Allow Foreign Born Adopted Children To Be Considered Natural Born Citizens

Massachusetts Resolution

Allow Foreign Born Adopted Children

To Be Considered Natural Born Citizens

And Eligible To Be President

Attorney Mario Apuzzo posted the following resolution which has been proposed in the Massachusetts legislature to change by Congressional statute alone the meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 to allow foreign born childred adopted by U.S. citizen parents to be eligible to be president.

See the original post on Mario's Natural Born Citizen blog on June 2, 2016 at 2:50 PM,

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-neither-natural-born-citizen.html?commentPage=2

WHEREAS the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 amends the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) to permit foreign born adopted children to acquire automatic United States citizenship upon certain conditions.

WHEREAS, foreign born adopted children became United States citizens automatically when at least one parent is a United States citizen, the child is adopted under 16 years of age, the child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the parent having United States citizenship, and the adoption of that child has been finalized, and all legal requirements applicable to adopted children comply with the provisions set forth in section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

WHEREAS, despite automatic United States citizenship under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, foreign born adopted children are not considered natural born citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution and as such, cannot be afforded certain inalienable rights and privileges available to natural born citizens under the United States Constitution including but not limited to being eligible to pursue the Office of President of the United States.

WHEREAS, the purpose of the natural born citizen clause in the United States Constitution is to protect the nation from foreign influence and ensure absolute loyalty and attachment to the principles of the Constitution.

WHEREAS, there are more than 250,000 foreign born adopted children in the United States whom are United States citizens that are being raised as Americans, educated as Americans and bear true faith and allegiance to the United States just like natural born citizens.

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts speaking through its legislature hereby petitions the United States Congress to enact legislation allowing foreign born adopted children that satisfy the requirements under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 to be considered natural born citizens so that they can be afforded the same inalienable rights and privileges extended to all other citizens of the United States pursuant to the United States Constitution.

<<>>

This is attorney Apuzzo's comment:

"This proposed Resolution 3317 is misguided. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, Congress shall have "Power To . . . establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States.” Establishing a rule of naturalization does not include the power to make any one a natural born citizen, for the power starts with the concept that the status of natural born citizen already exists prior to Congress exercising that naturalization power and it would be a contradiction in terms to hold that a naturalized citizen can be a natural born citizen.

"It is that preexisting definition of a natural born citizen which was incorporated into the Constitution and which Congress cannot change without a constitutional amendment. That definition is found in the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. That common law incorporated the definition of a natural born citizen that existed under the law of nations. That definition is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1898).

"A child born in a foreign nation to alien parents, who is adopted by U.S. citizen couple and thereby becomes after her or his birth and adoption a naturalization "citizen" of the United States, cannot possibly be an Article II natural born citizen. Congress proclaiming that such a child is a natural born citizen would be an unconstitutional exercise of power the Congress does not have. It would also be an act of discrimination against other non-adopted persons who have become citizens of the United States after their birth."

<<>>

Read the story about the Massachussetts resolution on the NewBostonPost.com page:

Rep. pushes resolution to keep niece’s White House dreams alive
By State House News Service | June 2, 2016, 10:15 EDT

>> at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

This is my comment on Apuzzo's blog:

She said,

"...I don’t know every problem in the world yet, because I’m only eleven. I’m sure that the country will make the right decision.”

Mario,

I read the article that you linked to yesterday that is titled Rep. pushes resolution to keep niece’s White House dreams alive.

When 11 year old Alena Mulhern learns in a matter of seconds that in 1787 a "natural born Citizen" was understood to be a child born with only singular U.S. citizenship, a "natural born Citizen" requirement which is only possible by being born only on U.S. soil only "by birth" to two U.S. citizen married parents, maybe she will educate the adults that she will not be eligible to be president of the United States when she is 35 years of age, because a Congressional statute does not trump and never will trump the original genesis original intent of the words "natural born Citizens" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of the Constitution.

The word "born" in "natural born Citizen" means born, yes, but only born in the United States, not Canada, England, France, Mexico, Kenya, Cuba, Russia, Iraq, Iran, China or anywhere else in the world.

The word "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" means citizen, yes, but only a citizen "by birth," by natural law -- birth, not "at birth" by positive law -- statute, to two U.S. citizen married parents, the only U.S. citizens who can convey their mutual singular U.S. citizenship to their child.

An adoptive parent can't convey what they do not have for the same reason that a positive law, naturalization language, can not trump natural law, birth.

Where are the constitutionally educated adults in the state government of Massachussetts and the U.S. Congress?

Are the lights on?
Is anybody home?

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

June 3, 2016 at 9:53 PM

This is my comment to a commentator on NewBostonPost.com:

Amendment vs. Statute.

Chris Whittle, in your first sentence you wrote "A Uniform Rule of Naturalization means Congress has the right to determine by statute who is a natural born citizen."

Yes, the U.S. Congress has the right (and under Article V so do the "several states" have the constitutional right) to determine who is a natural born citizen, but not by statute, only by amendment, because the "natural born Citizen" language is only in the Constitution ratified in 1787 with the original intent of being perpetual, not in any of the positive law immigration or naturalization acts passed by Congress since the 1790 Naturalization Act, up to and including the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act and clarifications since 1952.

As attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote in paragraphs 6 and 8: (6) "The Constitution did not give to Congress the power to define a natural born citizen ...." (8) " For Congress to know what a natural born citizen was before it could naturalize anyone to be one would mean that the definition of a natural born citizen already existed."

Also, you wrote that "Congress could end birthright citizenship for abroad births without a constitutional amendment." Yes, because Congress already has Article 1 positive law naturalization authority to clarify who is a "citizen" without an amendment. However, as to who is a "natural born Citizen," the U.S.Congress or the "several states" must amend the language of Article II Section 1 clause 5 to clarify that only singular U.S. citizenship is the implicit original intent of "nbC" or that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is the implicit original intent of "nbC" in A2S1c5.

Art

This is my comment to Mario Apuzzo on his blog about a commentator on the NewBostonPost.com:

Reply to Chris Whittle...

Mario,

I just finished reading your response to Chris Whittle at the New Boston Post.

>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/#comment-2711935440

Here on your blog, in part 1 on June 4, 2016 at 6:38 PM, you referenced John Jay and George Washington with logic and reason that is so clear and coherent that it is irrefutable.

If the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers want to rebut and refute your conclusion that John Jay and George Washington were in agreement about the common sense meaning of "natural born Citizen" in 1787 America, all the neobirthers need to do is defend the proposition that John Jay did NOT mean what you said he meant, and that Jay meant something else and Washington agreed with Jay, and then the neobirthers simply need to spell it out coherently if they can.

You wrote:

Sentence 7:
>> If Congress were going to make anyone a natural born citizen through a statute, then it would have to know what a natural born citizen was before making one through one of its naturalization statutes.

Sentence 8:
>> For Congress to know what a natural born citizen was before it could naturalize anyone to be one would mean that the definition of a natural born citizen already existed.

Sentence 9:
>> If the meaning of a natural born citizen already existed before Congress was to naturalize anyone to be one, that meaning had to be the meaning of a natural born citizen that the Framers had in mind when they drafted and adopted the Constitution.

Sentence 10:
>> In fact, we know that the Framers had a meaning of a natural born citizen in mind before Congress passed any naturalization Act, for John Jay wrote a letter dated July 25, 1787 to then-General George Washington recommending that only a natural born citizen be allowed to serve as Commander in Chief and George Washington wrote back thanking him for the suggestion without asking him what he meant by a natural born citizen."

Sentence #10 with the logical inference about the tacit agreement between John Jay and George Washington is what I have been saying since 2012 when Jay became my "natural born Citizen" new best friend when I understood that Jay's prescient suggestion was intended to be perpetual, generation to generation, and that his perpetual "original genesis original intent" was implied when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington who obviously agreed with Jay's "original genesis original intent."

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

June 4, 2016 at 11:07 PM

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-neither-natural-born-citizen.html?commentPage=2

This is my comment to long time Apuzzo nemesis Bryan Olson posted on NewBostonPost.com:

"Whether or not..."

Bryan Olson, there you go again.

As you have done for years, every time you post on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog ( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ) you create confusion. In your last paragraph you conflate two issues and create confusion in your writing.

You wrote "Whether or not Congress can define the Article II term "natural born Citizen" by statute," and then pivot to the language of the two courts which obfuscated about the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" without adducing original sources to defend their arbitrary conclusion that Apuzzo's "...legal position...has no merit in law."

Bryan, do you know what the sources are that do have "merit in law" that support your position, and the proposition of the "nbC" new meaning neobirthers, that an "nbC" has dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

Also, do you know the sources that have "merit in law" that only "one" U.S. citizen parent (Obama, Cruz) or "zero" U.S. citizen parents (Rubio, Jindal, Haley) was implied by John Jay in 1787 (and so it is still the only implication today in 2016) when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington?

Bryan, do you know the sources that have "merit in law" that only "two" U.S. citizen married parents was implied by Jay in 1787?

Bryan, as you know already, there are no sources for either implication, only singular U.S. citizenship vs. dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

So you and other "nbC" new meaning neobirthers choose dual U.S./foreign citizenship and original intent meaning birthers choose ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

Also, it seems that you tacitly agree with Apuzzo that the Congress can NOT define "nbC" by statute, because you obviously do not disagree with the language of Article I that the Congress only has authority to define who is a "citizen" of the United States with positive law naturalization language "at birth" and naturalization language after birth "by oath" at a ceremony. as the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act articulates.

Bryan, it is you who is crushing the presidential dreams of Alena Mulhern, the 11 year old Chinese girl adopted by the U.S. citizens, by not educating her that she is not "...eligible to the Office of President" because she does not have U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen married parents, aka ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

Art

This is Olson's response to me:

Art Telles wrote:
"As you have done for years, every time you post on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog you create confusion."

I'm sorry you found my comment confusing. I just re-read it, and I don't see what is so hard to follow. I think you confused yourself. You certainly do not understand my position correctly. I've nothing to do with your, "'nbC' new meaning neobirther". I did not tacitly agree with Apuzzo. I'm certainly not crushing Alena Mulhern's dream. Young Ms. Mulhern is taking initiative. Her success is far from a sure thing, but the failure of the crank nonsense that you and Mr. Apuzzo push is a sure thing because it has already happened.

I presented two reasons to reject Mr. Apuzzo's legal theory: First, he chose to test it in court, multiple times, and lost every single time. Incidentally, others have tested it too, and all the courts that considered it rejected it. Second, we have already had two presidents that could not be president under your and Mr. Apuzzo's theory, including the one who was President of the United States when Ms. Mulhern visited Washington D.C. and was first inspired to someday seek the office.

<<>>

This is my response to Olson:

"...crushing Alena Mulhern's dream..."

Bryan,

You certainly are crushing Alena Mulhern's dream, the 11 year old Chinese girl's dream of becoming president of the United States, by encouraging her to pursue the presidency with the help of misguided elected officials in Massachusetts who think that simply asking the U.S. Congress to pass a positive law to trump natural law ipso facto to "consider" a foreign born child to be a "natural born Citizen" after being adopted by one U.S citizen or two married U.S. citizens.

Everything else you wrote in your response to me is irrelevant if you can not negate the common sense that natural law, birth, an "act" of nature that is perpetual generation to generation, trumps positive law, statute. an "act" of law that changes generation to generation.

Art

This is part of Olson's comment to attorney Mario Apuzzo:

Mario Apuzzo Esq. Wrote:
"We can all notice that this silly riddler, who goes trolling about the internet under the stage name, Bryan Gene Olson, continues to defend Barack Obama"

That's over. There's no defense: Under the Constitution, Barack Obama can never again be elected President. See the Twenty-Second Amendment. What President Obama provides is a counter-example to the stupid theory Mr. Apuzzo presented as if it were law.

There may be a serious argument as to whether Congress can make a person a natural-born citizen months or years after birth, but Mr. Apuzzo's argument is simply crank nonsense. When he spins a theory on who can be president that implies the actual president cannot be president, scholars are not likely to waste much time on it. It merits, "Shhhh! The grown-ups are talking."

[...snip... ]

See the rest of Bryan Olson's responses to Mario Apuzzo at NewBostonPost.com.

>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

<<>>

This is my comment to Olson about his "crank nonsense" comment to attorney Mario Apuzzo.

Bryan,

In the third paragraph you wrote "There may be a serious argument as to whether Congress can make a person a natural-born citizen months or years after birth, but Mr. Apuzzo's argument is simply crank nonsense."

Do you have a credible source for your assertion that there "may" be a serious argument about what Congress can do by statute to "make" a "natural-born citizen" without amending Article II Section 1 clause 5?

If you do not have a credible source, your assertion that the Congress can "make" by statute what attorney Apuzzo clearly articulates the adoptive parents can NOT "make" by adoption, your assertion is "simply crank nonsense" that is incoherent.

Art

This is my comment on NewBostonPost.com to attorney Apuzzo about Olson's comments to Mario.

What a waste...

Mario,

Your back and forth with Bryan is such a waste of time 'cause Bryan is so nebulous and irrational.

If Bryan was rational he would have a coherent reply to me, a person who is not a lawyer, and simply articulate a reason why he, an "nbC" new meaning neobirther like others who have been posting their drivel on your Natural Born Citizen blog, puzo1.blogspot.com, e.g. Kevin/PhD mathematician, aka Slartibartfast, and Kevin/Masters mathematician, aka Doctor Conspiracy, host of ObamaConspiracy.org, does NOT believe that natural law birth, an "act" of nature that, according to John Jay, George Washington and the constitutional convention delegates that adopted the "birth" language of Article II Section 1 clause 5, was intended to be perpetual - generation to generation concerning eligibility to be president, trumps positive law, statute. an "act" of law that changes generation to generation.

That should be very easy for an Obot of eight years to articulate, right?

Art

This is Olson's response to my "third paragraph" comment:

Art Telles asked me:
"Do you have a credible source for your assertion that there 'may' be a serious argument about what Congress can do by statute to 'make' a 'natural-born citizen' without amending Article II Section 1 clause 5?"

Yes, of course. See Professor John M. Yinger's analysis on this very question from 1999-2000.

Since then, a federal court allowed that Congress could make a person a natural-born citizen retroactively. Markham Robinson petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a preliminary injunction to remove John McCain from the ballot [Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 - 2008]. To rule on the motion, the Court assessed the likelihood of Robinson winning on the merits:

----

At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks.

----

So yes, there is a serious argument. And there is the whack-job crank nonsense that you and Mr. Apuzzo are spouting, under which two actual U.S. presidents could not be president.

<<>>

This is my response to Olson:

John Yinger said...

Bryan, Prof. Yinger is a "credible source" because he knows the history of John Jay's reason for wanting only a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to be president, and that is why Yinger, after proposing statute legislation, proposed that an amendment may be necessary if a statute is not sufficient. See his very last sentence before his first footnote; the url to his Maxwell School of Citizenship website is found below.

However, Bryan, the issue here on NewBostonPost is between your position that Congress "may be" able to "make" a foreign born child "at birth" or later in life "by oath" (my words) into a "natural born Citizen" by statute, positive law, and my and Mario Apuzzo's position that it takes two U.S. citizen married parents to "make" a natural born Citizen with singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone," natural law.

For a resolution to our discussion here Prof. Yinger is not a “credible source” about whether or not a statute can “make” a natural born citizen. Do you have any other credible source?

Natural law trumps positive law because natural law is perpetual--generation to generation--while positive law changes generation to generation. That is what Prof. Yinger and the Massachusetts politicians are either ignorant of or don't care about.

For Congress to "make" a foreign born person into a natural born citizen is not a coherent proposition, but for those who maintain this incoherent point of view it would require an amendment. An amendment is what Yinger wrote on his Maxwell School, Syracuse University website in 2000, and I do not accept the credibility of a Congressional amendment, which is in itself a positive law “making” what a Congressional positive law without an amendment can not “make,” because a “natural born Citizen” can ONLY be “made” by the union of two U.S. citizen married parents who alone can “make” “by birth alone” a “natural” born Citizen with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

Instead of* putting a few urls here on NewBostonPost, simply click on my avatar or my name, and at the top left side of the Disqus page click on my Original-Genesis-Original-Intent url, then on the right side of the Original-Genesis-Original-Intent page click on my OriginalBirtherDocument link. Half way down the page you will find the following info about Prof Yinger with his Maxwell School of Citizenship acrtive url plus other urls.

__________

* The above paragraph was written for the NewBostonPost.com page which did not publish my previous post with only two urls, so here is the Yinger url and below are the other urls:

* ( http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm )

On February, 2015 I put this short info about Professor Yinger on my OriginalBirtherDocument blog.

Grandfather Foreign Born Adopted Children Into POTUS Eligibility

John Yinger, Professor at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, has an excellent summary of the history of the inclusion of the "nbC" phrase into Article II. Read his 2000 article* with 62 footnotes. However, after citing the history of the uncertainty of John Jay's original intent meaning of "nbC," Yinger promotes grandfathering foreign born adopted children into POTUS eligibility with an amendment to the Constitution if a statute is not sufficient.

__________

* The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?

* ( http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm )

More of my comments are found here** and here*** on my OriginalBirtherDocument blog which do NOT endorse grandfathering into POTUS eligibility foreign born adopted children, and do endorse the legislatures of the states using the original Article V authority to propose an amendment to maintain the "original genesis original intent" of "natural born Citizen" as proposed by John Jay.

__________

** ( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2014/12/time-to-change-conversation.html )

*** ( http://originalbirtherdocument2.blogspot.com/ )

Bryan, do you have any other credible sources?

If you do not, your "nbC" new meaning neobirther whack-job crank nonsense is incoherent.

http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/06/allow-foreign-born-adopted-children-to.html

Art

This is Olson's response to me:

Art Telles wrote:
"Yinger also wrote in the last paragraph above the first footnote that an amendment 'may' be required if 'path-breaking legislation' is not sufficient."

Here's what you asked me, Telles:
"Do you have a credible source for your assertion that there 'may' be a serious argument about what Congress can do by statute to 'make' a 'natural-born citizen' without amending Article II Section 1 clause 5?"

So that's one source, as requested.

Art Telles wrote:
"John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word 'born' in 'natural born Citizen' which can mean ONLY one thing, only singular U.S. citizenship possible only by birth alone only to two U.S. citizen married parents."

Well I'm pretty sure I know your source for that: You made it up. Of course if you cite Jay saying it, I will retract.

Art Telles wrote:
"So, Bryan, do you know what sources your second credible source 'citation,' the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which sources does it adduce to defend what you assert,"

Closing your eyes does not make it go away:
"Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already." Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2D 1144 (2008)

The Federal Court allowed that Congress could make a person a natural-born citizen, even retroactively months or years after birth.

Art Telles wrote:
"Bryan, are you serious in asserting that your second 'credible source' can defend the proposition that a positive law, statute, can 'retroactively' do with a law what ONLY natural law, nature, can do ONLY 'by birth alone?'"

I'm defending what I wrote: "There may be a serious argument as to whether Congress can make a person a natural-born citizen months or years after birth, but Mr. Apuzzo's argument is simply crank nonsense." On the serious argument, I cited a federal court allowing just that. On the crank nonsense, I pointed out that under your theory and Mr. Apuzzo's, two actual U.S. presidents could not be president.

<<>>

This is my response to Olson:

Article II vs. District Judge

Bryan, your first response is not responsive. Yinger is not a "credible source," he is merely a "source" who expresses a wish that the constitution be ultimately amended if a statute is not sufficient to grandfather foreign born adopted children into POTUS eligibility.

Bryan, your second response about John Jay is also not responsive because you do not refute that by underling the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” Jay meant by implication ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, a citizenship status which is ONLY possible by birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction ONLY “by birth alone” ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

To be responsive, you would need to assert that you know that Jay DID mean dual U.S./foreign citizenship and Jay did NOT mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, etc. Well, Olson, I'm pretty sure I know that you can NOT produce a source: You would need to make up a dual U.S./foreign citizenship statement by John Jay. Of course, if you cite a Jay note saying that dual U.S./foreign citizenship was his original genesis original intent for underlining the word “born” I will retract.

Bryan, your third response is not responsive because closing your eyes does no make it so. Read what District Judge William Alsup wrote in paragraphs two and three of his, order, simply an order, Order Denying Preliminary Injunction:

>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13604511613654311533&q=Robinson+v.+Bowen,+567+F.+Supp.+2d+1144+%282008%29&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1

The District Judge's statement of the facts in paragraph two was not intended to clarify the difference between a “citizen” “at birth” and a “natural born Citizen” “by birth alone.” His comments about Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment are not meant to assert that the Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a) to retroactively “make” or “render” a positive law (statute) “citizen” into a natural law (nature) “natural born Citizen.” That would be incoherent and irrational. Statute does not trump nature.

Sen. McCain was born in 1936, two years after the Act of May 24, 1934, Pub.L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797, and the year before Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1403(a) “...to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain's circumstances in the Canal Zone. …,” but 1403(a) was not enacted for Sen. McCain, of course. The District Judge simply applied to McCain what was already on the books, he was a citizen by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents (see paragraph one) who happened to be on U.S. jurisdiction soil outside of the United States.

After saying that McCain was a “citizen” by birth, the District Judge simply stated his personal opinion that Congress, with the 8 U.S.C Act enacted in 1937, simply “...declared that persons in Senator McCain's circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.” The District Judge did not say that in 2008 the Congress was “retroactively rendering” Sen. McCain a “natural born citizen” in 1937, of course, since McCain was born in 1936, or that McCain was an “nbC” by statute.

However, the District Judge's conclusion that an Act of Congress, a statute, can “retroactively” render a “citizen” into a “natural born Citizen” “...if he was not one already” is not coherent. In saying “...if he was not one already” the District Judge is incoherent because a statute can not “make” what can ONLY be “made” “by birth alone,” a person born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

The District Judge's "...if...not..." conclusion in his opinion in his Order is simply an opinion about what the Supreme Court and the Congress have done and what he thinks the implication is, "...if...not...."

The opinion of the District Judge is no more credible than your opinion that the District Judge is correct and no more credible than my opinion that the District Judge is wrong.

What is credible is John Jay's original genesis original intent, which can be ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, etc. If you think that Jay implied dual U.S./foreign citizenship, do you have a reasonable and coherent credible source?

Can Congress by statute extend “citizenship” to those not covered as “natural born?”

Yes.

Can Congress by statute extend “natural born citizenship” status to those NOT covered "by birth alone" to two U.S. citizen married parents?

No.

Bryan, your fourth response is, well, it is what it is. The word “may” says it all.

Your "crank nonsense" about retroactively amending the implied original genesis original intent of original birther John Jay is shallow and incoherent. When Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" Jay implied ONLY "by birth alone" and NOT by statute, retroactive or proactive.

PS.

Bryan, don't bother responding with snippets like you do here and have done for years on attorney Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog. Since you can't articulate why John Jay did NOT imply ONLY singular U.S. citizenship when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," your "nbC" new meaning neobirtherism that also encourages foreign born persons to change the original genesis original intent of meaning implied in the word "born" will continue to be incoherent and inarticulate and irrational.

John Jay would agree with me and attorney Apuzzo if he were here to read your defense of the neobirtherism of Yinger and the District Judge who said the Congress could render a "citizen" to be a "natural born Citizen" "... if he was not one already."

Art

This is Olson's response to me:

Art Telles wrote:
"Bryan, your first response is not responsive. Yinger is not a 'credible source,'"

Professor Yinger work is now frequently cited by scholars in the field. You don't have to learn anything from it, but -- this is the point -- you could.

Does the idea ever dawn on you that attorneys who lose all their cases and all their appeals might not be your best source for legal analysis?

Art Telles wrote:
"Bryan, your second response about John Jay is also not responsive because you do not refute that by underling the word 'born' in 'natural born Citizen' Jay meant by implication ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, a citizenship status which is ONLY possible by birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction ONLY 'by birth alone' ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents."

