I would further offer the argument that if “New Jersey law did not require him to” verify credentials, then a 10 year old boy could run for President, and nobody would be able to challenge his credentials.”

That would be an interesting approach. The challenged candidate could argue that a SoS has no authority to remove him from the ballot. The SoS would probably argue that they have no authority to investigate a candidate but if one is clearly ineligible (Eldridge Cleaver or the guy in New Hampshire) they could than make a decision.

In the case of New Jersey apparently every candidate except President has to provide proof of qualifications.


20 posted on 04/11/2012 3:52:34 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan; DiogenesLamp
I>...And for the second issue, the judge would assume that he was born in Hawaii for the purpose of the discussion and that the citizenship of his father was immaterial to whether he was a natural born Citizen.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Minor v. Happersett

(Argued: February 9, 1875 -- Decided: March 29, 1875)

Justice Waite: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was NEVER doubted that ALL children born in a country of parentS who were its CITIZENS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born Citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. SOME authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there HAVE been DOUBTS, but NEVER as to the first."

(Emphases Mine)

Chief Justice Waite's words in Happersett said to this class (paraphrase) there has NEVER been doubt...

That means that **ALL** authorities agree that one born in the united states with two citizen parents IS a "natural born" Citizen!

However **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" (CLASS)

ANALYSIS:

DOUBT VS. CERTAINTY

SHAKY GROUND VS. SOLID GROUND

The Judge believes the opinion of SOME authorities supersedes the opinion of ALL authorities but doesn’t explain how a decision grounded in DOUBT overcomes a decision grounded in CERTAINTY.

Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes VERY FAR in defining the term and its meaning in this country. (Emphases Mine)

So is "VERY FAR" FAR ENOUGH to overcome ALL DOUBT in defining who is a “natural-born” Citizen in regard to a Presidential candidate?

If Wong Kim Ark, in fact, clearly DEFINES who is a “natural-born” Citizen then why does this Judge equivocate by using weasel words like VERY FAR?

It would appear that the Judge does NOT believe Wong Kim Ark clearly defines who is a “natural born” Citizen, in regards to a presidential candidate.

Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate...

The judge is muddying the waters here.

Not all "natural born" Citizens become or desire to become a Presidential candidate but ALL Presidential candidates MUST be "natural born" Citizens if they desire to serve as President, under the constitution.

Wong could have been declared a “natural born” Citizen by the court IF the court thought that being born in the united states sufficed to make him one.

Rather than declaring Wong a “natural born” Citizen the court drew a CLEAR distinction by declaring Wong “a citizen of the United States.”

STE=Q

21 posted on 04/18/2012 10:02:11 PM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan; DiogenesLamp
...And for the second issue, the judge would assume that he was born in Hawaii for the purpose of the discussion and that the citizenship of his father was immaterial to whether he was a natural born Citizen.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Minor v. Happersett

(Argued: February 9, 1875 -- Decided: March 29, 1875)

Justice Waite: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was NEVER doubted that ALL children born in a country of parentS who were its CITIZENS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born Citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. SOME authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there HAVE been DOUBTS, but NEVER as to the first."

(Emphases Mine)

Chief Justice Waite's words in Happersett said to this class (paraphrase) there has NEVER been doubt...

That means that **ALL** authorities agree that one born in the united states with two citizen parents IS a "natural born" Citizen!

However **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" (CLASS)

ANALYSIS:

DOUBT VS. CERTAINTY

SHAKY GROUND VS. SOLID GROUND

The Judge believes the opinion of SOME authorities supersedes the opinion of ALL authorities but doesn’t explain how a decision grounded in DOUBT overcomes a decision grounded in CERTAINTY.

Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes VERY FAR in defining the term and its meaning in this country. (Emphases Mine)

So is "VERY FAR" FAR ENOUGH to overcome ALL DOUBT in defining who is a “natural-born” Citizen in regard to a Presidential candidate?

If Wong Kim Ark, in fact, clearly DEFINES who is a “natural-born” Citizen then why does this Judge equivocate by using weasel words like VERY FAR?

It would appear that the Judge does NOT believe Wong Kim Ark clearly defines who is a “natural born” Citizen, in regards to a presidential candidate.

Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate...

The judge is muddying the waters here.

Not all "natural born" Citizens become or desire to become a Presidential candidate but ALL Presidential candidates MUST be "natural born" Citizens if they desire to serve as President, under the constitution.

Wong could have been declared a “natural born” Citizen by the court IF the court thought that being born in the united states sufficed to make him one.

Rather than declaring Wong a “natural born” Citizen the court drew a CLEAR distinction by declaring Wong “a citizen of the United States.”

STE=Q

22 posted on 04/18/2012 10:05:13 PM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson