This week at the Supremes:  At Tuesday’s conference, the Supremes will consider the cert petition in Smith v. United States, No. 10-18.  The Court isn’t expected to announce the results of Tuesday’s conference until Monday, 29 November, so we’ll likely have to wait until then to learn whether Smith will become the first servicemember’s cert petition in 14 years to be granted.  Smith is one of 19 cert petitions distributed for Tuesday’s conference that are on SCOTUSblog’s “Upcoming Petitions We’re Watching” list.  Far more clear than Smith‘s fate is that of  my cert petition in Nerad v. United States, No. 10-532, which will be in the cert denied portion of next Monday’s order list.  The SG waived the United States’ right to respond and the Court hasn’t called for a response.  For those of you following birther issues beyond the Lakin court-martial, Mario Apuzzo’s guano crazy cert petition in Kerchner v. Obama, No. 10-436, stands in the same procedural posture and will meet the same fate.

This week at CAAF:  CAAF isn’t hearing oral arguments this week; arguments  resume on 1 December.

This week at the CCAs: None of the CCA websites lists an oral argument for this week.

157 Responses to “This week in military justice — 21 November 2010 edition”

  1. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    “guano”-a substance composed chiefly of the excrement of seabirds and used as a fertilizer.

    Exactly what hides behind the veneer of officialdom on this site?

    Very nice!

  2. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, Oxford’s online dictionary defines guano as “the excrement of seabirds and bats, used as fertilizer.” I’ve always intended the bat excrement portion of the definition when using the word on this blog.

  3. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Are you telling me that it is bat and not seabird excrement that hides behind the veneer on this site? I fail to see how you may find any honor in either.

  4. Dwight Sullivan says:

    No, Mr. Apuzzo, I was explaining that the use of “guano crazy” was intended to convey “bat excrement crazy.”

  5. Dr. Conspiracy says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    November 21, 2010 at 11:38 pm (Quote)

    “guano”-a substance composed chiefly of the excrement of seabirds and used as a fertilizer.

    Exactly what hides behind the veneer of officialdom on this site?

    Very nice!

    You should realize that your pettifoggery offends real lawyers much more than us laymen, and your complaint about decorum is an ineffective diversion for that audience.

  6. DCH says:

    The SCOTUS will stick the Kerchner cert on the list of cases “denied without comment” that will come out a few days after the conference. That is a given. The SCOTUS only took the case because the attorney was going to shop it to all 9 justices one by one, so the the 2nd justice took it so they can deny it and put an end to it.
    There is no possible reason for rhe SCOTUS to even look at it, the SCOTUS clerks wil just have it on the list of cases to be disposed of. The case failed long ago and the appeals court upheld the lower court.

  7. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I see that you are peddling your self-righteousness over here too.

    P.S. Congratulations. You were able to solve the the spam filter problem.

  8. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    I do not know why you think that you are some authority on this subject matter. You do not even know the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.

  9. The Magic M says:

    Mario, any child can predict that a pig won’t fly when you drop it off a cliff.

    Besides, your confirmation bias prevents you from acting as “some authority on this subject matter” anyways. Because I predict that if SCOTUS drops this like a piece of junk, you will likely claim that it “in on the conspiracy” or “afraid to touch the issue” or that for some other conspiracist theory they “never got to see the case” (remember Orly is claiming that for her writ which was rejected by two judges already).

  10. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    To The Magic M:

    You said:

    “Mario, any child can predict that a pig won’t fly when you drop it off a cliff.”

    So what.

    “Besides, your confirmation bias prevents you from acting as “some authority on this subject matter” anyways.”

    What is “confirmation bias?” Are you speaking some unknown technical language? On being an authoriy on the matter, I am only the lawyer representing the petitioners which I believe qualifies me to speak on the matter which is not to say that I am necessarily correct.

    “Because I predict that if SCOTUS drops this like a piece of junk, you will likely claim that it “in on the conspiracy” or “afraid to touch the issue” or that for some other conspiracist theory they “never got to see the case” (remember Orly is claiming that for her writ which was rejected by two judges already).”

    I do not know what makes you believe that you know me so well to predict how I would respond if the Supreme Court were to deny our petition.

    I am optimistic that the Court will grant certification. The question of presidential eligibility and the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is too important for the Supreme Court to turn down the case.

  11. bob says:

    “The question of presidential eligibility and the meaning of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is too important for the Supreme Court to turn down the case.”

    Your appeal, labeled “frivolous” in a published opinion, concerned solely the issue of standing.

  12. Nbc says:

    I am optimistic that the Court will grant certification. The question of presidential eligibility and the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is too important for the Supreme Court to turn down the case.

    There is no controversy or case. The Supreme Court is not in the business of giving advisory rulings. Although in this case, some advice could have been helpful, the Court, like the various Courts before it will reject your ‘arguments’.

    Is it not time to get used to these simple facts?

  13. Nbc says:

    Oops… But yes, some believe that many of Mario’s musings verge on the ‘frivolous’…

  14. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    I guess you and your support staff do not understand the function of the U.S. Supreme Court. Its main function is not to correct error made by the lower courts (such as labeling my appeal on the amorphous concept of standing as frivolous). Rather, the Supreme Court’s main function is to take up legal issues in controversy that are of paramount importance to the nation.

  15. Anonymous says:

    I do not know why you think that you are some authority on this subject matter.You do not even know the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    I was going to cut DCH some slack on his interpretation of the court rules but since you decided to get picky about it we can clarify that the Kerchner v Obama case is a normal appeal from the Third Appellate District and thus went to the conference of all the judges (after the government waived their right to reply) vs. a motion for stay such as the one Orly filed this year in the Rhodes case – different procedures, different rules, same outcome.

    A quick reading of Supreme Court Rule 10(a) is all we really need to do to know the outcome.

  16. realist says:

    “Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
    November 22, 2010 at 12:56 pm (Quote)

    I guess you and your support staff do not understand the function of the U.S. Supreme Court. Its main function is not to correct error made by the lower courts (such as labeling my appeal on the amorphous concept of standing as frivolous). Rather, the Supreme Court’s main function is to take up legal issues in controversy that are of paramount importance to the nation.”

    Since there are no “legal issues in controversy that are of paramount importance to the nation” in Kerchner v Obama the outcome is highly predictable.

  17. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Wow, that was so brilliant!

  18. realist says:

    Wow, that was so brilliant!

    Thanks. Don’t forget truthful as well.

  19. bob says:

    And will be (yet another) accurate prediction, unlike Apuzzo’s track record in this matter.

  20. Nbc says:

    I guess you and your support staff do not understand the function of the U.S. Supreme Court.Its main function is not to correct error made by the lower courts (such as labeling my appeal on the amorphous concept of standing as frivolous).Rather, the Supreme Court’s main function is to take up legal issues in controversy that are of paramount importance to the nation.

    Weird as you are trying to get cert granted for the Court to hear your appeal in Kerchner v Obama so unless I am wrong the issue is not one of ‘paramount importance to the nation’ but merely if the lower Courts’ decisions to reject the case based on lack of standing was correct.

    Maybe Mario can explain his logic? If any?

  21. Nbc says:

    A quick reading of Supreme Court Rule 10(a) is all we really need to do to know the outcome.

    But this is of paramount importance to the nation, or so Mario believes… Weird that he decided to take the long route….

  22. Nbc says:

    I do not know what makes you believe that you know me so well to predict how I would respond if the Supreme Court were to deny our petition.

    Common sense and an understanding of history serve as useful tools here. It’s something that one needs to acquire though.

  23. Nbc says:

    Brilliant and factual. Reality check… Oh no, Realist…

  24. Trevor says:

    For those who have not been following the fascinating non Lakin portion of the Birfoon hunt for the Snark of “Discovery” (“the impossible voyage of an improbable crew to find an inconceivable creature”.)

    Mario P has a long’ish relationship over at Dr C’s web site where he periodically runs over in high dudgeon at some perceived slight and is roundly roasted by one and all.

    The uncensored postings he avails himself of at Dr C’s site is alas not reciprocated at his site where censorship and “goodthink” is the norm.

  25. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Trevor,

    Thanks for your valuable contribution. I cannot imagine what we would have done without you.

  26. Trevor says:

    Alas for you Mario dear, for the vast majority of folks, the response to a comment about you is “Martin who..?”

    I simply brought some illumination to those who have just come across you for the first time.

    So Mario, going to stop the censoring of contrary thought on your web site..?

  27. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Trevor,

    So you just go around someplace asking and/or monitoring all these unknown “folks” regarding me. Yeh, right. You are really doing great. Keep up the excellent work.

  28. Trevor says:

    Projecting much aren’t we Mario…

    I ask again, are you going to stop the censoring of contrary thought on your web site..?

  29. brygenon says:

    Magic M wrote:

    Because I predict that if SCOTUS drops this like a piece of junk, you will likely claim that it “in on the conspiracy” or “afraid to touch the issue” or that for some other conspiracist theory they “never got to see the case”.

    Mario blogged about his defeats in the District Court and then the Circuit Court in remarkably straightforward and factual terms. The big conspiracy theorist is his lead plaintiff, Charles Kerchner, who said long ago that if the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case then to him that means “the fix is in”.

  30. Rickey says:

    Projecting much aren’t we Mario…I ask again, are you going to stop the censoring of contrary thought on your web site..?

    Mario will answer that question in the affirmative around the same time that he admits that he falsely claimed that there was a ban on U.S. citizens traveling to Pakistan in 1981.

    In other words, he will never do it.

    When Mario posted on Doc Conspiracy’s site, he was repeatedly presented with evidence that Americans were free to travel to Pakistan in 1981. Instead of acknowledging his error, he lamely claimed that there was a “de facto” ban on travel to Pakistan.

    He grew tired of people challenging him, so he retreated to his own site, where he is free to censor those who disagree with him.

  31. Nbc says:

    Needless to say, Mario’s failures have been well documented which may explain why he moderates his blog…

  32. Nbc says:

    It’s hard to admit that one’s wrong when it is such a common occurrence. Mario will soon realize that all has been for nothing. Kerchner may not be pleased…

  33. Plutodog says:

    Yes, he appears to have skulked away again…What he cannot censor, he cannot for long respond to without going scatological.

  34. Nbc says:

    Once again, faced with informed opposition Mario has chosen to ‘disappear’

  35. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    The gravest act of intellectual dishonesty committed by the Obots is that they, like so many others of their ilk, selectively read and report on history. They ridicule and scoff at those who say that Emer de Vattel is “in” our Constitution. Too bad for the arrogance- and snobbishness-loving Obots that our United States Supreme Court and the historical record clearly show that Vattel, along with his and others’ writings on natural law and the law of nations, are not only “in” the Constitution but they were a great catalyst for the Founders’ and Framers’ idea of revolution and republicanism. It is really telling of human nature and party spirit that the Obots would go to the extreme of re-writing our history to save one person’s place in political office.

  36. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, a website that lists you as the owner is filled with historical fictions. Alexander Hamilton wrote the first draft of the Constitution? Uhm, no. I could list a great number of other historical errors on your site, but I don’t have the time at the moment.

  37. BigGuy says:

    Sorry, Mario, obfuscating about whether “Vattel is ‘in’ our Constitution” won’t do the trick. What you need to show is that the concept of Natural Born Citizenship as required for the U.S. Presidency is based on de Vattel’s model.

    For the moment, you can blame the snobbishness-loving Indiana Court of Appeals for what they wrote in Ankeny:

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    What are you thinking — are they also “Obots … re-writing our history”?

  38. realist says:

    Mario, anyone who was issued an Order to Show Cause for failure to cite Berg v Obama in a brief to the Third Circuit should not lecture anyone on intellectual honesty.

  39. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Mr. Sullivan,

    Let’s stay focused on the issue which is what impact Emer de Vattel and other political philosophers who wrote on natural law and the law of nations had on the Founding and creation of America. What somebody wrote on my blog about some tangential issue should not control the conversation.

  40. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    BigGuy,

    I have to say that the Indiana court did attempt to re-write history. From reading their opinion, it is evident that they did not even know or professed not to know who Emer de Vattel was.

  41. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    realist,

    You’re a liar.

  42. BigGuy says:

    You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But where was the outcry after Ankeny? Where were the law journal articles and speeches denouncing the panel for their error?

    Like it or not, Mario, it is clear that the mainstream of constitutional scholarship is firmly against your position, and has been since long before there was a President Obama. We all remember being taught in our Civics classes that one of the glories of our system of government is that anyone who was born here can become President. (Yes, there are rare diplomatic and combatant exceptions.)

    By the way, can you tell us why no one mentioned the problem of Obama’s non-citizen father prior to the election?

  43. bob says:

    What somebody wrote on my blog about some tangential issue should not control the conversation.

    Apuzzo wrote on his blog, “Putative President Obama’s supporters are out and about arguing that the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case and therefore the Third Circuit Court of Appeals should affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the case for lack of standing. This is not only an incredible statement but an outright lie.”

    Given Apuzzo’s inability to predict how his own case would turn out, he really shouldn’t think he knows more than three state appellate judges.

  44. Trevor says:

    Tut tut Mario

    Whilst indeed there are one or two individuals here who have posted who you sneeringly label “Obots”, the majority of readers and posters are legal professionals with a distinct background in matters military. Not strengths of yours.

    So, you posting what can at best be charitably called factually challenged and erroneous information will not garner you support.

    As any individual who has read your posts, blog, filings etc will charitably state….guano crazy but at least you’re not Orly

  45. realist says:

    Really? How so?

    If I’m lying, why did you waste 90+ pages groveling to the 3rd Circuit about it?

    You and your ilk have lied to the American Public regarding natural-born citizenship from day one. Your ridiculous de Vattel theory on citizenship would be laughed out of court.

    Temple must be so proud.

  46. realist says:

    DUH!! Imagine that. They do not seem to be the only court that doesn’t know de Vattel’s huge part in the influence of the founding fathers.

    I suppose all judges must just be ignorant of the constitution and intent of the founding fathers and framers, but you and perhaps a dozen others have it all figured out.

  47. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    BigGuy,

    Whether there was or was not any outcry from legal scholars or official commentators at any given moment in time does not control whether Ankeny was correctly decided.

    Based on your argument which is nothing more than an appeal to public and institutional reaction and acceptance in a moment in time, we could never correct error. If we were to accept your argument as a measure of what is right or wrong with our laws or legal decisions, our laws would be frozen in time based on public and institutional reaction and acceptance at a given moment in time. In such case, we could never correct error. On the contrary, we know that your argument is incorrect, for if the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right. Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619. The same rule applies when the Constitution is misinterpreted over a protracted period of time. A prime example is we used to accept as a valid constitutional principle “separate but equal” but then over time we came to accept that “separate” was not “equal.”

  48. realist says:

    We also note with concern that Appellants failed to cite
    5
    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 issue.

  49. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    bob,

    Your comment adds nothing of value to this discussion and is nothing more than Obot speak. First, I still stand with what I said. Second, there is always a winner or loser in any contest. Sometimes we lose and sometimes we win. We do not lose our right to comment simply because we lost in any given moment.

    P.S. “Obot speak” is my original.

  50. BigGuy says:

    LOL, Mario, your reading comprehension is really poor. Nowhere have I made a claim as to “what is right or wrong”; I have simply pointed out that since “the mainstream of constitutional scholarship is firmly against your position,” your chances of success are pretty darn close to zero. Do you disagree with that assessment?

    And you didn’t answer my question:

    “By the way, can you tell us why no one mentioned the problem of Obama’s non-citizen father prior to the election?”

  51. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, it was you who made the broad assertion that “[t]he gravest act of intellectual dishonesty committed by the Obots is that they, like so many others of their ilk, selectively read and report on history.” When I pointed out that your website contains a great many historical inaccuracies and pointed to one, you made no effort to defend the truth of the statement. Assuming that you know as well as I do that Alexander Hamilton didn’t write the first draft of the Constitution, and assuming that you know as well as I do that your website asserts that he did, then you are sponsoring an intellectually dishonest account of constitutional history.

    And the “somebody” who wrote that on your blog is your client in the Kerchner case, as I assume you know. Do you agree that his account of the Constitutional Convention is wrong? If so, why do you permit it to remain on your website?

  52. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, now that we know your cert petition has been denied, I do have a serious tactical question. My did you oppose the Western Center for Journalism’s filing of an amicus brief in support of granting cert?

  53. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Trevor,

    I guess you like others here love going scatological.

  54. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    realist,

    You really manifest your Obotness well.

  55. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    realist,

    You do keep failing miserably. What other judges?” Ankeny is the only court that reached the “merits.”

  56. bob says:

    Apuzzo has demonstrated — and continues to demonstrate — a rather breathtaking combination of ignorance and arrogance. Rather than simply admitting that he is wrong, he doubles down on bad bets and insists everyone else is wrong, and then casts himself as the Thurgood Marshall of Presidential Ineligibility to be vindicated by history. (And, for the record, Taitz already has claimed the Marshall role.)

    Apuzzo is the clear loser on this issue. The quicker he accepts this and moves on, the better his life will be.

  57. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    realist,

    You’re still a liar.

  58. bob says:

    Today’s order list from SCOTUS is out.

    Guess which case isn’t on it.

  59. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Bob,

    That order list doesn’t reflect the results of today’s conference; that list will come out on Monday. But we know cert was denied because the SG waived the United States’ right to respond to the cert petition and the Supremes didn’t call for a response before the conference. That means cert was denied.

  60. realist says:

    As you do your ignorance and lack of any intellectual honesty and integrity attached to your license to practice law.

    If my “obotness,” as you put it, means blindly following anything and everything President Obama proposes and passes, you are, as usual, dead wrong.

    If my “obotness” includes challenging those who wish to suspend the Constitution, overthrow a legal election, lie to the American public and the courts in pleadings regarding the constitutional requirements to be president or vice president, lie regarding the premise that a minor can lose his U.S. Citizenship by living in Indonesia, lie regarding dual citizenship being a disqualifier for being president or vice president, et cetera, then yes, I’m an Obot and proud to be so.

  61. Nbc says:

    Calling realist a liar for citing the ruling… You’re a funny dude Mario…

  62. Nbc says:

    US v Wong Kim Ark….

    Nuff said

  63. Nbc says:

    Based on your argument which is nothing more than an appeal to public and institutional reaction and acceptance in a moment in time, we could never correct error.

    Such correction would require some real arguments and evidence, and since Wong Kim Ark was decided based on the factual understandings that it was English Common Law which is to be used to interpret the term natural born, and given its solid foundation in legal history since then, I’d say that your failure to overcome precedent is not unexpected. Of course, if you could only get to argue this in court :-)

  64. Nbc says:

    Well said my friend… Well said…

  65. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Mr. Sullivan,

    Since you are so concerned with making sure we all learn correct information, why do you not tell us who wrote the first draft of the Constitution to that you can show us how the statement on my blog is incorrect. I will consider the statement made and your information and if convinced I will make sure that there is a correction on my blog.

  66. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, I’ll be happy to do so, though my ability to do so this afternoon is limited because I’m at home due to a (not serious) family medical issue.

    Here’s an article from your website that includes the false statement about the first draft of the Constitution (as well as a number of other false statements):

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-being-born-citizen-of-united-states.html

    Among the many errors in the article is the following:

    “Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause as presented in the first draft of the U.S. Constitution submitted on June 18, 1787:

    “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

    Again, I’ll be happy to document that that statement is false. But, serious question, do you know that statement to be false or are you insufficiently familiar with the Constitutional Convention to know without further documentation whether it’s true or false?

  67. Trevor says:

    Having read a fair few of your tirades and temper tantrums Mario, it’s plain you never learn but simply return to your own (verbal) vomit.

    I’m still waiting on your resposnse Mario,

    “I ask again, are you going to stop the censoring of contrary thought on your web site..?”

  68. Nbc says:

    Mario is somewhat of a one trick pony and not that good at it either. And now he likely will have to wait until Monday to hear that SCOTUS has rejected cert.

  69. Nbc says:

    I have to say that the Indiana court did attempt to re-write history. From reading their opinion, it is evident that they did not even know or professed not to know who Emer de Vattel was.

    Exactly, Law of Nations has no relevance to immigration and nationality laws now does it… Even Vattel accepts that nations get to interpret who is a natural born citizen under their own municipal laws.

    Bummer really. But that’s what happens when one ignores historical precedent.

  70. Nbc says:

    “Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause as presented in the first draft of the U.S. Constitution submitted on June 18, 1787:

    “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

    Jus soli…. And yes, Hamilton had a proposal for what the US Constitution should look like, which he indeed submitted to as a sketch to the Convention on said date. But the first draft of the US Constitution was not distributed until August 6 of that year. As far as I can tell, no eligibility statement is found in said draft. The first mention of the presidential eligibility clause was not found until Aug 22 which only included a time-of citizenship requirement. The final version that excludes naturalized citizens is not found until September 4.

    So close and yet…

  71. Capt. Obvious says:

    Another ad hominem attack.

    Wow, that was so brilliant predictable.

  72. Capt. Obvious says:

    realist,
    You’re a liar.

    Another ad hominem attack from Mario. Wow, that was so brilliant predictable!

  73. Nbc says:

    Mario: Whether there was or was not any outcry from legal scholars or official commentators at any given moment in time does not control whether Ankeny was correctly decided.

    True but Ankeny follows in the footsteps of a long tradition…

  74. Nbc says:

    MarioWe do not lose our right to comment simply because we lost in any given moment.

    Unless one posts on Mario’s own blog where comments are quickly removed when they show Mario to be wrong. Then again, there is no ‘right to comment’, it’s a privilege.

    And finally, when one continues to lose, the right to continue to remain wrong is of course one to choose or ignore.

  75. Trevor says:

    Err, Wong Kim Ark and the Calvin case, to give you two relevant ones across several centuries that ACTUAL Constitutional lawyers, scholars and Supreme Court Justices have used.

  76. realist says:

    realist,
    You do keep failing miserably.What other judges?”Ankeny is the only court that reached the “merits.”

    Surely you are not claiming that Ankeny is the only case to address U.S. citizenship.

  77. Nbc says:

    There are various other cases which have addressed the natural born status of children born on US soil to zero or more US parents.

  78. gorefan says:

    Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause as presented in the first draft of the U.S. Constitution submitted on June 18, 1787:

    Am I confused here or is there some confusion about which Hamiliton draft is being discussed?

    The draft that Hamiliton submitted on June 18, 1787, did not have this eligiblity clause, and the Governor (not President) was to be elected to a life term.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp#ham

    The draft constitution that has the Presidential eligibilty term was given to Madison by Hamilton near the end of the convention.

    “Copy of a Paper communicated to James Madison by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philadelphia, 1787, which, he said, delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention. He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.” appendix #5

    http://books.google.com/books?id=pzkOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR1&dq=debates+on+the+adoption+of+the+federal+constitution+WITH+A+DIARV+OF+THE+DEBATB8+OF&hl=en&ei=VkHsTOLUA47CsAOHhayiDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=debates%20on%20the%20adoption%20of%20the%20federal%20constitution%20WITH%20A%20DIARY%20OF%20THE%20DEBATES8%20OF&f=false

    Am I missing something?

  79. Sterngard Friegen says:

    Can Mr. Auzzo explain to me why a foreign country should have any say in whether an American citizen is qualified to be President?

    Will Mr. Apuzzo admit that under his theory of “natural born Citizen,” a child of two Jewish, United States citizens, born after 1948 in the United States, is ineligible to be elected President because Israel’s law of return makes that child a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel at birth?

    I want to see where the llimits of Mr. Apuzzo’s theories are.

  80. sus says:

    This from a guy who doesn’t let comments through on his own blog? This from a guy who goes to Dr. Conspiracy’s site because he won’t let Dr. Conspiracy’s comments through?

    He’s a funny guy.

  81. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, I notice that you’ve declined to answer my question whether you know that your website’s statement that Alexander Hamilton wrote the first draft of the Constitution was false. I’m still interested in learning the answer to that question.

    I think I now have an opportunity to document some of the falsehoods in the article cited above. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to a scanner, so I’ll provide citations the old-fashioned way.

    CDR Kerchner wrote:

    “Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause as presented in the first draft of the U.S. Constitution submitted on June 18, 1787:

    “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

    There’s a lot wrong with that statement. Alexander Hamilton made remarks to the Constitutional Convention on 18 June 1787. But they weren’t a first draft of the Constitution. And the excerpt that CDR Kerchner offered wasn’t from those remarks, but rather from a later paper that Alexander Hamilton gave to James Madison.

    Madison’s notes on the 18 June proceedings observed that “[h]aving made these observations he would read to the Committee a sketch of a plan which he shd. prefer to either of those under consideration. . . . He did not mean to offer the paper he had sketched as a proposition to the Committee. It was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose to the plan of Mr. R. in the proper stages of its future discussion. He reads his sketch in the words following: to wit . . . .” 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 at 291 (Max Farrand, ed., 1911) [hereainfter Farrand]. Madison’s notes then set out Hamilton’s plan, which looks nothing like the Constitution. Id. at 291-93. Articles IV and V discussed the executive, whom Hamilton called the “Governour.” Id. at 292. Nothing in the plan included a citizenship requirement for the Governour.

    What CDR Kerchner actually quoted from was “a paper Communicated to J.M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention.” 3 Farrand at 619. Professor Farrand actually warned against making the very mistake that CDR Kerchner made: “The document that has just been discussed [the 18 June 1787 sketch] is to be distinguished from the following, which was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.” Id. The language quoted by CDR Kerchner appears in Article IX of that document. Id. at 629.

    Once you understand that it is clear that CDR Kerchner misrepresented the source of his quoted language, then it becomes apparent that he misrepresented other facts as well. For example, he states: “John Jay . . . felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that upon reading the proposed language put forward by Hamilton that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements.” John Jay’s July 25, 1787 letter to General Washington couldn’t have been written in response to Hamilton’s remarks about citizenship requirements for the President because Hamilton had made no such remarks. So either CDR Kerchner was copying from a false account of history or he was making stuff up. Which was it, Mr. Apuzzo?

    CDR Kerchner continued: “In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the President should be a ‘strong check’ against foreign influence . . . .” No he didn’t. Jay’s letter wasn’t about “the office of the President.” On 25 July 1787, it’s unlikely that Jay even knew that a “President” was under consideration, since the Constitutional Convention’s deliberations were secret. Jay’s letter was about the requirements to be “the commander-in-chief of the American army” — a position that under the Articles of Confederation in effect at the time was a purely military position whose incumbent reported directly to Congress.

    CDR Kerchner continues: “[H]e recommended to Washington that the Presidency be open only to a ‘natural born Citizen’, not just simply a ‘born Citizen’ as Hamilton had proposed.” No, he didn’t, since Jay’s letter wasn’t about the presidency and Hamilton hadn’t made any such suggestion.

    CDR Kerchner then writes that Jay made his proposal “to strengthen what Hamilton had proposed for Article II and to require more than just being a ‘born Citizen’ of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.” Again, it appears that CDR Kerchner is simply making stuff up.

    CDR Kerchner goes on and on (and on), making repeated mistakes along the way.

    All of that information is on YOUR website, Mr. Apuzzo, which identifies CDR Kerchner as a contributor.

    Your website contains many other historical errors, including several instances of attributing to “the Supreme Court” something from a separate opinion of one Justice or a minority of Justices.

    I trust the information above will convince you that there is a great deal of misinformation on your website, leading you to make the promised correction.

  82. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Mr. Sullivan,

    Neither I nor my clients ever denied consent to the amicus curiae brief of Western Center for Journalism. My consent to the filing is filed with the Supreme Court.

  83. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    Thanks for your response — and thanks for figuring out that I meant “Why” when I typed “My.” The amicus brief states in two places that you refused to consent to its filing. Any idea why that was in there?

  84. Lawyerwitharealdegree says:

    Mario cannot be intellectually honest, because he is neither intellectual nor honest. I’ve been reading his postings at various sites around the internet for some time. He always quickly devolves into the ad hominum, which is the mark of someone who does not possess good debating skills. This is reflected in his appellate record, and explains why his paying clients are DWI defendants.

  85. gorefan says:

    you know that your website’s statement that Alexander Hamilton wrote the first draft of the Constitution was false.

    I think the problem is that Mario just copies from other sources and doesn’t do any original research to make sure the source is correct. I suspect Kerchner copied the idea of a Hamiliton draft constitution from Jill Pryor’s earlier work.

    “On June 18, a little over a month before Jay’s letter, Alexander Hamilton submitted a “sketch of a plan of government which ‘was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose … in … future discussion.’ ” Article IX, section 1 of the sketch provided: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”” Yale Law Review.

    Of course the other possiblity is that Mario is committing the “gravest act of intellectual dishonesty …selectively read and report on history.” Of course he fails even at that.

  86. Dwight Sullivan says:

    gorefan, oh my gosh. That’s appalling. I hadn’t seen that before; thanks for pointing it out.

    Worse yet, the offending paragraph from the Note drops a footnote citing Farrand. On the VERY PAGE of Farrand that the Note cites, the following appears: “The more intricate form in which the Hamilton copy provides for the election of the executive is sustained by the longer plan which Hamilton gave to Madison at the close of the Convention . . . .” 3 Farrand at 617. And, of course, two pages later Professor Farrand warns against confusing the 18 June plan with the plan that Hamilton gave to Madison. Oh my gosh!

  87. bob says:

    The amicus brief states in two places that you refused to consent to its filing. Any idea why that was in there?

    Here’s Apuzzo’s consent letter.

    It would appear from Apuzzo’s wording that, prior to the filing of the motion for leave to file an amicus brief, he was not informed by amicus of the intent to file a brief.

  88. Reality Check says:

    Judge Carter commented on the “de Vattel” theory in his dismissal order in Barnett v Obama:

    Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John
    Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).

    Professor Rotunda, who is a real Constitutional scholar, never heard of de Vattel:

    I want to ask you about something the birthers talk about, they point at Emmerich De Vattel’s The Law of Nations–

    “I’m sorry, the what?”

    “The name is D-e V-a-t-t-e-l–”

    “I’ve heard the title of the book, I can’t spell the name. Anyway, what about it?

    They argue that books like this mattered a lot to the founders when they were writing the Constitution. Does that ring true?

    I don’t remember, what is their argument?

    That to be natural-born citizens, your parents have to be citizens.

    Actually, I just did an op-ed about this for the Chicago Tribune… Chief Justice Marshall talks about this in early opinions. He basically had the view that Congress could grant citizenship but never take it away. Then Dredd Scott came down and the Supreme Court said over a bitter dissent that the freed man, they said negroes–we call them blacks now–but negroes, even freed, can in the nature of things never be a citizen of the United States. Well this surprised a lot of blacks, particularly those who fought in the revolutionary war on the side of the United States. And so after the civil war, Congress proposed the 14th Amendment, the first sentence of which says all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside. That was to make sure that these people, Congress could never take away their citizenship.

    In a series of cases, the court has said that if you’re born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction, you’re a citizen. And subject to the jurisdiction doesn’t mean subject to allegiance. It’s subject to jurisdiction–that is, you’re here, they can control you. Now the people that aren’t subject to our jurisdiction, the court said in the old cases, are foreign embassy personnel, they’ve got diplomatic immunity and so on. So that the wife of the Russian ambassador–her kid, even if it’s born in a New York hospital, or a DC hospital, isn’t a US citizen. And the other category they had was an invading army, a marauding army comes in and has babies, they’re not citizens, they’re not subject to our jurisdiction, they’re fighting us. And then also they talked about American Indians because they had treaties with them, they were called domestic dependent nations and we had treaties with them and then Congress gave them all citizenship by statute.

    And the court has said you just can’t take away citizenship unless you procured it by fraud. So it doesn’t matter that only one of the people is an American citizen, I guess the mother and not the father. In fact, if they’re born in the United States, like Hawaii, then it doesn’t matter that either one is not a citizen. So she makes her argument–the court’s rejected it.

    It was pretty clear what the framers wanted. They wanted to make sure that citizenship is not something that could ever be taken away if you’ve been born or naturalized in the United States. If you’ve been naturalized in the United States and then commit treason, they can prosecute you for treason, they can execute you for treason. Some people say they should take away your citizenship because of that. Well they can’t do that and they don’t realize that if they take away your citizenship it’s no longer treason so they can execute you for that, for being treasonous.

    So her argument–if the father is Indonesian or Kenyan or whatever he is, the mother is a US citizen–but whatever happened to the two of them, he was born in Hawaii, that’s what the birth certificate said. So, it’s a free country, birthers can do what they want, but there’s no squirrel in the tree they’re barking up, as best I can tell.”

  89. Mary Adams says:

    it is evident that they did not even know or professed not to know who Emer de Vattel was.
    —————-

    Funny thing… it seems that just about nobody recognizes the name or writings of the Swiss guy…

    And no-one but desperate birthers gives any credence to your “two parent citizens” BS.

  90. Dwight Sullivan says:

    bob, many thanks. That’s weird. According to the Kerchner v. Obama page on the Supremes’ website, the motion to file the amicus was filed on 3 November. On the first page of the motion portion of the amicus, the following appears: “Counsel for Petitioners [that would be Mr. Apuzzo] has withheld consent; counsel for Respondent [that would be the Solicitor General] has consented to the filing of this brief.”

    Then, footnote 1 of the brief portion of the amicus filing states: “The parties have been given appropriate notice of amicus curie’s [sic] intention to file this brief. The petitioners have refused . . . .” Was Mr. Kreep just making stuff up?

  91. realist says:

    “Was Mr. Kreep just making stuff up?”

    Perish the thought. None of these fine upstanding officers of the court would do such a thing.

  92. Reality Check says:

    Does anyone want to guess what the chances are that the previous response by Dwight Sullivan would have made it through moderation at Apuzzo’s and Kerchner’s blog? :) Hint: Slim left town.

  93. Tommy says:

    He’s funny how, I mean funny like he’s a clown, he amuses you?

    That’s pretty much it.

  94. Abbey says:

    What a grim and terrible thing it is when – having googled your own name – you’re unable to resist responding to people you clearly despise: those being the very same people who you deny response to at your own blog.

    Mario, have you no shame?

  95. RJ says:

    Lame Cherry writes a tribute to Mario Apuzzo – An American Hero.

    http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2010/11/american-hero.html

  96. interested onlooker says:

    Lame Cherry has been imbibing too much Maraschino liqueur…

  97. Reality Check says:

    @ Mario Apuzzo

    Would you be so kind as to post here when the promised corrections to the factual errors on your blog delineated by Dwight Sullivan have been completed? Thank you in advance.

  98. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Romeo Charlie, amusingly enough, the piece on Mr. Apuzzo’s website was changed this morning to remove the reference to “the first draft” of the Constitution. But all of the other mistakes remain, including saying that the language from Hamilton’s plan that he gave to Madison at the end of the Convention was in his 18 June 1787 remarks to the Convention — which, as demonstrated yesterday, is untrue.

    I attempted to post a comment pointing to several of the factual errors that the article still contains. Last I checked, that comment hadn’t shown up on Mr. Apuzzo’s website.

  99. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Mr. Sullivan,

    You really are a real phony. First, you ask that correction be made to a certian article written by Commander Kerchner. Second, the correction is made and you proclaim that it is “amusing enough.” Clearly you are not in this battle to correct any record but only to inflate your own ego and impress others of your kind.

  100. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, I pointed out a number of factual errors in the article and provided documentation demonstrating many of those factual errors. You corrected one facutal error and left the others on your website. Do you concede that the article that remains on your website is factually erroneous? If so, why have you left it on your website?

  101. Dwight Sullivan says:

    And, Mr. Apuzzo, it was you who wrote: “The gravest act of intellectual dishonesty committed by the Obots is that they, like so many others of their ilk, selectively read and report on history.” Would you say that correcting one misstatement while leaving numerous other misstatemetns about historical events on your website is to “selectively read and report on history”?

  102. Reality Check says:

    :) a la WND, correction without attribution.

  103. bob says:

    You really are a real phony. … Clearly you are not in this battle to correct any record but only to inflate your own ego and impress others of your kind.

    Oh, the irony.

  104. BigGuy says:

    @Bob — “Oh, the irony.”
    __

    Yes, it’s true. Mario is impressing people of his own kind. Unfortunately, to win his cases, he would have to impress people of Dwight’s kind.

    Not gonna happen.

  105. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Mr. Sullivan,

    Your objections are noted and will be considered.

    In any event, my job is not to correct errors that someone might make in a post on my web site. Does the owner of this web site correct all errors that are made in post here? Does Dr. Conspiracy do the same? Does the owner of CBS, NBC, ABC and other media outlets correct all the mistakes that are made by people who speak on their television stations and channels?

    On the other hand, if I say or write something that is not correct and it is brought to my attention and I am convinced that I erred, I am duty bound to announce a correction.

    What I see is that you relish in the thought that I am to follow some high standard but then you do not apply that same standard to yourself or your buddies.

  106. BigGuy says:

    @Mario — “Does the owner of this web site correct all errors that are made in post here?”
    __

    The owner of this web site permits others to post freely and offer corrections to other posts.

    Why don’t you do the same?

  107. bob says:

    I notice Apuzzo has not answered Sullivan’s question: Why did Kreep say consent had been withheld? (Apuzzo’s consent letter postdates the motion for leave to file.)

    I also have a question for Apuzzo: If Ankeny was such a bad ruling, why was there no SCOTUS cert. petition?; why didn’t you offer your services like you have done for Kerchner?

  108. Patrick McKinnion says:

    Mr. Sullivan,
    Let’s stay focused on the issue which is what impact Emer de Vattel and other political philosophers who wrote on natural law and the law of nations had on the Founding and creation of America.What somebody wrote on my blog about some tangential issue should not control the conversation.

    You mean like they adopted de Vattel’s positions on the right of Kings and the restriction of weapons to the military and nobility only??

    Oh, right, they ignored those parts of “The Laws of Nations”, didn’t they?

  109. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, we aren’t talking about something that a reader posted on your blog. We’re talking about content provided by its only other authorized contributor. If one of my colleagues on CAAFlog posted something that I knew to be incorrect, of course I would ensure that it was corrected. I trust that if I were to post something that’s incorrect (as I have inadvertently done on occasion), my colleagues would call that to my attention and ensure that it was corrected.

    If a CBS, NBC, or ABC correspondent posted something on the relevant network’s website that was later shown to be erroneous, of course the website’s operators would correct it.

    So I’m not holding you to any standard that I don’t impose on myself. And, of course, the irony is that your website bills itself as “A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers.” Your website demonstrably contains false information. And yet your response is that it isn’t your job to correct the errors.

  110. Lawyerwitharealdegree says:

    As noted above, Apuzzo always resorts to the ad hominem. Thanks for proving me right Mario! As for your reference to Col. Sullivan’s “own kind”, if you are referring to competent, educated attorneys and those who read this blog and actually understand it, well then, I am honored to be of Col. Sullivan’s kind.

