[4Zoltan]

“Purpura & Moran v Obama”

What is significant about this case is that it was argued by Mario Apuzzo, himself. It was then argued by him before a three judge panel for the New Jersey appeals court. They ruled,

“We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 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.”

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2012/a4478-11.html

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E) says “that some or all of the arguments made are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion”.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r2-11.htm

Mario Apuzzo also submitted an amicus brief in the appeal of the Tisdale case. The Appeals Court accepted the brief and then said,

“We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.”

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/tisdale_ac_order.pdf

[Rides3]

Which of those cases were decided upon the fact that neither the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision nor the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction” requirement applied to Obama?

[Rides3]

Obama doesn't meet the conditions of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, and he doesn't meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement as defined by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record.

Your cited cases therefore do not apply.

Do you have anything else?

[Jeff Winston]

So we have an official court decision in which the court says they have CAREFULLY considered the birther "natural born citizen" arguments, and they are "without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion."