Mario Apuzzo

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2426

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:40 am

bob wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:06 am
Apuzzo wins again!
Of course Mario wins. It is his blog after all. Everywhere else, not so much. Poor bunny!



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10421
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2427

Post by Orlylicious » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:49 am

Clearly, Apuzzo needs to join forces with GIL Klayman for a Denny's Grand Slam Jury indictment, Mario's in too deep.
Dennys.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Photo: Merry Christmas from the titular Mama June. Santa (aka Sugar Bear) and her lovely family!
Hey! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favorite TV Show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot!"

User avatar
Atticus Finch
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Occupation: Professional cat wrangler

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2428

Post by Atticus Finch » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:14 am

bob wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:06 am
Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:I am giving Reality Check only a short response knowing that he, like John Woodman, cannot take a long one.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerset (1875) defined a natural born citizen under the common law the nomenclature with which the framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. It said:
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.
Minor, at 167.

This definition of the “natives, or natural-born citizens” is almost a quote from Emer de Vattel, Section 212 of The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) ("The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"), a text which our U.S. Supreme Court in several past and current decisions has informed was highly regarded and used by the Founders and Framers. In fact, Section 212 defined the “natives, or natural-born citizens,” the exact same nomenclature used by Minor. Since the common law definition of a natural born citizen that Minor provided has its source in the law of nations, that common law was American national common law and not English common law. To give you some examples why this is so and there are many more, Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814) relied on the law of nations to define a natural born citizen. In The Nereide, 13 U.S. 388, 423 (1815), Justice Marshall stated that the “Court is bound by the law of nations, which is part of the law of the land.” Justice Daniel in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) also used Emer de Vattel and Section 212 of his The Law of Nations to define a natural born citizen. None of these decisions mentioned Blackstone's name when doing so, let alone anything that he or any other commentator on the English common law said on the subject.

Indeed, under Minor’s definition as provided by that common law, a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to citizen parents and all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners” who could be naturalized under positive law such as naturalization Acts of Congress or the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, which used the English common law as an aid to interpreting the “jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment cited and quoted Minor’s definition of the “natives, or natural-born citizens” and did not disagree with Minor on how it defined those terms under that common law. Your complaint regarding American common law v. English common law is therefore with Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Daniel, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark, not with me.
Apuzzo wins again!
Apuzzo wrote " Justice Marshall stated that the “Court is bound by the law of nations, which is part of the law of the land.”


Justice Marshall's statement in Venus 12 U.S. 253 (1814) was not part of majority opinion by Justice Washington but rather it was the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Marshall in which Justice Livingston concurred. As such, the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall regarding Vattel was NOT THE OPINION OF THE COURT but rather his own opinion. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, an opinion by the majority is considered mandatory authority that is binding on lower courts; however, opinions expressed as concurring opinions are not mandatory but may be considered persuasive authority but they are by no means binding on lower courts.

In this case, Chief Marshall's concurring opinion is not mandatory authority since it was not the majority opinion but at best it was persuasive authority.

One of the best indicators that a concurring opinion was considered persuasive authority by later courts would be for these later courts to cite Chief Justice's concurring opinion. However, a search failed to show that any subsequent federal cases citing Chief Justice's concurring opinion.

As such, Chief Justice's concurring opinion has never been cited by later court cases and the only conclusion to be drawn is that Chief Justice's reliance on Vattel's definition of natives who are born in the country requiring two parents who are citizens has never been used as persuasive authority by later cases.

As a side note, Justice Story concurred with the majority but failed to concur with Justice Marshall

If Vattel were the source of our citizenship laws as Apuzzo indicated then why didn't the drafters who according to Apuzzo who were cognizant of the Vattel's "Law of Nations" just draft the following language of a person's eligibility to be president:

“No Person except a NATIVE born citizen,.....”

Why would the drafters insert natural born citizen instead of NATIVE born citizen since according to Vattel, NATIVE are those born in the country whose parents were citizens?

Unless, the drafters used the language borrowed from Blackstone concept of natural born subject by simply substituting the word citizen in place for subject.


The facts in the Venus case had nothing to do with natural born citizenship status of the parties in the Venus.

The Venus case involved a ship named Venus that was captured by United States forces during the War of 1812. If it were determined that the owners (plaintiffs) of the cargo of the ship were not United States citizens then the cargo would be considered war prize; however, if the owners were considered United States citizens then they would be able to keep the cargo. The owners were naturalized United States citizens who were formerly British subjects but returned to England prior to the War of 1812 to engage in commerce. The majority in Venus, which Chief Justice Marshall concurred in a separate opinion held that the owners who were residing in England during the war lost their United States citizenship because of their permanent residence in England.

As such, Chief Justice Marshall's opinion regarding natural born citizenship based citizenship status of parents had no bearing on the majority's decision since the citizenship status of owner's parents were not an issue in determining that a person who becomes a naturalized United States citizen and returned to his former country to reside there permanently loses his United States citizenship.



User avatar
Atticus Finch
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Occupation: Professional cat wrangler

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2429

Post by Atticus Finch » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:28 am

Apuzzo wrote: “Since the common law definition of a natural born citizen that Minor provided has its source in the law of nations, that common law was American national common law and not English common law.”

The drafters of the Constitution acknowledged that the law of nations was part of English Common Law as far as dealing with foreign nations. "During the eighteenth century, it was taken for granted on both sides of the Atlantic that the law of nations forms a part of the common law. 1 Blackstone, Commentaries 263-64 (1st Ed. 1765-69); 4 id. at 67. Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876, 886 (2nd Cir. 1980)"

Furthermore, "[w]hen the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.).

Moreover, "Upon ratification of the Constitution, the thirteen former colonies were fused into a single nation, one which, in its relations with foreign states, is bound both to observe and construe the accepted norms of international law, formerly known as the law of nations. Under the Articles of Confederation, the several states had interpreted and applied this body of doctrine as a part of their common law, but with the founding of the "more perfect Union" of 1789, the law of nations became preeminently a federal concern." Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 , 878 (2nd Cir. 1980)

However as to nationality or citizenship laws of the United States, municipal laws rather than law of nations governs. “Citizenship is established by the laws of each individual country. Those laws are generally classified into two types: jus soli, in which citizenship is based on the place of birth, and jus sanguinis, in which citizenship is based on the citizenship of one (or both) parents.” Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 756 F. Supp. 1277, 1283 (N.D. Cal 1991), affirmed , Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 985 F. 2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993). See also Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166 , 169 (DC 1951)("Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law.")

As such, the United States doesn't recognized law of nations as controlling its citizenship laws.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2430

Post by Reality Check » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:42 am

You should post all that at Blovario's blog.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2174
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2431

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:00 am

Reality Check wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:42 am
You should post all that at Blovario's blog.
Atticus would lose of course. Mario always wins in his own sandbox.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45294
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2432

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:03 am

This is helpful (and humorous) and Apuzzo doesn't win: http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www ... n-citizen/



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2433

Post by Reality Check » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:17 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:03 am
This is helpful (and humorous) and Apuzzo doesn't win: http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www ... n-citizen/
Woodman's articles on the meaning of natural born citizen were excellent. I am glad he kept his blog on line after closing it. He absolutely destroyed Apuzzo's fallacious arguments.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2434

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:43 pm

mtngoat61 accused me of being Foggy over on Blovario's blog. I must be really getting under their skin. :blink: :rotflmao:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27358
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2435

Post by bob » Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:52 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:43 pm
mtngoat61 accused me of being Foggy over on Blovario's blog. I must be really getting under their skin.
Apologies for my tardy transcription; Apuzzo's!:
Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo quotes Chief Justice John Marshall from The Venus, which like Minor was not a citizenship case. It was a property case. The owners of the ship were naturalized citizens so the case had nothing to do with the definition of natural born citizen. Justice Marshall's mention of de Vattel was in a concurring opinion signed by only one other Justice. It therefore cannot be binding precedent. Apuzzo of course is an attorney and should have known this known this.

There is no historical record for the claim that de Vattel's Law of Nations was adopted as American common law. That claim is absurd beyond belief. It would be laughed out of any court. The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark clearly states that the definition of words in the Constitution must be gleaned from English common law. Apuzzo and other Birther litigators have been told by judges that Minor did not define natural born citizen. No Birther case or any other case won by citing (or The Venus oncitizenship.

I won't even comment on Apuzzo citing Dred Scott v Sandford other than to say when you have to stoop to citing Dred Scott you have pretty much admitted defeat.
Apuzzo wrote:Reality Check needs a reality check. Chief Justice John Marshall (a Founder) defined a natural born citizen in The Venus. Justice Daniel in Dred Scott, The Slaughterhouse Cases by implication, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor, and both the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark defined the clause the same.

There are many sources too numerous to cite here that demonstrate that the law of nations was adopted in the U.S. as part of the law of the land. Those same sources show that Emer de Vattel was the Founders' and Framers' favorite writer on the law of nations. Maybe Reality Check can look to George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Otis, James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dumas, St. George Tucker, and Joseph Story to discover the authority of Vattel during the Founding of our nation. There are numerous other sources, including many court cases, that show that Vattel's authority continued in the United States after the Founding and well into the 20th century. Indeed, Vattel's influence extended from the Founding, to the diplomatic arena, to our law courts, and to our universities.

Reality Check is not a truth-teller. Rather, he is a brazen teller of fiction put forth for the purpose of a political end.
Reality Check wrote: Apuzzo, let's bet $1000 right now that you never win a case against Kamala Harris and have her declared ineligible to run in any state or to serve as president. Can the coward Apuzzo put his money where his mouth is?

[ * * * ]

These questions are decided in courts and not on obscure blogs like ours or comment streams are they not?

Will Apuzzo be willing to put his money where his mouth is? I think not.
Apuzzo wrote:Reality Check has fallen off his rocker.
mtngoat61 wrote:RealityCheck should provide his real name for all the world to see if he really wants to make wagers with you Mario. He knows yours. Otherwise it is just more smoke and mirrors and bluster from RC. Challenges to wagers by said anonymous online ID, or others using his ID in Sock Pupper mode, is about a credible as the legal opinion statements made by the same anonymous poster. He knows your name and address. Yet RC has for years hidden behind a curtain spreading disinformation online akin to a manure spreader in a farmer's field in Connecticut.

[ * * * ]

RealityCheck is sounding more and more like that old communist Foggy and Obot using the RealityCheck user ID in Sock Puppet mode. JMHO.
[ * * * ]
Reality Check wrote:I will also make the wager offer to Charles Kerchner. I think Apuzzo knows he is playing a losing hand in the courts. Kerchner was willing to spend all that money on full page Washington Times ads. He must have it to waste. I will gladly take his money too.

I have made similar offers to Birthers like Mark Gillar over the years. I have yet to find one willing to back up their big claims of fraud, etc. with their wallets.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45294
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2436

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:37 pm

Apuzzo wrote:
There are many sources too numerous to cite here that demonstrate that the law of nations was adopted in the U.S. as part of the law of the land.
That's false. There are no "sources" cited because there are none that "the law of nations was adopted . . . as part of the law of the land." International Law, primarily Admiralty Law, was in use, although there was really no one country strong enough to enforce the decrees of any country outside that country's realm, and if by "the law of nations" Apuzzo means de Vattel's oeuvre, some of it was cited with approval. However, de Vattel's work was not generally a commentary on common law so Apuzzo is very wrong. Section 214 of de Vattel's "Law of Nations" did explain what the common law was on natural born citizenship in England -- born there and you're a natural born subject. So there was that. But I'm sure Apuzzo will have an empty 2,000 explanation why that doesn't mean what it says.

Controlling the blog posts on Apuzzo's site allows him -- to quote bob -- always to win.