  111. realist says:

    #

    * If he did that, the vast majority of posts on his site would be correcting the inaccuracies and misinformation posted there by he and Mr. Kerchner.

    You see, it’s not THE truth or the correct answers Mr. Apuzzo seeks, it’s HIS truth and “correct answers.”

    #
    Blogs & Journals

  112. Nbc says:

    Mario is a funny dude indeed. That he every now and then ventures from the safety of his own moderated blog to expose himself to others is fascinating to me indeed.
    That invariably such a venture ends in ‘disaster’ is just an interesting historical note.

  113. Nbc says:

    If Mario had to correct all the factual errors on his website he would have to ‘close shop’ …

  114. Reality Check says:

    I told Mr. Friegen that I would repost this question at the bottom on case Mr. Apuzzo might have missed it:

    Sterngard Friegen says:
    November 23, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    Can Mr. Auzzo explain to me why a foreign country should have any say in whether an American citizen is qualified to be President?

    Will Mr. Apuzzo admit that under his theory of “natural born Citizen,” a child of two Jewish, United States citizens, born after 1948 in the United States, is ineligible to be elected President because Israel’s law of return makes that child a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel at birth?

    I want to see where the limits of Mr. Apuzzo’s theories are

  115. Ballantine says:

    With respect to Mario’s claims to intellectual honesty, yes, it is certainly not intellectually dishonest for him to grossly exaggerate de Vattel’s influence on the founders and claim he is actually in the Constitution. De Vattel was, of course, one of the many influences on the founders. To pretend he was the most prominent, or that he was actually included in the Constitution, when he has shown no evidence to support any such assertion is, of course, the very definition of being intellecually honest. As of yet, we have not seen birtherhood show any evidence that any provision of the Constitution was based upon de Vattel. We can, however, show empirical evidence that de Vattel was far from the most cited authority amongst the founders and that our Supreme Court has rarely cited de Vattel on the Constitution itself as most of its citations to de Vattel are on questions of international law unrelated to our Constitution. Blackstone, on the other hand, has been cited in hundreds of Supreme Court decisions, most dealing with interpretation of the Constitution. There are also hundreds of opinions citing Lords Coke and/or Mansfield or other English common law authorities. Gee, facts are really a bitch.

    Looking at the intellectual honestly exhibited at Mario’s site could take up the rest of my day, however, my favorite recent entry is his assertion that because John Jay wanted a “strong check” against foreign influence, “any definition of “natural born Citizen” must provide our nation with the strongest check possible on foreign influence.” Of course, this obviously means that the framers would not have embraced a native-birth requirement as such would not be the “strongest check possible.” Us obots are obviously intellectually dishonest when we point out that in the English language a “strong”check” does not mean the “strongest check possible.” And, of course, when we point out that in the Constitutional Convention itself, no framer ever suggested any requirement other than a native-birth requirement for office-holders, where they clearly defined “native birth” to refer to place of birth alone, where no one mentioned de Vattel or parentage in such debates on eligiblity at all and where the most influential framers, such as Madison, Hamilton and Wilson, didn’t think any check on foreign influence at all was necessary, we are the dishonest ones. Why should we look at what the framer actually said when Mario claims to have divined what they really meant by misrepresenting what someone not even at the Convention actually said?

  116. Plutodog says:

    Mr Puzo, by avoiding those sticky fact-things is able to have limitless expanding/contracting theories. It can be quite handy except where mental health is valued.

  117. Plutodog says:

    I said, before it went back to the other thread…Mr Puzo, by avoiding those sticky fact-things is able to have limitless expanding/contracting theories. It can be quite handy except where mental health is valued.

  118. Reality Check says:

    Has Mr. Apuzzo left the building?

    (In all fairness he may be spending the weekend honing his oral arguments on the holy and all powerful Emerich de Vattel to be presented before the most honorable Supreme Court of the United States very soon.)

  119. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Mr. Sullivan,

    I like the way you qualify your response by saying that you would correct your blog of information that you “knew to be incorrect” and that the website’s television network operators would correct errors “later shown to be erroneous.” Did you ever establish that I knew before you have raised the issue of any alleged errors with Commander Kerchner’s article or that despite any information “later shown to be erroneous” to me that I have refused to correct it? So there you go again. You estblish nice escape clauses for yourself but do not offer me the benefit of those same clauses. You want to hold me to standards that do not apply to you. You just want to talk a big game, acting like you are some righteous authority, the whole time just hidding behind words.

    In any event, let’s test the veracity of your response:

    1. Have you ever corrected any of your “collegues” post on this site?

    2. If you have, when and which ones.

    3. If you have not corrected any, why have you not seen the need to.

    4. Can you confirm that all of your “colleagues'” posts on you blog contain error-free information.

    5. Have your “colleagues” ever brought to your attention that you posted something on this blog that was erroneous?

  120. sus says:

    Mario came back.
    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/21/this-week-in-military-justice-21-november-2010-edition/#comment-20271

    He’s just not going to answer Sterngard Friegen’s question. Or Col. Sullivan’s question about withholding consent on the amicus brief.

    LMAO!

  121. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, in your zeal to attack me, you miss the point I was making. The post to which you responded didn’t fault you for failing to correct the Hamilton/Jay article before I called its mistakes to your attention. I’ve asked you (twice I think) whether you knew about the mistakes in that article before I pointed them out to you, but you have not yet answered that question. (Of course, if you read that article on your own website and didn’t recognize that it contained a considerable amount of false information, then you must be unfamiliar with the history of the Constitutional Convention.)

    I was responding to the post that you made after multiple mistakes in the article had been called to your attention and after one of those mistakes was corrected, while many other mistakes were left in the article. In response to that post, you wrote: “my job is not to correct errors that someone might make in a post on my web site.” I pointed out that I do view it as my job to correct errors that authorized commentators (myself included) make on this website and I think it’s unfortunate that you don’t view that as part of your job on your website.

    If you go into the search function on this website and type in the word “corrected,” you’ll get hits for several articles that have appeared here that were corrected. (The word “CORRECTED” is inserted into the article heading and that word will be caught by the word search.) So, yes, my colleagues and I do point out mistakes to one another. Our readers also help us out by calling mistakes to our attention. And when we learn of a mistake, we correct it. Which, of course, you failed to do with regard to multiple mistakes in the Hamilton/Jay article, while saying, essentially, “not my job” when called out on it.

    So, once again, I’m not holding you to any standard that my colleagues and I don’t apply to ourselves.

    Mr. Apuzzo, do you agree that the language quoted in the Hamilton/Jay article on your website wasn’t uttered by Alexander Hamilton on 18 June 1787? If so, why did you leave that erroneous information up on your website while making a correction in the paragraph that introduced that language? Do you agree that John Jay’s 25 July 1787 letter to George Washington did not concern the Office of the Presidency? If so, why did you leave that false information in the article while making another correction to the article? Did you know that John Jay’s letter was not (and could not have been) written in response to the quoted Hamiltonian language, since Hamilton hadn’t yet written it? If so, then why did you leave on your website several false assertions that Jay’s letter was written in response to that Hamiltonian proposal?

  122. bob says:

    So funny that Apuzzo bothered to reply to take some cheap shots, but failed to answer either of questions plainly posed in my original posting (or those posed elsewhere by Sullivan).

    “Intellectual dishonesty,” indeed.

  123. realist says:

    Mario says, “In any event, let’s test the veracity of your response:…”

    The old answer a question with a question, avoid and evade.

  124. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, I just looked at the edited article again. It’s still full of untruths. Consider this: “Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was rejected by the framers as insufficient.” Since Hamilton didn’t make that proposal to the Constitutional Convention, it couldn’t have been “rejected by the framers as insufficient.”

    The article also makes false claims about Jay’s letter to President Washington. Consider this: “The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a ‘born Citizen’ of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.” There’s so much wrong with that sentence, it’s hard to know where to start. First, Jay wasn’t a delegate to the Convention. And, as I thought was common knowledge, the proceedings of the Convention were secret. So Jay couldn’t have been proposing to “strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II.” In fact, at the time, there WERE NO citizenship requirements for the President. And, in any event, Jay’s letter wasn’t written about the presidency — it was written about the commander-in-chief of the Army.