My response was to point out that you made it up, but offer to retract if you could actually cite it to Jay. Obviously I've nothing to retract.

Art Telles wrote:
"After saying that McCain was a “citizen” by birth, the District Judge simply stated his personal opinion that [...]"

Not just a personal opinion, no. He wrote that in his capacity as an Article III judge, exercising the judicial power of the United States. You are correct that case of adopting a foreign child is different, but what little guidance we have from Courts indicates that Congress can make a person a natural-born citizen retroactively.

Art Telles wrote:
"The opinion of the District Judge is no more credible than your opinion that the District Judge is correct and no more credible than my opinion that the District Judge is wrong."

Can you point out the part of the Constitution where you and I are vested with the judicial power of the United States? I'm pretty sure that I would remember being appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate.

Again, there may be a serious argument as to whether Congress can make a person a natural-born citizen months or years after birth, but you and Mr. Apuzzo are simply spouting crank nonsense. Under your theory two actual U.S. presidents could not be president.

<<>>

This is my response to Olson:

Bryan,

Your snippet responses are not productive, not challenging, not persuasive, not convincing, not interesting.

Since you can't refute with multiple sentences and paragraphs that articulate one thought, your understanding that John Jay implied dual U.S./foreign citizenship in a coherent way that refutes my contention that John Jay implied ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY "by birth alone" when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," your digressions are a waste of your "nbC" new meaning neobirther intellect and my "nbC" original genesis original intent original birther intellect.

Art

This is Olson's response to me:

Art Telles wrote:
"Your snippet responses are not productive, not challenging, not persuasive, not convincing, not interesting."

Not to *you*.

Art Telles wrote:
"Since you can't refute with multiple sentences and paragraphs that articulate one thought, your understanding that John Jay implied dual U.S./foreign citizenship in a coherent way that refutes my contention that John Jay implied ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY 'by birth alone' when he underlined the word 'born' in 'natural born Citizen,' your digressions are a waste of your 'nbC' new meaning neobirther intellect and my 'nbC' original genesis original intent original birther intellect."

What? You dropped your "married parents" clause? That was my favorite. You out-cranked Apuzzo with that one.

<<>>

This is my response to Olson:

There you go again...

Bryan, your snippet "not to you" and "What?" are not productive and not challenging. But, they definitely are silly.

All you need to do is spell out your 2000s "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther theory and myth that when John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" he did NOT imply and he did NOT mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY "by birth alone" to two U.S. citizen married parents. Simple, right?

All you need to do is articulate your reasoning in a coherent sentence, just 1 sentence should be enough, that Jay DID mean dual U.S./foreign citizenship either by naturalization "at birth" or by naturalization "after birth" later in life "by oath" according to statute. Simple, right?

All you need to do is clarify with reason in a coherent sentence why the 1875 Minor v Happersett Court in the quote by attorney Apuzzo did NOT understand "born" in "nbC" to be a reference to "by birth alone" to two U.S. citizen married parents. Simple, right?

All you need to do is tell us why the 1875 Minor Court did NOT understand that in 1787 "born" in "natural born Citizen" did NOT refer to ONLY married parents and that "born" ALSO meant born to a female U.S. citizen prostitute and a male U.S. citizen. Simple, right?

All you need to do is articulate why your "nbC" new meaning neobirtherism is superior to the original intent birthers who contend that John Jay would agree that birth to persons who were NOT married to each other was NOT the Minor v Happersett Courts prevenient presupposition when they wrote "...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

All you need to do is simple.
Write complete sentences and avoid the "silly riddler" snippets.

Art

This is Olson's response to me:

Art Telles wrote:
"Bryan, your snippet 'not to you' and 'What?' are not productive and not challenging. But, they definitely are silly."

There's no challenging a fantasy world other than to point out that such it is. Mr. Telles, you are pushing a theory on who can be president under which the actual president cannot be president. Inside your own head you get to decide the rules, but young Alena Mulhern was inspired by visiting our nation's capital and I rather doubt that the inside of your head can compete.

Art Telles wrote:
"... singular U.S. citizenship ONLY 'by birth alone' to two U.S. citizen married parents."

Love your "married parents" clause. Should I argue against it?. Nope, just emphasize it. Like this:
Hey, get a load of this guy who thinks that to be president your parents had to be married.

Art Telles wrote:
"All you need to do is simple."

All I need to do is done.

<<>>

This is my response to "kookologist" Olson:

Hey...

Hey, get a load of this guy who can not articulate a coherent sentence and deny that John Jay did NOT mean that to be president parents were expected to be married, and Jay would have accepted Bryan Olson's silly riddler, "kookologist" conclusion that Jay himself would be a "kook" because Jay would NOT have included as a "natural born Citizen" a child born to a female U.S. citizen prostitute who was not married to her male U.S. citizen pimp or her male U.S. citizen customer,

Is Bryan a "natural born Citizen new meaning neobirther "kook" himself? Yes, he is, and this John Jay inspired original genesis original intent original birther has discovered a "kookologist" who is a "kook" himself for believing such neobirther nonsense.

Bryan, who calls himself a "kookologist" without portfolio (see one of his recent comments below), is implying that Jay was a "kook" for implying by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" that Jay meant born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, which is possible ONLY "by birth alone" ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, married ONLY to each other.

Bryan, your "kookologist" neobirtherism kookery is just to easy to refute.

All you need to do is clarify with a coherent sentence, that means with thoughtful reason, why you think and believe in your "kookologist" heart that Jay was a "kook" for implying singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" to two married U.S. citizen married parents or why Jay was NOT a "kook" for implying by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" to any ole prostitute and any ole customer.

Articulate that one Bryan, you ole "kookologist" you.

Was Jay a "kook" for implying two U.S. citizen married parents, married only to each other, or NOT a "kook" for implying one female U.S. citizen prostitute parent, not married to the male U.S. citizen "partner" participating in reproducing the population?

This would be good, if you could do it, but you won't, 'cause you can't articulate a coherent "nbC" new meaning neobirther "kookoloist" sentence...so any ole snippet will do...and I'll pick and choose which "kookologist" snippet I'll respond to.

Bryan, if it wasn't for your "kookologist" without portfolio snippets, we wouldn't know what a "kook" you "nbC" new meaning neobirthers really are, spouting your one U.S. citizen parent theory, your myth, instead of helping educate an eleven year old child to understand that a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to be president of the United States ONLY "by birth alone" to two U.S. citizen married parents.

See how easy it is to articulate John Jay's original intent for underling the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in 1787?

You can't see it?

Well, maybe that's because you are a "kookologist" who believes the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth of only one U.S. citizen parent and now the theory, the myth, of "grandfathering" foreign born children in POTUS eligibility.

Sheesh, what a kooky thought that is.

Art

This is Olson's response to me:

Art Telles wrote of my:
"conclusion that Jay himself would be a 'kook' because Jay would NOT have included as a 'natural born Citizen' a child born to a female U.S. citizen prostitute who was not married to her male U.S. citizen pimp or her male U.S. citizen customer,"

Pretty awful stuff there, Mr. Telles. You won't find it Jay's writing, nor mine.
All you.

<<>>

This is my response to Olson:

"married parents" vs. not married reproducers of children...

Mr. Olson, did you forget what you wrote?

Bryan, you previously quoted me and then added your comment about "married parents" being something that you did not need to argue against, and then you quote me a second time and leave out the word "kookologist" and you start your response with the word "conclusion" in connection with John Jay.

Bryan, you claimed years ago to be a "kookologist" who has always defended the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirtherism theory of ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for POTUS eligibility, and whose reason for being a "kookologist" is to debunk the John Jay original intent birthers who promote the common sense that ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents are necessary to pass singular U.S. citizenship to the child for the child to be Article II eligible to be president.

Bryan, you are not the only "kookologist" debunking kookery. I am also a kookologist debunking kookery. I am debunking your neobirtherism kookery that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for POTUS eligibility.

Sheesh, what a kooky idea ONLY one is compared to ONLY two.