Pathetic.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2437

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:02 pm

Birthers have claimed for years that the phrase "Law of Nations" as used in the Constitution refers to de Vattel's work. There isn't a shred of proof for that. It is a a generic term but capitalized as were all nouns in the Constitution. If it referred to any particular writing it would have been Blackstone's Commentaries, which was familiar to all the members of the convention.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Atticus Finch
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Occupation: Professional cat wrangler

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2438

Post by Atticus Finch » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:34 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:02 pm
Birthers have claimed for years that the phrase "Law of Nations" as used in the Constitution refers to de Vattel's work. There isn't a shred of proof for that. It is a a generic term but capitalized as were all nouns in the Constitution. If it referred to any particular writing it would have been Blackstone's Commentaries, which was familiar to all the members of the convention.
The term Law of Nations in the Constitution has its source in English Common Law as enunciated by Blackstone in his Commentaries.

Courts have long recognized Blackstone's contribution to the area of Law of Nations.

"During the eighteenth century, it was taken for granted on both sides of the Atlantic that the law of nations forms a part of the common law. 1 Blackstone, Commentaries 263-64 (1st Ed. 1765-69); 4 id. at 67. Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876, 666 (2nd Cir. 1980)


"Since the days of Blackstone, "infringement of the rights of ambassadors" have been regarded as one of "the principal offenses against the law of nations." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 68, and for as long as the United States has been a nation, those rights have been recognized to include those that are implicated here — protection from intimidation and the potential of violence, and from assaults on the dignity and peace of the embassy as well. Finzer v. Barry, 798 F. 2d 1450,1455 (DC cir. 2004)

“In 1781 the Congress implored the States to vindicate rights under the law of nations. In words that echo Blackstone, the congressional resolution called upon state legislatures to "provide expeditious, exemplary and adequate punishment" for "the violation of safe conducts or passports, . . . of hostility against such as are in amity . . . with the United States, . . . infractions of the immunities of ambassadors and other public ministers . . . [and] "infractions of treaties and conventions to which the United States are a party." Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 , 716(2004)

The Sosa court further observed:

We think it is correct, then, to assume that the First Congress understood that the district courts would recognize private causes of action for certain torts in violation of the law of nations, though we have found no basis to suspect Congress had any examples in mind beyond those torts corresponding to Blackstone's three primary offenses: violation of safe conducts, infringement of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy. Id. at 724

Finally, the court in Briehl v. Dulles, 248 F.2d 561 (DC Cir. 1957) noted that: "Professor Crosskey refers to the [Blackstone’s] Commentaries as "that great `best-seller' of the eighteenth century" and points out that some of the members of the Constitutional Convention were on the subscription list of the original American edition in 1772. Politics and the Constitution, Vol. 1, p. 411, and Vol. 2, p. 1326, n. 3 (1953). Id. at fn 88

As such, the Law of Nations (the concept not Vattel's book) is part of common law and that Blackstone's Commentaries which has a Chapter entitled "OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS" defined Law of Nations as "a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world;1 in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance frequently occur between two or more independent states, and the individuals belonging to each."



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 13010
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2439

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:07 pm

Whether I 'm right or not, I 've always taken "the Law of Nations" as a synonym for International law, unless Vattel is actually mentioned. The fact that I disagree with Blovario just adds to my certainty.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2440

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:22 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:37 pm
Controlling the blog posts on Apuzzo's site allows him -- to quote bob -- always to win.

Pathetic.
Yeabut, Stern. Mario's pleadings and pronouncements are not persuasive authority and only precedential within the microverse of his blog.

After he had to pound out a tome to an Appeals? court on an order to show cause he didn't file a frivolous lawsuit, I doubt we will ever see him in front of another judge (other than a municipal judge who is about to find his drunk driving client guilty).