    The article later repeats the falsehood that “Jay’s proposal recommended clause added the additional adjective before ‘born Citizen’ that was proposed by Hamilton.”

    Information also appears in the article that is, as far as I know, historically uncorroborated. Can you please document the claim that “General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention”?

    Mr. Apuzzo, I’m sorry if you think it’s too high a burden to expect that you will correct mistakes on your website that are called to your attention. Even if I refused to do that (I don’t, but even if I did), I would hope that on your “Place . . . to Get the Right Answers,” you would choose to correct known falsehoods.

  125. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Mr. Sullivan,

    In your attempt to avoid addressing my point to you about when you or anyone else learns of errors, you go back and revise in a self-serving way the posture of how this whole conversation regarding the Hamilton article started. That is a very typical response from someone on the defense.

    Saying that I am not familiar with the history of the Constitutional convention because I did not catch someone else’s alleged error in an article he wrote and posted on my blog is also pure nonsense. Do you really believe that you have provided a fair measure of someone’s knowledge of a subject matter based on such an occurence? You really are not showing yourself to be much of a rational person.

    Your point now that I somehow have not made your requested corrections even though you made me aware of the need to is ridiculous, since the issue has only come up today. As you say, one correction was made today but you damand that all of what you call “multiple mistakes” be correct immediately and fault me because that was not done as fast as you would like me to do it. It is easy to see the absurdity of your position and that you really do not believe anything that you are writing but only say anything to defend your indefensible position.

    Do not try to gain some high ground by claiming that I somehow knew about all this since who knows when and have failed to take some corrective action. You just keep digging yourself deeper in falsehoods.

    I said that it is “not my job” to go looking for someone else’s errors. I never said that it is not my job to correct errors if I am aware of them.

    You are also rather dishonest by addressing me as though I wrote the Hamilton article. You know that I did not but you persist in acting like I did just to give you some feeling of power by being able to ask me questions on it and misleading anyone who may be reading your comments.

    Regarding the other alleged errors in the article of which you speak, I told you that your objections were noted and being considered. I guess that was not good enough for you or you just figured that you readers forgot I wrote that and so now you just persist in your foolishness.

  126. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Mr. Friegen,

    We define a “natural born Citizen” under our laws, not those of Israel.

  127. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, I pointed out multiple errors in the piece yesterday. I assume that you agree that there was at least one error, since this morning there was one correction to the article.

    I can tell you with certainty what I would do if I learned there were multiple errors in an article on this website even if I didn’t have time to correct them all right away: I would take it down. Even though it was demonstrated yesterday that there were multiple errors in the piece, it’s still up with multiple errors. You apparently think there’s nothing wrong with that. I do.

    I’ve never suggested that you wrote the Hamilton/Jay article. On the contrary, I wrote on this very page that your client wrote it. Please point out anything I wrote suggesting that you wrote the Hamilton/Jay article.

    Contrary to your most recent post, I didn’t say you were unfamiliar with the Constitutional Convention’s history. I wrote: “if you read that article on your own website and didn’t recognize that it contained a considerable amount of false information, then you must be unfamiliar with the history of the Constitutional Convention.” Maybe you had never read the article. Or maybe you read the article, recognized its errors, and chose to leave it up anyway. Please don’t misrepresent what I wrote.

    I also note that you refer to “someone else’s ALLEGED error.” (emphasis added). Do you deny that the article, in its current state, contains erroneous information?

    Mr. Apuzzo, contrary to your assertion, I don’t “claim[] that [you] somehow knew about all this since who knows when and have failed to take some corrective action.” I acknowledge the possibility that you never read CDR Kerchner’s Hamilton/Jay article. I acknowledge the possibility that you read the article but were insufficiently familiar with the Constitutional Convention to recognize its inaccuracies. And I acknowledge the possibility that you knew of its inaccuracies but failed to do anything about them. I’ve asked you (twice I believe) about your state of knowledge, but you’ve declined to answer those questions. And I note that even though you raise the matter in your most recent post, you continue to decline to answer that question. You know what you knew. I don’t. If you want to share, I’d be interested.

    You also write: “I never said that it is not my job to correct errors if I am aware of them.” Mr. Apuzzo, on this very page, you drew a distinction between errors someone else made on your page and errors you made on your page, professing an obligation to correct only the latter.

    Here’s a direct quote from you: “In any event, my job is not to correct errors that someone might make in a post on my web site. . . . On the other hand, if I say or write something that is not correct and it is brought to my attention and I am convinced that I erred, I am duty bound to announce a correction.” So now that I’ve called to your attention your error in denying that you claimed it wasn’t your job to correct others’ errors, I’ll await the correction that you are duty bound to announce.

  128. Sterngard Friegen says:

    Mr. Apuzzo – Thank you for your response. But you only answered half of my questions. Would you be kind enough to answer the other? I believe it is of the same tenor as the one you have answered, just expresed a ittle differently.

    Thanks in advance.

  129. LC says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, if I might take the opportunity to pose a question to you:

    Are *you* a natural born citizen under the definition you’re propounding?

    I ask because it appears that your parents, both born in 1920, got consecutive Social Security Numbers about a decade after your birth. And your father doesn’t seem to appear in the 1930 census. Were your own parents immigrants? If so, did they both naturalize before your birth?

    And if not, did you only finally realize ‘I couldn’t run for President’ in December 2008? Because if you’d always believed that, I find it odd that you relegated that long-held understanding to a handful of paragraphs in your original complaint, following two full pages of birthplace speculation. And that you hadn’t realized this ridiculously obvious flaw in Obama’s candidacy any earlier during the two-year Presidential campaign, instead only raising it after the election was over.

  130. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:

    Mr. Sullivan,

    This is what I said: “In any event, my job is not to correct errors that someone might make in a post on my web site. . .” You do understand what the word “might” means. You know that what I am saying is that I will not go around hunting for other people’s mistakes which may or may not exist. Did I say that I would not take corrective action if someone else’s mistake was brought to my attention and confirmed? Regardless of all this, you persist in your quest just to save face.

    You said in your first comment on this issue: “I could list a great number of other historical errors on your site, but I don’t have the time at the moment.” You did not have time to simply list the errors but you want me to investigate the whole matter and post corrections to the blog all in one day. Now really, Mr. Sullivan.

    In another post you said: “Mr. Apuzzo, now that we know your cert petition has been denied…” You did not say that it was your speculation or guess that it was denied. Rather you said that you “know” it was denied. Why do you state such falsehood on you blog? Why do you not tell us how you are the only person that “knows” that the Supreme Court has denied my petition. Will you now post a correction to what you wrote, admitting that you really did not know that the Supreme Court denied the Kerchner petition but rather it was just your speculation that it did which we know is based on what you hope the Court did.

    Again, I told you your objections have been noted and will be considered. Why do you persist in telling me what you would do. You just have to feel as though you are in control. Well, it does not work that way.

    Finally, in your initial post you stated that my petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court was “guano crazy.” Since you are the self-proclaimed protector of truth and the American way, can you tell me why you would make such an unprofessional statement about the serious and well-documented work of another attorney who is pursuing the enforcement of the U.S. Constitution which you swore to uphold according to this oath:

    “I, Dwight Sullivan, having been appointed an officer in the _____ of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

  131. raicha says:

    “We define a “natural born Citizen” under our laws, not those of Israel.”

    So Switzerland yes, Israel no.

    What about Paraguay?

  132. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    Here’s how we know that your cert petition in Kerchner was denied. The Acting Solicitor General waived the United States’ right to respond to the cert petition. The cert petition was then distributed for yesterday’s conference. When that occurs, one of two things happens: (1) the Court calls for a response from the Solicitor General; or (2) the cert petition is denied. When the conference was held without a CFR, we know your case wasn’t on the discuss list and we know it was denied. It’s already dead. We’re just waiting for the obituary to be published on Monday.

