Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

April 28, 2009

More Delays. USA/Obama Say They Need 124-Days to Answer; Congress 117 Days

Filed under: Apuzzo,congress,constitutional eligibility,Kerchner,Obama — puzo1 @ 5:00 pm

See the copy of the court documents electronically filed by the defendants on Monday, April 27, 2009:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14705757/

The lawyer for USA and Obama, Elizabeth A. Pascal, who works in the office of Ralph J. Marra, Acting United States Attorney, is now asking the Court a second time through her motion for more time to answer for the defendants.

Initially, Ms. Pascal only represented the USA and Obama, whose answers or motions were initially due on April 20, 2009. Ms. Pascal requested and obtained an extension to file her responses to May 5, 2009.

Now Ms. Pascal states in her declaration that former Vice President Cheney, the House of Representatives, and Speaker Pelosi have asked that the Department of Justice represent them in the action. She adds that the Justice Department is also deciding which Congressional defendants (meaning Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) it will represent. Pending the Justice Department making that decision, she is moving the Court for an order allowing all the Congressional defendants more time to answer or otherwise move. She includes in her request additional time for the USA and Obama to answer, whose answers are now due on May 5, 2009.

Ms. Pascal made her motion returnable June 1, 2009 and is asking for an order that she be allowed to file an answer or otherwise move within 20 days of the date of the order to be entered by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. This means that if Magistrate Judge Schneider signs the extension order on June 1, 2009, the defendants’ answers or motions will be due by June 21, 2009.

Whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for the Office he currently occupies is of utmost national importance. Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer. This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable. As to the Congressional defendants, a twenty-day extension for them to answer is reasonable, making their answer due by May 18, 2009. Given the national importance of the issues, an extension for all defendants to answer by June 21, 2009 is not acceptable.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Advertisements

Activity in Kerchner v Obama Case – Motion to Extend Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond & Declaration of Counsel Filed by Defendants

Filed under: Apuzzo,congress,ineligible,Kerchner,lawsuit,Obama — puzo1 @ 5:37 am

Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit – Motion to Extend Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond & Declaration of Counsel has been filed by the defendants. The defendants have already had over two months to answer, move, or otherwise respond. As of the current deadline of May 5th they will have had 75 days from the time they were served to respond. In our opinion, that is an adequate amount of time to answer or move or other wise respond. An objection will be filed to this second request by the defendants for a further extension of time. More on that in a subsequent post.

Link to a copy of the court documents for this latest activity: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14705757/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

April 26, 2009

The Chalice Show – Patriot’s Heart Broadcasting – BlogTalkRadio Network – 9:00 P.M. EDT Sunday 26 Apr 2009 – Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress

Filed under: Apuzzo,Chalice,congress,Kerchner,lawsuit,Obama,Patriot's Heart — puzo1 @ 10:30 pm

I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the ‘Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al’ case, and I will be on the Patriot’s Heart Broadcasting Network, The Chalice Show, talk radio show Sunday evening, 26 April 2009, from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update regarding the recent activity in the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Chalice and the listening audience. There is also a chat room which the listeners can participate in live while the show is on the air. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you Sunday night on the radio show.

To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live Sunday night or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/PatriotsHeartNetwork/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/04/27/The-Chalice-Show

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

April 23, 2009

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance At Birth

Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Means Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance At Birth

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. “Natural born Citizen” status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child’s (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate’s character and qualifications to be President.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers’ meaning of what a “natural born Citizen” is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the “natural born Citizen” clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

For more about what Obama wants to hide about citizenship laws and his citizenship issues see:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

####

April 21, 2009

The True Target of the DHS Rightwing Extremism Policy Report

Recently, Department of Homeland Security’s issued its “Rightwing Extremism Policy” report: http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf
While this report is designated “Unclassified/For Official Use Only,” it was nevertheless somehow leaked to the public. If one reads the report carefully and as a whole, it can be seen that this report is nothing more than a sophisticated and subtle attempt at discrediting the Obama “natural born Citizen” eligibility movement. Superficially, the report appears to focus on certain elements of what it characterizes as American “rightwing extremist” groups. If the reader carefully considers each element of the report, it can be seen that virtually all of the report’s factors are actually part and parcel of the Obama eligibility movement. In the end, this report is nothing more than a clever, subtle, illegal, indirect attack on the First Amendment right of concerned Americans who continue to demand that Obama prove he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

One of the biggest clues to the report’s underhanded purpose is the fact that missing from the report’s list of rightwing extremist characters are those individuals who are currently battling the Obama eligibility issue (“birthers”). Why are not the birthers part of Ms. Napolitano’s rightwing extremist group and worthy of her blacklist? After all, everyone else that has anything bad to say about our federal government made the list. Based on my reading of many Obama eligibility blog comments, I would think that there are many birthers who would qualify for Janet Napolitano’s intimidating blacklist which includes what the report calls “disgruntled military veterans” and others who under any reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment have exercised and continue to exercise their right to speak out and associate on issues concerning abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage, the environment, government spending, gun control, state sovereignty, militias, and the proposed new world order. How convenient to keep the Obama eligibility issue buried and out of the public domain as though it does not exist. I guess that Janet Napolitano, while she sees so many other millions of freedom-loving Americans as a threat to national security and therefore subject to scrutiny, investigation, surveillance, and intimidation, does not perceive any need to expose those who are battling the Obama eligibility issue to the same treatment.

