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. 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. 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.

For some stange reason when I post this on The Putzes site it never comes out of moderation.....strange that.....

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.

Obama Lawyers Want the Video of the NJ Obama Ballot
Access Challenge Public Hearing Pulled and Suppressed
Commander Charles Kerchner

I heardthis morning that the Obama lawyers are trying to suppress the videos of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge public hearing. So I called and spoke with Attorney Mario Apuzzo andhe confirmed that Obama’s lawyers have called him and told him they are planning to take legal action to get the videos of the NJ Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing pulled and suppressed. What is the Obama side ashamed of and doesn’t want the world to see. Could it be that their Obama “emperor has no clothing on”, i.e., has no known conclusively proven true legal identity clothing/papers to show the world which Attorney Mario Apuzzo forced them to admit to and stipulate to in the NJ public hearing? Obama’s side obviously does not want people to see this video. Watch it yourself at the below links and learn why.

Because Kerchner and Apuzzo are lying sacks of shit, I am more than skeptical.

From ORYR



more, as they say, at the link

Alexandra M. Hill is not working on the case of Purpura and Moran v. Obama any longer. Angelo Genova has taken that case over and is handling it personally.
Death threats have come to the firm. Apuzzo told CNAV that Ms. Hill was the main target of these threats.

No, I will NOT comply with this arrogant, unfounded, ridiculous, and downright silly demand that someone is making, and not even knowing whom to make it to. I was a citizen journalist, making a perfectly permissible recording of a public hearing under NJAC 1:1 Section D. What's more, the judge gave his permission, and I distinctly heard him give it. For this lawyer to start burning up the phone lines A WEEK AFTER THE FACT is the stupidest thing that any lawyer on the whole Obama eligibility controversy has ever done. (So don't talk to me about Orly Taitz! Whatever you think of her, she never tried to pull a stunt like this.)

But the real stunner is that Alexandra Hill got thrown off the case. This after a bunch of O-bots called that firm to complain about her performance. Play my video and you'll see what I'm talking about, and what caused all the excitement.

(And before anybody asks: no, I do NOT condone anyone making death threats against Miss Hill, and I don't care WHO IT IS.)

Genova called the lawyer who pleaded the case for the two New Jersey men, one R and one D, who objected to BHO's name on the ballot.

I *am* CNAV. I am its founding Editor- and Administrator-in-chief. (Actually, I share those distinctions and duties with another person, whose name I shall withhold here.)

Now as nearly as I can tell from Mario Apuzzo's rather bemused and bewildered report, Angelo Genova really thought that *Apuzzo* had hired *me* to shoot the video. He did no such thing.

What happened was that the judge heard about people wanting to film this. They probably heard it from the guards who inspected our bags and walked us through the magnetometer. I was filming as I entered, right after Apuzzo, Purpura, and Moran.

The judge summoned Apuzzo and Hill (BHO's lawyer) to chambers. There, according to Apuzzo, the judge mentioned filming and wanted to know how many films would be shot. Apuzzo said that there were two that he knew of: Dan Haggerty and me. The judge said, "OK."

So the bailiff came out and admitted everyone who *didn't* have a video camera, so they could take their seats. Then he looked at the two of us, and said, "Your Honor, these are the two videographers." And the Judge said, "OK." I was right there. I heard him.

The guard admitted me to the hearing room, pointed to a corner, and said, "Is this OK?"

I said, "Yes," and set up. Dan Haggerty set up across the room from me.

That's it. The video speaks for itself.

Actually, I'll call Andrew L. Schlafly. Phyllis' son. He and I go back five years.

Obama Attorney Alexandra Hill argues even Mickey Mouse could be on New Jersey Presidential ballot!

Watch this two minute excerpt of the ridiculous and contra common sense argument and contra-U.S. Constitutional eligibility standards argument made by Atty Hill in the 3 hour “Obama Has No Clothing On” (Obama has no true legal identity documents and Atty Hill does not care to and will not show any to the citizens of NJ) hearing conducted by NJ Judge Maskin. What ever happened to Ms. Hill’s sworn solemn oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution? It’s all a game to her. Watch it here:

So the Conservative News and Views guy thinks that the death threats came from Obama supporters, because his lawyer did such a horrible job in court that she won.

Birferlogic is confusing.

The stupidity and futility of the entire birfer movement is summed up very nicely in the 30 seconds from 43:30-44:00 in the second video where Ms. Hill stipulates that the pdf of the LFBC does not matter to this case. The look on Mario's face is priceless, poor sap.

I have a new blog post on the Daily Pen lies:

The Daily Pen: Yes We Lied and Our Blog is Irrelevant

Doubts over the birth certificate are not rooted in questions about whether it is real, but whether it is an accurate representation of the factual circumstances of Obama's birth. Of course it is real. It is not an illusion or a phantom.

Therefore, our story here is that we interpret Ms. Hill's acknowledgement that the court does not have an accurate account of Obama's birth as being a concession that the real image which has been produced for ALL of the world by which to confirm Obama's natal history, including this particular judge, is an indication that she believes it must therefore be a forgery. There is no lie in this. This is our interpretation and we have a right to present that interpretation. Whether or not our readers choose to endow it with credibility is another matter.

I have a new blog post on the Daily Pen lies.

Father, what shall we do without you? Please protect us! Set us free with the knowing of the truth, by the ransom paid with the shedding of blood of those before us.

Controversy over Hill’s arguments at the April 10 hearing began after various Internet posts erroneously reported that Hill stipulated during the hearing that the Obama long-form birth certificate was a forgery.
What precisely Hill had stipulated was that the birth certificate had never been presented by Obama’s presidential campaign to the New Jersey secretary of state or to Judge Masin as evidence Obama was eligible to be president.

I have absolute proof that Ms Hill said that it was a forgery. Corsi at WND said that she didn't say it and when have you ever heard him tell the truth