Bryan, in your "kookologist" debunking of two U.S. citizen married parents you NEVER articulate with reason, how, why, ONLY one U.S. citizen parent trumps ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents, while I and attorney Apuzzo and other original genesis original intent birthers constantly adduce the language of the courts and naturalization acts and support our conclusions with reason.

You NEVER use facts, evidence and reason because your ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is unreasonable. That is why it is neobirther kookery.

This is your first quote of my first statement:

Art Telles wrote:
"... singular U.S. citizenship ONLY 'by birth alone' to two U.S. citizen married parents."

Love your "married parents" clause. Should I argue against it? Nope, just emphasize it. Like this:

Hey, get a load of this guy who thinks that to be president your parents had to be married.

[...end quote #1...]

This is your second quote of my second statement:

Art Telles wrote of my:
"conclusion that Jay himself would be a 'kook' because Jay would NOT have included as a 'natural born Citizen' a child born to a female U.S. citizen prostitute who was not married to her male U.S. citizen pimp or her male U.S. citizen customer,"

Pretty awful stuff there, Mr. Telles. You won't find it Jay's writing, nor mine.
All you.

[...end quote #2]

Bryan, you are correct when you write about what will not be found in your writing. By promoting the neobirtherism kook theory that "born" in "natural born Citizen" does NOT imply birth to ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents, you are definitely calling original birther John Jay a "kook" for implying ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, a suggestion that was accepted by the delegates without debate about what "born" meant.

In 1787 America it meant ONLY two U.S. citizen "married" parents, NOT shacking up "parents" and NOT a female U.S. citizen prostitute who may have increased the population with a child with her male U.S. citizen "pimp" whom she may have been trying to bribe, or a child with a male U.S. citizen "customer" whom she may have been trying to bribe.

Bryan, I agree that Jay was NOT a kook. So, if you can, defend your proposition that Jay implied ONLY one U.S. citizen parent when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" and George Washington agreed with him.

You won't because you can't.

That's why ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is neobirther kookery.

Why are ONLY two U.S. citizen "married" parents original birther John Jay's implicit original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born?"

Simple. ONLY singular U.S. citizenship can be passed on (aka "devolve") to a child from ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents.

Bryan, from an ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents original birther "kookologist" to an ONLY one U.S. citizen parent neobirther "kookologist," debunk ONLY two "married" with ONLY one NOT "married" if you can.

Art

This is Olson's response to me:

Art Telles wrote:
"Bryan, you claimed years ago to be a 'kookologist' who has always defended the 'natural born Citizen' new meaning neobirtherism theory of ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for POTUS eligibility"

What a mess. I've told you over and over, I have no such theory. Remember I gave you a hint: Marco Rubio is a natural-born citizens. Also, I've been a kookologist since before Leo Donofrio came out with the twofer-birther theory in October or November of 2008. I've studied 9-11-inside-jobbers, Einstein deniers, and designers of perpetual motion machines.

Art Telles wrote:
"Bryan, you are not the only 'kookologist' debunking kookery. I am also a kookologist debunking kookery. I am debunking your neobirtherism kookery that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for POTUS eligibility."

People care about who can be president. We know Chester Arthur could and Barack Obama can be president because Arthur was and Obama is. Your theory is crank nonsense.

<<>>

This is my response to Olson:

dittos to "What a mess"

Bryan, your response is so silly.

Bryan Olson wrote something irrational.

"What a mess. I've told you over and over, I have no such theory.
Remember I gave you a hint: Marco Rubio is a natural-born citizens. Also, ... ."

Yes, Bryan, what a mess you continue to make defending your "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther kookery for Article II POTUS eligibility, whether it's kookery about the "one" U.S. citizen parent (Obama and Cruz, etc.) OR your kooky "hint" about the "zero" U.S. citizen parent (Rubio, Jindal, Haley).

Bryan, you're not stupid, right?

So, if you can, simply spell out how and why "one" U.S. citizen parent OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents trump original birther John Jay's implication of ONLY "two" U.S. citizen married parents when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.

You can do that in one paragraph with only three sentences, right?

If you respond with a "what a mess" snippet, then you are either stupid or ignorant or deliberately deceptive for your own "nbC" neobirther "kookologist" taqiyya* reason to conceal something. You're either concealing an agenda or lack of ability to reason why "one" or "zero" trump "two" U.S. citizen married parents for a child to be eligible to be president.

"This practice [taqiyya] is emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion. However, it is also permitted in Sunni Islam under certain circumstances."

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

Art

This is attorney Mario Apuzzo's first comment to Olson:

This silly riddler says that my argument, i.e., that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens, which is what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said in Minor v. Happersett (1875), is simply crank nonsense. Yet, he tell us that Congress through its naturalization powers can take a person who was born an alien, i.e., not a natural born citizen, and make him or her a natural born citizen after his or her birth. Now we can see how we have come to Presidents endorsing for President persons who are being criminally investigated by that President's chief law enforcement authority.

<<>>

This is Olson's response to attorney Mario Apuzzo:

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"This silly riddler says that my argument, i.e., that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens, which is what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said in Minor v. Happersett (1875), is simply crank nonsense."

Still getting the order of implication wrong after seven years of arguing it? Yes, that's crank nonsense. Minor has it the other way: Children born in a country to parents who were its citizens are natural-born citizens. Of course they are. I've never said otherwise.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Yet, he tell us that Congress through its naturalization powers can take a person who was born an alien, i.e., not a natural born citizen, and make him or her a natural born citizen after his or her birth."

No, as I tell it, that matter is likely a serious argument.

I said that the eligibility of foreign-born children who receive citizenship by statute upon birth is a fairly recent consensus of the America legal community. I started saying so after John S. McCain III became the 2008 Republican nominee but before Ted Cruz ran for his Senate seat. All along I allowed that a serious scholar might make a case against it, and when Ted Cruz ran for President we saw a few do so.

It was your Obama denial, Mr. Apuzzo, that said to be crank nonsense.

Looking at your actual results, Mr. Apuzzo, don't I get any credit for turning out be right all the time?

Mario Apuzzo wrote:

"Now we can see how we have come to Presidents endorsing for President persons who are being criminally investigated by that President's chief law enforcement authority."

And in the other major party the highest person in the order of succession condemns a presidential candidate's racism while endorsing him.

<<>>

This is attorney Apuzzo's long response to Olson:

The silly riddler who goes by the stage name, Bryan Gene Olson, said:

Still getting the order of implication wrong after seven years of arguing it? Yes, that's crank nonsense. Minor has it the other way: Children born in a country to parents who were its citizens are natural-born citizens. Of course they are. I've never said otherwise.

~~~~~

This Mr. Olson is not only a silly riddler, but he also has poor reading comprehension and logical skills and is intellectually dishonest to boot. This is what Minor held with respect to who was a natural born citizen and therefore ipso facto a citizen of the United States at common law:

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.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

Note how Mr. Olson dishonestly leaves out the part of Minor that explained that those natural born citizens, as it defined them, were “distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” According to the U.S. Supreme Court, at common law, all those who were not born in the country to parents who were its citizens were “aliens or foreigners,” who could become “citizens” of the United States through naturalization and possibly under the Fourteenth Amendment. (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) later held that a person born in the United States to alien parents who were domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders was a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment; it did not hold that such person was a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the common law that defined an Article II natural born citizen.) With Minor’s explanation, it exhausted all possible persons who could be natural born citizens. There were no other persons who could be natural born citizens, for all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners.” Indeed, the Court explained that at common law if one was not born in the country to parents who were its citizens, one was an alien or foreigner. For sure, the Court provided an all-inclusive and all-exclusive definition of a natural born citizen. Hence, only those born in the United States to parents who were its citizens were natural born citizens. Hence, there is no order problem with how I said Minor defined a natural born citizen.

It’s utterly hilarious that this silly riddler lectures on logic when he really is a dullard at it. He still has not figured out what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is even though I have explained it to him for about 7 years now. He thinks that all natural born citizens are born citizens, and therefore all born citizens are natural born citizens, as smart as saying that all poodles are dogs, therefore all dogs are poodles.

If Mr. Olson were to take some basic logic courses, he should learn that what Minor provided in its definition of a natural born citizen are necessary and sufficient conditions to be satisfied in order for one to be a natural born citizen. That means that at common law if one did not satisfy one or the other of those conditions, one was not only not a natural born citizen, but one was an alien or foreigner in need of naturalization. That naturalization occurred through the naturalization acts of the states and then exclusively through those of Congress starting in 1790. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, that also occurred under those laws.

The silly riddler said:

I said that the eligibility of foreign-born children who receive citizenship by statute upon birth is a fairly recent consensus of the America legal community. I started saying so after John S. McCain III became the 2008 Republican nominee but before Ted Cruz ran for his Senate seat. All along I allowed that a serious scholar might make a case against it, and when Ted Cruz ran for President we saw a few do so.

~~~~~

Firsts, Mr. Olson falsely claims that the John McCain example helps him. John McCain was physically born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were serving the armies of the United States at the time of his birth. Given that his parents were in the U.S. military at that time, McCain was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He is thus reputed born in the United States. So, he was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. He is therefore a natural born citizen.

Second, there have been some persons with law degrees arguing that certain persons running for the Office of President and born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents neither in the U.S. military nor in its diplomatic service are natural born citizens. These persons are very small in number compared to the great number of persons with law degrees. Some members of Congress have even several times tried to introduce such legislation, but their efforts have always failed. A demagogue like Mr. Olson throwing his two cents into the sordid pot surely does not mean or change anything.

Mr. Olson believes that he has not squeezed enough blood out of the meaning of a natural born citizen. Now he further expands the number of persons who he claims are natural born citizens. Now he even claims that a person who was born an alien can also be a natural born citizen. Again, this silly riddler’s ridiculous position is contrary to the teachings of the U.S. Supreme Court. In Elk the U.S. Supreme Court, written by Justice Gray who also wrote Wong Kim Ark, explained:

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [p102] to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-02 (1884). The Court explained that if one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth, one can become a citizen thereof at that time under the Fourteenth Amendment and needs no naturalization after birth. The Court further explained that if one is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth, then in order for one to be a citizen of the United States one must be naturalized, under either a naturalization Act of Congress or a treaty. Surely, if one is naturalized to be a “citizen” of the United States at birth or after birth only under a statute or treaty, one is not nor can one be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, let alone an Article II “natural born citizen” at common law. The inescapable conclusion from these teachings is that a child born in a foreign nation to alien parents, even though later adopted by U.S. citizen parents during the child’s years of minority, is not born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore cannot be a citizen of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment (like Obama, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley, who are generally not considered to be naturalized because they do not need a naturalization statute to make them citizens of the United States, but who are nevertheless naturalized according to the original meaning of the term under the original Constitution). Nor can that child be a naturalized “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under a naturalization Act of Congress (like Cruz). Rather, the best that such a child can do is become a naturalized “citizen” of the United States after birth under a different naturalization provision of an Act of Congress (like Arnold Schwarzenegger).

The silly riddler said:

Looking at your actual results, Mr. Apuzzo, don't I get any credit for turning out be right all the time?

~~~~~

Here we can see how much more Mr. Olson is a dullard at logic. Now he tells us that if a judge makes a statement, it is necessarily correct, and since he adopts the judge’s statement, he too is correct. Mr. Olson does not understand that with that thinking he is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. No, Mr. Olson does not want to admit that my position is very good, for it stands on relevant legal and historical sources and on valid and sound reasoning. If it were not that good, Mr. Olson would have been able to refute it after 8 years trying to do so. Rather, the furthest Mr. Olson has ever gotten is to merely parrot some state judge’s conclusion, never providing the sources and reasoning that support that conclusion, a sure sign that the conclusion is not only not binding on the nation, but plainly wrong.

The silly riddler said:

And in the other major party the highest person in the order of succession condemns a candidate's racism while endorsing him.

~~~~~

Here we see more of this silly riddler's poor logic. His fallacious moral equivalency is a big failure. First, he concedes that we have come to a President endorsing for President a person who is being criminally investigated by that President's chief law enforcement authority. Second, he has no evidence that Donald Trump is a racist. I have told him numerous times that he is a despicable demagogue. That he seeks to exploit race (in this article he also seeks to exploit pity for a little girl) for purposes of political gain does not prove the assertion and also shows how much of a loser he is.

Barack Obama was born to an alien father (British and then Kenyan). Ted Cruz was born in a foreign nation (Canada) to an alien father (Cuban). Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley were all born to alien parents (Rubio's were Cuban and the others Indians). That little girl was born in a foreign nation (China) to alien parents (not identified). Hence, they are all not natural born citizens, for not being born in the United States to parents who were its citizens. They are all “citizens” of the United States “at birth,” either under the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress (the latter applies to Cruz and the little girl), but are not nor can they be natural born citizens at common law. Remember, all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. In the case of the adopted foreign girl, she cannot even claim to be a born citizen.

So, let’s see if Mr. Olson has any more riddles for us to solve.

<<>>

This is Olson's response to attorney Apuzzo:

Suppose an attorney loses all his cases and all his appeals, but tells you it's because his courts keep getting everything wrong. He tells you that you are flunking logic to heed the actual verdicts.

When you need legal advice, is that your guy?

The reason I ask...

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Note how Mr. Olson dishonestly leaves out the part of Minor that explained that those natural born citizens, as it defined them, were 'distinguished from aliens or foreigners.'"

Then we look up and see that I was responding to Mr. Apuzzo writing, "a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens, which is what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said in Minor v. Happersett (1875)". That was all he wrote about Minor in the comment I was following. He left off the part he now claims dishonest to omit.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"According to the U.S. Supreme Court, at common law, all those who were not born in the country to parents who were its citizens were 'aliens or foreigners,'"

No, Mr. Apuzzo is not telling the truth. Mr. Apuzzo, I will retract if you can quote the Minor court saying that at common law *all* those who were not born in the country to parents who were its citizens were aliens or foreigners. Let's see how you do.

Incidentally, one has only to read the very next paragraph of Minor v. Happersett to read the Court say that the Congress in 1790 was under its power of naturalization to consider children born abroad of citizens to be natural-born citizens.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"He thinks that all natural born citizens are born citizens, and therefore all born citizens are natural born citizens, as smart as saying that all poodles are dogs, therefore all dogs are poodles."

Bet he cannot quote me ever making that argument. He frequently makes up stupid stuff and claims it to be someone else's.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Firsts, Mr. Olson falsely claims that the John McCain example helps him."

It focused significant expert attention on the question of foreign-born citizens from birth, and yes, that helped me see the consensus of the legal community. For why John S. McCain is a natural-born citizen, I recommend reading the analysis of scholars, and the federal court citation I provided Mr. Telles. Avoid attorneys who push crank theories and lose in court every single time.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Second, there have been some persons with law degrees arguing that certain persons running for the Office of President and born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents neither in the U.S. military nor in its diplomatic service are natural born citizens. These persons are very small in number compared to the great number of persons with law degrees."

But large in number compared to the number of person's with law degrees arguing otherwise. Moreover, the ratio of judges deciding such a candidate can run for president to those deciding he cannot is a division by zero error.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Mr. Olson believes that he has not squeezed enough blood out of the meaning of a natural born citizen."

When Mr. Apuzzo decides what I believe it looks bloody meaningless.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Here we can see how much more Mr. Olson is a dullard at logic. Now he tells us that if a judge makes a statement, it is necessarily correct, and since he adopts the judge’s statement, he too is correct."

No, I tell that court results matter; tantrums of losing attorneys, not so much. We might ask Mr. Apuzzo:
If the decisions of those courts do not matter, why did you, and your clients with the benefit of your legal advice, choose to take your cases there to be decided? Esquire Apuzzo has litigated presidential eligibility many times. He not only lost all his cases and appeals, he brought them all. No one dragged him or his clients to court. He dragged other people, over and over. The fights he lost, he picked.

<<>>

This is my comment to Olson:

You're too silly...