    By the way, I also had a cert petition that was distributed for yesterday’s conference (Nerad v. United States). The Acting SG also waived his right to reply to that one and there was no CFR. So the same thing applies to my cert petition.

    Obviously I found your cert petition to be neither serious nor well-documented.

  133. Sterngard Friegen says:

    No, raicha. Mr. Apuzzo is using British law to determine that President Obama was a dual citizen and therefore not a “natural born Citizen” under the constitution. British law yes; Israeli law, no.

  134. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Apuzzo, since you made such a point of emphasis that you didn’t write the 17 September 2010 article we’ve been discussing, it seems appropriate to note that a piece written by you on your website falsely characterizes John Jay’s 25 July 1787 letter to General Washington.

    You wrote: “This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ when he recommended to General Washington that only a ‘natural born Citizen’ (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President.”

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

    John Jay didn’t write to General Washington about the qualifications to be President.

    The text of the letter is available here:

    http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=joj

  135. Reality Check says:

    Mr. Apuzzo

    I am curious. You have spent quite a bit of time yesterday and today commenting on CAAFLOG. Did you find time to approve Mr. Sullivan’s comment on your own blog? You seemed to have been confident that all of your posts would make it through moderation on this blog. Would you have spent so much time here today if you had known there was a very good chance that Mr. Sullivan would not have approved any of your comments?

  136. Nbc says:

    Excellent, so no reason to let British law decide it either… So the fact that President Obama was also entitled to British Citizenship has no impact on his natural born status.
    It’s the same British Common Law which was adopted in our Country when it came to citizenship and nationality.

    Bummer

  137. Rickey says:

    In another post you said:“Mr. Apuzzo, now that we know your cert petition has been denied…”You did not say that it was your speculation or guess that it was denied.Rather you said that you “know” it was denied. Why do you state such falsehood on you blog?Why do you not tell us how you are the only person that “knows” that the Supreme Court has denied my petition.

    Col. Sullivan certainly doesn’t need me to defend him, but I will note that, unlike you, he has had other cases before the Supreme Court and his experience obviously has given him insight into how SCOTUS functions. If you doubt his conclusion, research it for yourself. Take a look at the docket entries for the cases where SCOTUS has granted cert during this term. In every case where cert was granted, either a response was filed by the respondent on its own or a response was filed after SCOTUS called for one.

    Calling for a response does not mean that cert will be granted, but not calling for a response is a guarantee that cert will not be granted.

    Prepare yourself to be disappointed on Monday.

  138. Nbc says:

    Mario has had a long string of disappointments but at least he has a paying client..

  139. sus says:

    nbc,
    Word is he’s working for Kerchner pro bono. Even funnier, don’tcha think?

  140. Rickey says:

    Word is he’s working for Kerchner pro bono. Even funnier, don’tcha think?

    He may not be getting paid directly by Kerchner, but he is soliciting and accepting donations on the website protectourliberty.org.

    “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

  141. Reality Check says:

    He may not be getting paid directly by Kerchner, but he is soliciting and accepting donations on the website protectourliberty.org.
    “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

    Apparently, a good bit of the money has been spent to pay for full page ads in the Moonie Times.

    http://www.scribd.com/puzo1

  142. ARAK7 says:

    What kind of pretend to be fair and legal discussion blog is this? Mario was being insulted from the very start of this thread and posting when Mr. Sullivan called his petition at the Supreme Court bat guano crazy (bat shit crazy for the grunts) in his words to launch the thread. What kind of fair minded legal tone is that if one wishes to start a fair and reasonable discussion on the legal issues around Obama’s constitutional eligibility and the arguments in the petition? The starting post reads like the writer Mr. Sullivan had no intention to be fair. He set the tone to make it a hatchet job attack on Mario’s petition ad hominem while never addressing any of the substantial merit arguments in Mario’s petition. And from there he participated in the gang rape by the Obot predators in this blog and other Obots who cohabitate in their various Obot dens throughout the net awaiting the alert from their fellow travelers to come join them and pounce in mass on anyone posting online who dares challenge Obama’s constitutional eligibility. Dishonor has been brought on to the owners and leaders of this blog with such antics. Saul Alinsky would be proud of all of you in the use of his tactics and rules for radicals. You have learned them well.

  143. Rickey says:

    What kind of pretend to be fair and legal discussion blog is this? Mario was being insulted from the very start of this thread and posting when Mr. Sullivan called his petition at the Supreme Court bat guano crazy (bat shit crazy for the grunts) in his words to launch the thread. What kind of fair minded legal tone is that if one wishes to start a fair and reasonable discussion on the legal issues around Obama’s constitutional eligibility and the arguments in the petition? The starting post reads like the writer Mr. Sullivan had no intention to be fair. He set the tone to make it a hatchet job attack on Mario’s petition ad hominem while never addressing any of the substantial merit arguments in Mario’s petition. And from there he participated in the gang rape by the Obot predators in this blog and other Obots who cohabitate in their various Obot dens throughout the net awaiting the alert from their fellow travelers to come join them and pounce in mass on anyone posting online who dares challenge Obama’s constitutional eligibility.Dishonor has been brought on to the owners and leaders of this blog with such antics. Saul Alinsky would be proud of all of you in the use of his tactics and rules for radicals. You have learned them well.

    Check back here on Monday, after Mr. Apuzzo’s cert petition is denied without comment.

    Even the non-attorneys who participate in this blog were able to read the petition and immediately recognize that it had no chance of being granted.

  144. Christopher Mathews says:

    …when Mr. Sullivan called his petition at the Supreme Court bat guano crazy (bat shit crazy for the grunts) …

    Thanks so much for explaining the term “guano” to us grunts, Mr. ARAK. Whatever would we do without you?

  145. BigGuy says:

    Let’s get real. It’s hard to have a “fair and reasonable discussion on the … arguments in the petition” when Mr. Apuzzo had already been told with regard to the previous appeal in the case that “an appeal from a frivolous claim is likewise frivolous.”

  146. bob says:

    Saul … who?

  147. e.vattel says:

    Minor v Hapersett:

    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.

    John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment:

    I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen

    Vattel:

    Book One, Chapter 19 § 212. Citizens and natives

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Wong Kim Ark was confirmed a citizen by the Supreme Court. He was never declared a natural born citizen.

    Have noticed a considerable amount of ridicule and personal attacks by supporters of Obama. This is not very professional and is lacking in character. Lets not get carried away in your zeal to protect presumed natural born citizen Obama.

  148. e.vattel says:

    “Vattel received his warmest reception in America. Citations to his great work appear frequently in the Federalist Papers, the most important interpretive document concerning the US Constitution.”

    The Shield of Achilles: war, peace, and the course of history, Philip Bobbit

  149. Keith says:

    Well, at least he has a Paypalling client.

  150. Rickey says:

    This just in:

    10-446
    KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

  151. Trevor says:

    From the SC…

    10-446
    KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to
    file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a
    writ of certiorari is denied.

    Care to comment Mario..?

  152. Trevor says:

    From the SC…

    10-446
    KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to
    file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a
    writ of certiorari is denied.

    Care to comment Mario..?

  153. Rickey says:

    Also, cert was denied in Smith v. United States, No. 10-18, and in Col. Sullivan’s case, Nerad v. United States, No. 10-532.

  154. realist says:

    From the SC…10-446
    KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to
    file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a
    writ of certiorari is denied.Care to comment Mario..?

    I’m shocked… SHOCKED.

    Obviously, as Mario and his ilk have been spreading all over the internet, as an excuse for cert being denied, the Constitution no longer exists… the courts are all corrupt and bought off by the evil Obama regime. ;)

  155. bob says:

    e.vattel says

    Didn’t you die in 1767?

  156. Sterngard Friegen says:

    Didn’t you die in 1767?

    Yes. Although he was resuscitated in 1787 to write the U.S. Constitution.