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8593
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2441

Post by Northland10 » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:27 pm

Atticus Finch wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:34 pm
Reality Check wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:02 pm
Birthers have claimed for years that the phrase "Law of Nations" as used in the Constitution refers to de Vattel's work. There isn't a shred of proof for that. It is a a generic term but capitalized as were all nouns in the Constitution. If it referred to any particular writing it would have been Blackstone's Commentaries, which was familiar to all the members of the convention.
The term Law of Nations in the Constitution has its source in English Common Law as enunciated by Blackstone in his Commentaries.
Wonderful Atticus, as always. Thanks again.


North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27358
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2442

Post by bob » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:32 pm

Mr. Gneiss wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:22 pm
After he had to pound out a tome to an Appeals? court on an order to show cause he didn't file a frivolous lawsuit, I doubt we will ever see him in front of another judge (other than a municipal judge who is about to find his drunk driving client guilty).
Apuzzo in 2016 challenged Cruz's eligibility in New Jersey. The ALJ assigned to hear that case was the same ALJ who handed Apuzzo his ass when he challenged Obama's eligibility.

I'm hoping for more of the same in 2020. :popcorn:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2443

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:49 pm

bob wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:32 pm
:snippity: I'm hoping for more of the same in 2020. :popcorn:
Me too. If Harris is still in the race by the time the NJ primary ballot is being set I have no doubts Apuzzo will be there.

My dream is that if Apuzzo files against Harris he will end up getting sanctioned for bringing an identical case to the Obama case in 2012. Stare decisis, correct?


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27358
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2444

Post by bob » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:54 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:49 pm
Me too. If Harris is still in the race by the time the NJ primary ballot is being set I have no doubts Apuzzo will be there.
My professional opinion:

Gabbard will drop out relatively early, but still be subject to eligibility challenges in a few of the early states, e.g., New Hampshire.

Harris will win, place, or show the nomination, and therefore will be in the primary season for a long time. And the usual birthers will file many challenges against her.

Including Apuzzo, even though he refused to put his money on the line. ("For the record," New Jersey's primary is in June.)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2445

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:04 pm

Thanks bob. I had a disconnect regarding administrative law judges.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45294
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2446

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:31 pm

bob wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:32 pm
Mr. Gneiss wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:22 pm
After he had to pound out a tome to an Appeals? court on an order to show cause he didn't file a frivolous lawsuit, I doubt we will ever see him in front of another judge (other than a municipal judge who is about to find his drunk driving client guilty).
Apuzzo in 2016 challenged Cruz's eligibility in New Jersey. The ALJ assigned to hear that case was the same ALJ who handed Apuzzo his ass when he challenged Obama's eligibility.

I'm hoping for more of the same in 2020. :popcorn:
And, yet, that was a winnable case if you were an attorney who knew what to argue and how to argue it.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45294
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2447

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:32 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:49 pm
bob wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:32 pm
:snippity: I'm hoping for more of the same in 2020. :popcorn:
Me too. If Harris is still in the race by the time the NJ primary ballot is being set I have no doubts Apuzzo will be there.

My dream is that if Apuzzo files against Harris he will end up getting sanctioned for bringing an identical case to the Obama case in 2012. Stare decisis, correct?
The Obama case is precedent but Apuzzo will claim it is distinguishable because Obama had one American parent and Harris has none.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27358
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2448

Post by bob » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:40 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:32 pm
The Obama case is precedent but Apuzzo will claim it is distinguishable because Obama had one American parent and Harris has none.
I don't think Apuzzo's that bright; he'll just reheat his fail from 2008, 2012, and 2016.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2449

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:21 pm

bob wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:40 pm
I don't think Apuzzo's that bright; he'll just reheat his fail from 2008, 2012, and 2016.
I once researched Apuzzo's original complaint in Kerchner v Obama from 2009 (he filed it right before Obama's first Inaugural in January 2009). I found a copy at RSOL Phil's blog. He barely mentioned the two citizen parent nonsense in a footnote and didn't cite Minor v Happersett. It was mostly centered on questioning Obama's birth in Hawaii and the validity of his birth certificate.