Bryan Olson,

I was reading as your comment to attorney Mario Apuzzo was posted that starts with "Suppose an attorney...."

Bryan, all your snippets are just too silly to respond to.

Is somebody paying you to write such drivel or are you wasting your time because you have nothing else to do and you have nowhere else to go?

Art

This is Olson's response to me:

Art Telles wrote:
"Bryan, all your snippets are just too silly to respond to."

Too late. That's a response.

Art Telles asked:
"Is somebody paying you to write such drivel or are you wasting your time because you have nothing else to do and you have nowhere else to go?"

I've explained many times. I'm a kookologist. It's a hobby.

<<>>

This is attorney Apuzzo's response to Olson:

As we can see, the silly riddler is reading comprehension challenged. The silly riddler thinks he can make up for what he does not know by giving us more of his silly riddles. Mr. Olson, despite all his silly riddles, has been a loser and will stay a loser.

<<>>

This is Bryan Olson's response to attorney Apuzzo:

I'll show you a loser. There are from Mr. Apuzzo's legal actions just in his home state of New Jersey.

"For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
-- United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009).

"Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants' claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous.
...
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court's order of dismissal.
...
We also note with concern 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."
-- United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F. 3D 204 (2010).

"Kerchner, Charles, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., ET AL.
The Petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, Orders of 29 Nov 2010.

“The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.”
-- ALJ Jeff S. Masin for the NJ Office of Administrative Law, 10 April 2012, ballot challenge of Purpura and Moran v. Obama.

"After full consideration of the the record and a review of the exceptions filed, I hereby adopt the ALJ's Initial Decison in its entirety."
-- NJ Secretary of State Kimberly M. Guadagno, 12 April 2012.

"Because right now we have a precedent saying that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen."
-- Mario Apuzzo Esquire, before the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Trenton NJ, 30 May 2012.

“We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.”
-- Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Purpura v. Obama, May 31, 2012

"I CONCLUDE that Senator Cruz meets the Article II, Section I qualifications and is eligible to be nominated for President. His name may therefore appear on the New Jersey Republican primary ballot. "
-- ALJ Jeff S. Masin, NJ Office of Administrative Law, ballot challenge of Williams et al v. Obama, 12 April 2016.

"Although untimely, I have considered and rejected the exceptions; they merely restate legal authority and arguments presented and addressed by ALJ Masin in his initial decision.

After full consideration of the record and the exceptions from the parties, I hereby adopt the ALJ's Initial Decision in its entirety."
-- NJ Secretary of State Kimberly M. Guadagno, 13 April 2016.

"So we did that, and he [New Jersey Appellate Division Judge John C. Kennedy] still denied it again.
It was the same thing when he said that there’s no 'irreparable injury' shown and we haven’t shown a 'likelihood of success.'"
-- Mario Apuzzo Esquire, as reported by The Post & Email, article dated 29 April 2016.

<<>>

This is attorney Apuzzo's response to Olson:

To demonstrate that he is not a loser, Mr. Olson has given us his best copy and paste job. Here it is. I have separated each one of Olson’s comments to show that he likes to take one case and give the impression that it is three. So here, we actually have three cases, Kerchner, Purpura/Moran, and Williams/Powers:

1. a.++++++++++

"For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

-- United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009).

~~~~~

The Court decided that the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing because even if the plaintiffs were injured by having to live under a President who is not an Article II natural born citizen, so is every other American. The court also addressed "prudential standing," finding that Congress was the correct branch of government and not the judiciary to decide the definition of a natural born citizen. In any event, there is nothing in the decision on the merits of the meaning of a natural born citizen.

1.b. ++++++++++

"Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants' claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous.

...

For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court's order of dismissal.

...
We also note with concern 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."

-- United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F. 3d 204 (2010).

~~~~~

The Court decided that the plaintiff’s did not have standing. There is nothing in the decision on the merits of a natural born citizen.

As far as citing Berg v. Obama, the Third Circuit chopped off a material element of N.J. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(3). Here is the full quote of the rule which shows how the Court quoted it erroneously:

(“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....”). Notice how the fake, phony, fraud Mr. Olson has omitted the ellipsis from what the Court quoted. He does this to hide that fact that the Court did not properly quote the rule.

Here is how the rule really reads:

RPC 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

***

(3) 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 and not disclosed by opposing counsel.

~~~~~

As we can see, the Third Circuit when quoting the rule removed the last part of the rule which reads “and not disclosed by opposing counsel” and replaced it with ellipsis. Ellipsis is the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues. So, through its ellipsis, the Court represented that the words, “and not disclosed by opposing counsel,” were superfluous matter or even something to be understood from the remaining context of its statement. But any reasonable reading of the rule reveals that what the Court omitted from the rule is a material element of the rule and that there is nothing in the part of the rule that the Court quoted which would alert the reader that as long as opposing counsel cited the legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction, there was no violation of the rule. For sure, if opposing counsel cites a legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction, the court is put on notice of that authority and therefore not the least mislead. I cannot imagine why the Court would remove a material part of the rule. Doing so is like a prosecutor removing a material part of a criminal statute and moving forward with a criminal prosecution.

In my 95-page brief, I explained to the Court that it had unjustly and inappropriately removed this critical material part of the rule when quoting the rule. I explained that the omitted part is a material element of the rule which the Court should not have removed. I further explained that I had stated in my opening brief that there were various cases that had found that plaintiffs did not have standing in the Article II eligibility context, but that those cases were distinguishable from the Kerchner case, that opposing counsel in the Kerchner appeal had specifically cited and discussed the Berg case in their opposition brief, and that I had cited and fully discussed the case in my reply brief. All of that was done before the Court was asked to rule on the matter. Olson even made this comment at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog: “Mario, do you think the defense — the guys who beat you in the District Court — will cite the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ precedential opinion on Berg v. Obama in their brief? I do.” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/kerchners-dont-ask-dont-tell-ad/

Hence, since the Third Circuit Court of Appeals itself wrote the Berg decision, I mentioned in my moving brief that cases had been decided that found that natural born citizen challengers did not have standing and added that those cases were distinguishable from the Kerchner case, opposing counsel specifically cited and discussed the Berg case in their opposition brief, and I also cited and discussed it in my reply brief, the Court before ruling in the Kerchner case was fully aware of the Berg decision which incidentally was also written by Circuit Judge Sloviter, who also wrote the Kerchner decision. So, the Court received input by both parties on and had full knowledge of the Berg case before it was asked to decide the Kerchner case. In short, under the complete text of the ethical rule and not that incorrectly provided by the Court and Mr. Olson, there was not the slightest violation of Rule 3.3 and no basis whatsoever to hint at any ethical violation.

Finally, Mr. Olson does not disclose that after receiving my response to its Order to Show Cause, the Third Circuit Court discharged its order to show cause and made no finding of any sanctions.

Mr. Olson attempts to smear by work on the meaning of a natural born citizen by fraudulently suggesting that I did something unethical in the Kerchner appeal, an appeal that never reached the merits of the definition of the clause. Olson is well aware of all this, having read my 95-page brief to the 3rd Circuit and having even commented on how opposing counsel would cite the Berg case at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog. But yet he still implies that I committed some ethical violation when filing the appeal on standing to the Third Circuit. Olson is a desperate human being, first saying that I committed perjury on the Court and now saying that I committed an ethical violation. Olson is a despicable human being, stuck in his warped, deluded, and corrupt political world.

1.c. ++++++++++

"Kerchner, Charles, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., ET AL.

The Petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

-- U.S. Supreme Court, Orders of 29 Nov 2010.

~~~~~

I filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of standing. As it does in the great majority of petitions brought to it, it denied without comment the Petition. The Court did not comment at all on the definition of a natural born citizen.

2. a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.”

-- ALJ Jeff S. Masin for the NJ Office of Administrative Law, 10 April 2012, ballot challenge of Purpura and Moran v. Obama.

~~~~~

New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin is the state administrative law judge who found that there was no evidence in New Jersey proving who Obama was, where he was born, and to whom he was born and who agreed with Obama’s lawyer that such evidence was not relevant because even “Mickey Mouse” could run for President.

2.b. +++++++++++++++++++++

"After full consideration of the the record and a review of the exceptions filed, I hereby adopt the ALJ's Initial Decison in its entirety."

-- NJ Secretary of State Kimberly M. Guadagno, 12 April 2012.

