Attorney Mario Appuzzo’s Response to Obot
Posted by By GeorgeM at 11 February, at 08 : 59 AM Print
Attorney Mario Apuzzo, one of the world’s leading experts on natural born Citizenship, responds to Obot John Wooden, not because of anything credible that Wooden produced, but because Obots spam this stuff all over and unaware people might be deceived by it …
Here is my response to this nagging Obot which I posted at my blog:
- Puzo1 said…
- Responding to John Woodman’s article: John Woodman provides no evidence that supports his position that a “natural born citizen” includes a child born in the U.S. to alien parents. Here are the sources that he cites:
(1) Lynch v. Clark. But this is a New York state case that was so badly decided that the New York State Legislature overruled it. Lynch provides no American sources that support its position.
(2) Wong Kim Ark. But the holding of Wong Kim Ark only defines a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
(3) Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. I have already shown in the main article here how poorly this case was decided and how it misapplied Wong, saying that Wong’s holding defined a “natural born Citizen.”
(4) Tisdale v. Obama. This decision consists of an Order of 2 and ½ pages, a good part of which addresses the standard to be applied on a motion to dismiss and for the pro se plaintiff to qualify as a pauper. Woodman fails to tell us that the court cited Wong Kim Ark to support its statement: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.” Again, Wong’s holding is not about a “natural born Citizen” so I have no idea how the court finds what is says to be “well settled.” Tisdale did not engage in any reasoned and thoughtful legal and historical analysis of the “natural born Citizen” issue. Furthermore, none of the other cases cited by the Tisdale court support its position that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents.
Note that Woodman provides us with no historical sources from the Founding that support his position.
Running out of authorities for his position, Woodman then tries to prove his point with poor logic. Here is John Woodman trying to convince us that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is the equivalent of an Article II “natural born citizen.” Woodman says in his cited article: “No court has ever held that the 14th Amendment, in calling people born in the United States ‘citizens,’ meant that it intended in any way to exclude any such persons from being ‘natural born’” (emphasis in the original).
This is what Woodman is saying with this statement: Because no court ever said that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is excluded as being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” no such court ever intended to do so. Hence, a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is included as an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
You know that people like Woodman are really desperate when they attempt to prove that a court included a person in its definition of a term only because it did not expressly exclude that person from that definition. Here is Woodman’s logic seen more plainly: I like pizza. I did not say I do not like ice cream. Therefore, I also like ice cream.
To bad that Woodman does not provide us with some real evidence of his position other than trying to prove his point with cases that do not help him and with little word games that make no logical sense.
February 10, 2012 7:47 PM
Mario
-- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Law Offices of Mario Apuzzo 185 Gatzmer Avenue Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831 Phone: (732) 521-1900 Fax: (732) 521-3906 Email: apuzzo@erols.com West New York Office: 439 60th Street Suite 201 West New York, New Jersey 07093 Phone: 201-758-7221 Fax: 201-758-7223 Email: apuzzo@erols.com
On 2/10/2012 8:55 PM, Sam Sewell wrote:
And the other guy said:
Comment from my blog.
From: John Woodman [mailto:noreply-comment@blogger.com]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 8:34 PM
To: sams@bestselfusa.com
Subject: [The Steady Drip] New comment on Plaintiff in Georgia case – Carl Swensson makes a ….
John Woodman has left a new comment on your post “Plaintiff in Georgia case – Carl Swensson makes a …“:
Mr. Swensson’s case does not stand the slightest chance of success, for the simple reason that the United States Supreme Court has already ruled against the “two-citizen-parents-required” theory.
Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have misled literally millions of Americans regarding the meaning of natural born citizen. As I have gone into in some detail at my blog, their two main points — that Minor v. Happersett supposedly created a “binding precedent” as to who was a “natural born citizen,” and that US v. Wong Kim Ark supposedly did not, are both false.
I have also demonstrated at my blog why this is the case. I recommend you read “Why the Birthers Lost,” including all comments, and the following post, “An Open Letter to Mario Apuzzo.”
Mr. Obama, born in Hawaii, is constitutionally eligible. More to the point, for conservatives: Marco Rubio is constitutionally eligible. And so is Bobby Jindal.
Posted by John Woodman to The Steady Drip at February 10, 2012 8:34 PM
“Here is John Woodman trying to convince us that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is the equivalent of an Article II “natural born citizen.””
It is very easy to illustrate that Woodman is wrong by looking at the 14th Amendment itself.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
If this means these “citizens of the United States” are Article II natural-born US citizens – as Woodman contends – then you could substitute the term “citizens” in the 14th Amendment with the term “natural born citizens”. Doing so gives this :
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
So, if the two terms “citizens” and “natural born citizens” are interchangeable then that would imply that NATURALIZED citizens – those born overseas and later granted US citizenship – are eligible to become President of the United States. Even elementary school children know that is not possible and was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. Thus it is very clear that 14th Amendment citizens ARE NOT the same as natural born citizens. ( A natural born citizen is a 14th Amendment citizen, but a 14th Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen )
omad, 1 year ago
So there are people out there that have actually read the US Constitution and understands the meaning of Natural Born Citizen Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 . But don’t get me wrong there are people that do know what it means and say the US Constitution is just an old pice of paper that they don’t need to follow . Or they try to confuse the issue by bring the 14th Amendment into it. Anyone with half a brain should know the liberals or democrats in knew that the fraud obama did not meet US Constitutional requirements to be US President by the mere fact they tried to change Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 no less then eight times between 2003 and 2008 without success .
Charles S. Imwold, 1 year ago
Charles S. Imwold: Right On! The following recent article and/or blog post supports your comment:
If Obama Has No Natural Born Citizenship Problem Why Did Congress Try To Fix It?-Posted on Western Journalism-By SUZANNE EOVALDI-On February 6, 2012:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/if-obama-has-no-natural-born-citizenship-problem-why-did-congress-try-to-fix-it/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=90fa66b70c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
“Food For Thought”
Semper Fi!
WeroInNM, 1 year ago
Mr. Woodman’s comments are flawed because he said Obama was born in the U.S. It has been proven that he was not born in the U,S, and his birth certificate was a fraud. There have been actual pictures shown of his Kenyan birth certificate on the internet., Just because Obamma was born in the U,S. (which Woodman alleges incorrectly), his father was a British subject and never became a U.S. citizen. If Obama was born in Kenya, then he is not eligible to become President. The liberals know this and that’s what they are hiding.
Jan L., 1 year ago
Just because the whitehouse.gov faux BC image is a forgery doesn’t mean that Soetoro/Obama/Soebarkah, or whoever wasn’t born here. He could have been born under another name in the US, or wherever. The fact that he has perpetrated a felony fraud is in itself grounds for removal. Occam’s razor says he is not eligible.
GeorgeM, 1 year ago
Just who is this John Wooden, and what makes him an authority on what constitutes a natural-born citizen? Our lawyers thoroughly reviewed Minor vs. Happersett (1875) from a copy I gave them from Justia.com AND from their own legal library to assure no corruption by the damned Soros machine and the American Bolsheviks. The US Constitution is still the law of this land regardless of Obama & Co., and the Founding Fathers referred to common law and natural law. The reference for natural law was Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” which influenced their thinking on natural-born citizen. To wit:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Barry’s father was NOT a US citizen, but a citizen of Kenya. Obum is NOT a natural-born citizen as much as the Left tries so hard to spin it: they are wrong! And Woodman is wrong by flawed logic. Obama is a fraudulent usurper to the US Presidency. John, I challenge you to debate this with our legal staff. This issue must, and will be debated this year, and this fraud removed from our White House. Let me know.
William Homolka, Editor & CEO,
USIntel.net
William Homolka, 1 year ago
WerolnNM , First of all thank you for your service . I was in the US Navy 1961 to 1967 . I also have a brother that is retired from the Marine Corps and a brother that served in the US Army and another brother that served in the US Navy . My father served with Patton in World War II so you see my family knows what service to our country is all about . I never though there would come a day the US Government would be overthrown but that is what has happen . The US Congress and the US Supreme Court has turned their backs on the US Constitution and the rule of law . We The People have a fraud sitting in the White House going by the name of Barack Hussein Obama who is not US Constitutionally qualified to hold office and using a stolen social security number .
Charles S. Imwold, 1 year ago
So why has Apuzzo refused to debate Woodman except on controlled birther web sites like this one?
Dr. Conspiracy, 1 year ago
Because Woodman’s work is a joke.
Pamela Barnett, 1 year ago