Apuzzo "borrowed" the Minor citation from Leo Donofrio. He got really mad when I brought that up one time and denied he got it from Leo. The timing is too coincidental however.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27358
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2450

Post by bob » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:11 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Apuzzo wrote:Someone at https://brainly.in/question/11333627
asked what is the meaning of a “natural citizen.” I gave a short answer there.[*] Here is a more detailed one.

In the U.S., a "natural citizen" refers to the original U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born citizen" and not to the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizen” of the United States “at birth.”

A natural born citizen and hence a natural citizen is not defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, which defines only a "citizen" of the United States. Rather, it is the law of nations that during the Founding and drafting of the Constitution had already become part of U.S. national common law that defines one. This common law defined the term as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of their child's birth. All the rest of the people were aliens or foreigners who could become "citizens" of the United States through positive law such as a naturalization Act of Congress or treaty. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett (1875).

In 1790, Congress provided under its constitutional naturalization powers through its first naturalization Act that children born out of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents could be "considered as natural born citizens." If the First Congress, which included many Founders and Framers, saw the need to pass a naturalization Act to make those children citizens (they did not pass any law making anyone a “natural born citizen”), and only "considered" those children as natural born citizens, then they did not see them as natural born citizens or natural citizens.

To make Congress’s intent clear, the Third Congress in 1795, with the leadership of then-Representative James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the Act of 1790 and, among other things, replaced it with language that such children were to be "considered as citizens of the United States." Hence, since 1795, Congress has naturalized persons born out of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents as "citizens" of the United States "at birth" and never again attempted to naturalize anyone to be a “natural born citizen.” Under those Acts and treaties, children born out of the United States to alien parents could also be naturalized as "citizens" of the U.S., but only after birth.

Under the Constitution’s common law which defined a natural born citizen, children born in the U.S. to alien parents could not be U.S. citizens, let alone natural born citizens. This presented a problem for freed slaves who were born in the U.S. to slave parents who Dred Scott in 1857, applying the common law definition of a natural born citizen, ruled that neither of them was a U.S. citizen. In 1866, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which “declared” children born in the U.S. who were "not subject to any foreign power" “citizens” of the United States.

In 1868, Congress added the Fourteenth Amendment as a source of positive law to naturalize children born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” also "citizens" of the United States from the moment of birth. Again, these children needing this Amendment to be naturalized as “citizens” of the United States are, as Congress confirms in its naturalization Act at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), only “citizens” of the United States “at birth.”

* * *

Despite the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, there still were doubts whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents who were subject to a foreign power (parents of freed slaves were not subject to any foreign power) was a “citizen” of the United States. These would be children born in the U.S. to any foreigner who was not formerly a slave in the U.S. Those doubts existed because there were doubts whether that child was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See Minor v. Happersett (1875). United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) resolved those doubts when it held that Wong, born in California to alien Chinese parents, who were neither in any foreign diplomatic service or part of any invading army, and domiciled and permanently residing in the U.S., was a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark held that he was a “citizen” of the United States. It did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

So, as we can see, a “natural citizen” is only that citizen who the original Constitution calls a “natural born citizen.” It does not refer to the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizen” of the United States “at birth” which could include a natural born citizen if that person satisfies the common law definition of a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen or natural citizen is defined under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. Under that common law, a natural born citizen is defined as a child, who at the critical and controlling time of the child’s birth, was born in the U.S. to parents both of whom were U.S. citizens. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
An election must be upcoming: Apuzzo's venturing beyond his own moderated blog.

* Apuzzo's short answer:
Answer: In the U.S., a "natural citizen" refers to the original U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born citizen" and not to the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizen” of the United States “at birth.”    

Explanation: A “natural citizen” is only that citizen who the original Constitution calls a “natural born citizen.” It does not refer to the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizen” of the United States “at birth” which could include a natural born citizen if that person satisfies the common law definition of a natural born citizen.  A natural born citizen or natural citizen is defined under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution.  Under that common law, a natural born citizen is defined as a child, who at the critical and controlling time of the child’s birth, was born in the U.S. to parents both of whom were U.S. citizens. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”