~~~~~

Sure, Guadango agreed with ALJ Masin that even Mickey Mouse could run for President.

2.c. +++++++++++++++

"Because right now we have a precedent saying that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen."

-- Mario Apuzzo Esquire, before the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Trenton NJ, 30 May 2012.

“We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.”

-- Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Purpura v. Obama, May 31, 2012

~~~~~

The Appellate Division added nothing of its own to the Purpura case. It said that it was affirming Masin and Guadagno “substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.” Hence, read ALJ Masin’s decision and nothing more, a decision in which he concedes on the record that there was no evidence of the fact in the record, but then concludes that Obama was a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States.

3. a. ++++++++++++++++++++++=

"I CONCLUDE that Senator Cruz meets the Article II, Section I qualifications and is eligible to be nominated for President. His name may therefore appear on the New Jersey Republican primary ballot. "

-- ALJ Jeff S. Masin, NJ Office of Administrative Law, ballot challenge of Williams et al v. Obama, 12 April 2016.

~~~~~

ALJ Masin was recalled from retirement especially to address the natural born citizen issue in 2016. Changing his mind, now he ruled that a presidential candidate did have a burden to prove that he was constitutionally qualified to be on the primary election ballot. He also abandoned the English common law that he pulled out of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as the rule to establish who was a natural born citizen and said that it was really a different law that decided that question. Now he said it was a mixture of the English common law and the English Parliament naturalization Acts, fixed as of some arbitrary moment in time which he picked, that defined a natural born citizen. By adopting this new approach, what he did was take a naturalized subject under English naturalization Acts and convert him into an Article II natural born citizen.

3.b. ++++++++++

"Although untimely, I have considered and rejected the exceptions; they merely restate legal authority and arguments presented and addressed by ALJ Masin in his initial decision.

After full consideration of the record and the exceptions from the parties, I hereby adopt the ALJ's Initial Decision in its entirety."

-- NJ Secretary of State Kimberly M. Guadagno, 13 April 2016.

~~~~~

Guadagno added nothing to the analysis. Read ALJ Masin’s decision and you have it all.

3.c. ++++++++++++++++++++

"So we did that, and he [New Jersey Appellate Division Judge John C. Kennedy] still denied it again.

It was the same thing when he said that there’s no 'irreparable injury' shown and we haven’t shown a 'likelihood of success.'"

-- Mario Apuzzo Esquire, as reported by The Post & Email, article dated 29 April 2016.

~~~~~

Justice Kennedy denied the application for emergent relief, finding that appellants had not asked New Jersey to stay the election and that there was enough time before the New Jersey primary for the Appellate Division to rule on the appeal in the normal course. I then asked Secretary Gaudagno for a stay, and she said that it did not exist and denied by request. I then provided the State’s denial of the stay to the Appellate Division. Justice Kennedy still then denied treating the appeal on an emergent basis, again finding that the Court would have enough time to deal with it in the normal course, a finding which is clearly incorrect given that the Appellate Division has yet to issue a Scheduling Order and decide the appeal even though it is marked “Accelerated” and given that the primary has already passed. As far as Justice Kennedy’s statement regarding the “likelihood of success,” he made the statement with only ALJ Masin’s new-found English law decision before him, i.e., without any briefs or arguments of the parties.

++++++++++

As we can see, this is a record of justice in New Jersey which does not bode well for the Garden State. And as far as Mr. Olson is concerned, by presenting this record in defense of himself, it shows that Mr. Olson is still a loser.

<<>>

This is Olson's response to attorney Apuzzo:

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:

"I have separated each one of Olson’s comments to show that he likes to take one case and give the impression that it is three."

Three citations are from three different authorities to whom Mr. Apuzzo, and his clients with the benefit of his legal advice, chose to take his arguments. Mr. Apuzzo likes to pretend that he only lost in "some lower courts". In fact he appealed several times and lost all those too.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"The Court decided that the plaintiff’s did not have standing. There is nothing in the decision on the merits of a natural born citizen."

I listed the case as a loss. When an attorney sues and gets dismissed because his clients do not have standing to sue, that is a loss.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"So, through its ellipsis, the Court represented that the words, 'and not disclosed by opposing counsel,' were superfluous matter or even something to be understood from the remaining context of its statement."

Mr. Apuzzo's argument is deceitful. The Court of Appeals noted with concern his failure to cite Berg v. Obama in his opening brief. At the time of Mr. Apuzzo's opening brief, opposing counsel had not disclosed Berg. Their later citation of it does not reach backward in time and improve Mr. Apuzzo's behavior in filing his opening brief.

Incidentally, I told Mr. Apuzzo that the Circuit Court's "PRECEDENTIAL" designation of Berg v. Obama trashed the Kerchner v. Obama appeal, and I told him at the time. Had he been wise enough to listen, he could have avoided having a frivolous appeal and professional conduct concern on his record.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"I filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of standing."

Mr. Apuzzo presented four questions in his petition for cert in Kerchner, only one of which was on standing. The second was: "2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II 'natural born Citizen' if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen."

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin is the state administrative law judge who found that there was no evidence ..."

Ever hear another legal profesional try to counter a court citation with what the losing attorney said?

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Sure, Guadango agreed with ALJ Masin that even Mickey Mouse could run for President."

Mr. Apuzzo sought a decision on the merits. He got one. He does not like it so he smears the authorities.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"The Appellate Division added nothing of its own to the Purpura case."

The Appellate Division found Mr. Apuzzo's arguments to be "without merit", and the ALJ's written opinion to be "thorough and thoughtful". Mr. Apuzzo does not have to learn anything from that, but he could.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"ALJ was recalled from retirement especially to address the natural born citizen issue in 2016."

By recalling Masin the New Jersey legal system rather whacked Mr. Apuzzo with the clue-stick.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Guadagno added nothing to the analysis."

Mr. Apuzzo had been complaining about arguments that he said ALJ Masin had not addressed. Secretary Guadagno read Mr. Apuzzo's exception and rejected it because it, "merely restate(s) legal authority and arguments presented and addressed by ALJ Masin in his initial decision."

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"As we can see, this is a record of justice in New Jersey which does not bode well for the Garden State."

My what bad luck then, that New Jersey is where Mr. Apuzzo practices law. In fact Mr. Apuzzo also took his eligibility arguments out of state. He lost everywhere else too. Every case; every appeal. 100% fail.

<<>>

This is my comment to attorney Apuzzo:

Mario,

Since Bryan Olson has chosen to not respond to my question about whether or not he is being paid to write his drivel or if he simply has no place else to go and nothing else to do, it is reasonable to conclude that he is NOT being paid, he simply has noting else to do but waste his time reading your comments and writing his silly riddler shallow thinker nonsense.

Art

This is attorney Apuzzo's response to me:

Art,

This despicable riddler's job is to protect Barack Obama. In that connection, he even supports the notion that a naturalized "citizen" of the United States such as Ted Cruz, so made only by a naturalization Act of Congress, is a common law Article II "natural born citizen." Now, as we can see from his presence at this article on adoption, he supports the notion that a child born in a foreign nation to alien parents and who is adopted by a U.S. citizen couple during the child's years of minority and who becomes a "citizen" of the United States only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress is also a common law Article II natural born citizen. His job is not to demonstrate how he is correct and to refute our position on the meaning of a natural born citizen. Rather, his job is to simply repeat over and over again, troll if you will, some current-day law and administrative judges' conclusions rendered in cases in which plaintiffs or petitioners argued that Barack Obama and Ted Cruz are not natural born citizens, conclusions which lack historical and legal sources and reasoning to support them, and to smear my work on the meaning of a natural born citizen. That, indeed, serves to protect the legacy that Barack Obama is seeking to create.

<<>>

http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/06/allow-foreign-born-adopted-children-to.html

Art