Another clue as to the report’s true purpose is that while on the one hand Ms. Napolitano shows concern for national security by attacking these alleged radical, rightwing extremists, on the other hand she in her heroic efforts to safeguard America characterizes horrific murder and destruction committed by proven terrorists who are ready to die for their cause in the name of religion “man-caused disasters.” In explaining to Der Spiegel why she used the words she did when referring to terrorism, she said:

“In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/firenapolitano1wnd.html.

I just wonder what DHS threat level code color she would assign to such “man-caused disasters.” I appears from such characterization (or better yet classic textbook euphemism) that to Ms. Napolitano, American “rightwing extremists” are a much greater threat to our nation’s security than real-life, murdering international terrorists (like 9/11 types) whom she says we should not fear.

Now let us see how the text of the report, under the pretext of protecting America from radical rightwing extremists, actually attacks and attempts to discredit those who are pursuing the Obama eligibility issue. The report emphasizes the historical election of the first African American president and the prospect of policy changes to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization. It emphasizes the “[m]any rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration. . .” It states that ‘[m]ost statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president . . .” It maintains that these individuals espouse their “racial and political prejudice” through “expanded propaganda campaigns . . .” It explains that rightwing extremism is made up partly of hate-oriented groups, movements, and adherents which espouse their hatred because of others religion, race, or ethnicity. It places “white supremacist” within this race-hating group. It continues that “[b]ecause debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.” We have seen how Obama supporters have accused birthers of pursing the Constitutional eligibility issue only because an African American president won the election. These “white folks,” who are screaming that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore ineligible to be President, have been accused of singling Obama out because of the color of his skin. Many Obama supporters say that no white President in the history of the United States has been put through such attack. There are many in the birthers group that have also questioned Obama’s ethnicity (African American or Arab) and religion (Christian or Moslem). Hence, we can readily see where the race, ethnicity, and religion components come into the picture.

The report blames rightwing extremists of having “paranoia of foreign regimes.” It talks of these individuals harboring “[f]ear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories” with the government’s complicity in a foreign invasion or acquiescing to a “One World Government.” It adds that these individuals fear America losing international power and stature. We know that some of the birthers argue that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because at his birth his father was not a United States citizen but rather a British citizen and later Kenyan and that Obama was also born a British citizen by descent from his father which citizenship then later also converted to Kenyan. The argument is that even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he was born with dual nationalities, later acquired Kenyan citizenship, and even maybe Indonesian citizenship and therefore cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because dual nationalities acquired at birth carry with it a conflict in allegiance and loyalty to the United States. These birthers have criticized Obama for proclaiming to the world that he is a “citizen of the world” and as such, he will not adequately protect America from foreign threat or invasion. Such allegiance and loyalty conflict is surely something that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military cannot have. Here, therefore, is the paranoia of foreign regimes, of that which is foreign, and of loss of American freedom to world control.

The report further states that rightwing extremist also comprise those people who reject federal authority and desire state sovereignty and those who reject government authority entirely. It puts in this hate group those harboring racist ideology and belief in anti-government theories. A quick look at web sites that support the position that Obama is ineligible will reveal that many of these sites are filled with comments regarding rejecting federal authority and opting for state sovereignty because the commentators believe that both the federal courts and Congress have refused to address the Obama eligibility issue.

The report blames anti-government conspiracy theories for people stockpiling food, ammunition, and weapons. Another look at Obama ineligibility web sites and their comments will reveal that many commentators, because they feel that their political institutions and leaders refuse to address the Obama eligibility issue, fear that there will eventually be a constitutional crisis of great proportions and that they will have to protect their families through self-defense. Indeed, many of these individuals have suggested that people stockpile food, ammunition, and weapon. These same individuals have commented on the government threatening to curb their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The report specifically targets returning members of the military, labeling them “disgruntled military veterans” who are highly vulnerable to radicalization. It states: “The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.” We have seen many military personnel speak out on the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President. We have seen military personnel wanting to join eligibility lawsuits as plaintiffs. We have seen law suits with plaintiffs who are former military personnel. Now, this report tells us that the word of these military people cannot be taken seriously because they are “disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war.” But their radical actions can be dangerous because they are highly vulnerable to radicalization. Hence, the report is telling us that any military members, retired or active, who would dare be involved in any Obama eligibility law suit would fall into these categories of psychologically unstable military personnel.

The report tells us how these rightwing extremists conduct their hateful operations through “chatter on the Internet . . .” We know that the mainstream media (television, radio, and newspapers) has denied the birthers any public forum for expressing themselves. They have therefore resorted to communicating with themselves and others who may be interested and spreading the eligibility word through the internet. Indeed, the internet is where virtually all of the Obama eligibility information may be found.

After carefully reading this unsubstantiated report and considering the political context out of which it emanates, let us ask ourselves how sincere is Obama and his administration about protecting America through this report? Are Obama and his administration really protecting America or are they under the guise of national security just protecting their own political power and positions by despotic retaliation against and discrediting those who would dare question Obama’s eligibility to be President, all violative of these individuals’ First Amendment rights to free speech and association?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. In addition to commenting below on this immediate post, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.