Mario Apuzzo, Esq. June 26, 2012 at 4:25 pm Mario Apuzzo, Esq.(Quote) # BillTheCat,

You are a worthless fool and even ashamed to call yourself a lawyer.

I am indeed ashamed to call myself a lawyer. Because I’m not.

One does not need to be a lawyer to plainly see how bad of one you are.

...

OH for the love of all the Gods, WHY did he have to go there? Couldn't he have found someone - ANYone else to quote? Now they're all going to want to get to the SCOTUS so they can get their arguments before him, assuming that he'll be the "one honest judge" who will save us all.

Scalia is already on record saying that presidential eligibility is jus soli.

The Literary Digest - Funk and Wagnalls 1899
Page 185

CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES II

PERTINENT to questions of citizenship arising in with our new acquisitions of territory is the contention there are two separate kinds of citizenship and that the and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution throughout the United States fundamental rights of voting rights of citizens of the United States point of view is held by William D Guthrie one of the income tax case whose conclusions from study of Supreme Court decisions appear in lectures before Yale Dwight Alumni Association which have just been under the title “The Fourteenth Amendment”. Guthrie maintains that under the rules of constitutional interpretation the amendments lay down general principles which be observed that the Mississippi plan of eliminating negro for instance is unconstitutional and that whenever a directly involving the abridgment of privileges and immunities of citizens shall reach the supreme court rights by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment will be upheld.

On constitutional interpretation Mr. Guthrie says

“In construing constitutional provisions the particular or occasion out of which they grew is never controlling. The grievance or occasion may no longer exist; but the remains effective to govern and regulate analogous. Thus altho as a matter of fact the protection of the colored race was uppermost in the minds of the people when they adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, nevertheless its provisions, embodied in the organic law, became a general rule of civil and political, and established a fixed standard of governing individual rights and liberties applicable to all and to all conditions.

We quote at further length from Mr. Guthrie's exposition of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“The first sentence provides that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside’. This provision changed the origin of federal citizenship. Prior thereto, no one could be a citizen of the United States unless a citizen of a State according to the state constitution or laws. He is now a citizen wholly irrespective of state legislation and simply by reason of birth in the United States or naturalization under federal laws. There is therefore a twofold citizenship under our system namely federal citizenship and state citizenship. The qualifications of citizenship under state laws may be different from those required under the federal Constitution and there are rights as citizens of the United States which do not appertain to state citizenship.

“The phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in this clause has occasioned considerable difficulty. If the parents of a child born in the United States were citizens the meaning was clear. But what was to be the status of a child born in the United States of Indians or of Chinese or other alien parentage? In the leading case of Elk v Wilkins it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of our Indian tribes still existing and recognized as such even tho he had voluntarily separated himself from his people and taken up his residence among the white citizens but who did not appear to have been naturalized or taxed was not born in the United States subject to the jurisdiction thereof and was not a citizen. He was born subject to the jurisdiction of his tribe. This decision left in uncertainty the legal status of all others born in the United States of alien parentage. Was their citizenship to be determined by the common-law of locality of birth or was the rule of the civil law as to the allegiance of the parents to control? This question was not settled until a few weeks ago thirty years after the amendment adopted thus showing how slowly constitutional law develops the life of a nation. The common law rule has been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of the States v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born in United States of alien parents permanently domiciled and here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.

We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.

I wondered why Mario was so busy posting like crazy over at Doc's...now I know why. Another loss keeps his record perfect at 0-9!

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094209p.pdf

I wondered why Mario was so busy posting like crazy over at Doc's...now I know why. Another loss keeps his record perfect at 0-9!

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094209p.pdf

(Filed: July 2, 2010)

We also note with concern 5 that Appellants failed to cite Berg in their opening brief. See, e.g., N.J. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(3) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client . . . .”). Although Berg was filed only some two months before Appellants’ brief, it is unlikely it had not come to their attention given the identity of the issues.

I wondered why Mario was so busy posting like crazy over at Doc's...now I know why. Another loss keeps his record perfect at 0-9!

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094209p.pdf

Isn't this his 2010 ruling?

His clients in the recent case included Purpura, et al.

The rule in Birfistan is that no matter how many times you are told your argument is frivolous, just keep on throwing it back into the Courts. Nothing happens anyway.

The rule in Birfistan is that no matter how many times you are told your argument is frivolous, just keep on throwing it back into the Courts. Nothing happens anyway.

He just put in a briefing that if you are “natural born Citizen” you cannot be a Senator or member of the House of Representative. In the Constitution (and I checked the parchment version for added authenticity).

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,”

If Mario’s styles are separate and distinct, than the Representative who is a “Citizen of the United States” (not capitalization) cannot be a “natural born Cititizen.”

How obtuse must one be to not only discuss this silly concept on a blog but actually put it on a court filing. As it is, he can probably claim victory when it goes to the US Supreme Court as he will claim they are not valid since the Constitution mentions one “supreme Court.” Come to think of it, no laws are valid since they are passed by Congress not Congrefs.

"Again, since the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” clause, Wong defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. In fact, Wong’s specific holding uses the phrase “citizen of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen.” Hence, using that amendment to find someone a “citizen of the United States,” regardless of whether that person is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, has no direct bearing on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” After all, Article II says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen,” and is applied for presidential eligibility. What the Fourteenth Amendment can do with reference to a “natural born Citizen” is increase the pool of parents who become “citizens of the United States” and give birth to “natural born Citizens.”

The clause “natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause, which has a very special meaning as confirmed by Minor. It is constitutional error to conflate and confound a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment with a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. A “natural born Citizen,” being the standard for the President and the Commander in Chief of the Military, requires allegiance and citizenship only to the United States from the moment of birth. A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from birth does not have the same allegiance requirement and can even be born with dual and conflicting allegiances, a condition which the Founders and Framers did not permit future Presidents and Commanders to have when born. They were very specific as is evident from the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that after the adoption of the Constitution, one had to be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “Citizen of the United States.”