Posted on 04/11/2016 9:15:53 PM PDT by jdirt
(Apr. 11, 2016) — A hearing was held at the Office of Administrative Law in Mercerville, NJ on Monday morning resulting from two challenges filed against the presidential candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada and, the challengers contend, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Apuzzo represented a group of three New Jersey citizens, with the second challenger write-in presidential candidate Victor Williams of Maryland.
The Post & Email interviewed Williams on Saturday. Apuzzo told us that the two challenges were “consolidated” and that he argued first of the two.
Of the hearing, which lasted two hours, Apuzzo began by stating, “I thought it went well.”
“Cruz filed an opposition asking that the whole thing be dismissed, so he had to go first. But we took one issue at a time. We started with ‘standing,’ then we went to ‘political question,’ then we went to ‘natural born Citizen.’ So when Cruz argued ‘standing,’ I argued ‘standing,’ then Professor Williams argued ‘standing.’ Then we repeated that for ‘political question’ and ‘natural born Citizen.’
Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey Masin presided, who Apuzzo noted was the same judge who heard his ballot challenge to Barack Hussein Obama four years ago nearly to the day. “This is a different case from Obama’s case,” Apuzzo told us. “In the other case, the judge said that Obama did not have the burden of proof. They conceded that there was no evidence of who Obama was or where he was born. Then the judge came out with his famous line that ‘Mickey Mouse could run for president.’ It was just unbelievable.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
We do not need a court to tell us if Cruz is a natural born citizen. Heck his father was not American at the time of his birth.
The natural born clause has always been about divided loyalties, and at the time of birth Cruz had divided loyalties in spades.
Still it should be an interesting day tomorrow. I really have no faith in our judiciary system anymore anyway.
I agree that it needs to be put to bed as well as it can be but many would still b**** even after a Supreme Court ruling. I doubt it will get to the Supreme Court but will be decided in a lower court in Cruz’s favor. The Supreme Court will decline to take the case.
Didn’t he write the Godfather series?
>jk
However the rumor mill has claimed that at the time of Ted's birth in Canada that the Canadian law was the his mother could not be a dual citizen.
If true then it's over tomorrow or soon.
Another Case of Cruz not disclosing documents
We are all prospective “write-in candidates” so that is pretty weak as far as standing. The idea of “standing” is a joke on an issue like this. You could say every American has standing to see to it that their candidate doesn’t lose to an ineligible candidate.
That being said, how can there not be one candidate on the ballot to file the suit? I understand Trump’s dilemma about doing it, but he should have just done the right thing and filed the suit when he was threatening to. Scotus couldn’t duck and run from that.
The Cruz/Levin assertion that the Founders, particularly John Jay and George Washington who were the fathers of the eligibility clause, intended for the England-born child of an American woman ex-pat and the King of England to be a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency of the US is just so preposterous that I don’t know how they live with themselves for suggesting such a thing.
Here’s the rub: Ted’s dad had to have lived in Canada for a period of 5 years before he was eligible to be a citizen - or be married to a Canadian citizen. Now, just who was he married to, except Teddy’s mama - Eleanor, which allowed Rafeal Sr. to become a Canadian citizen by marriage. She, apparently, gave up her American citizenship when she became a Canadian citizen - otherwise, she would not have been eligible to vote or ever to register. It’s sad that Ted has deceived so many, and even sadder that the Cruzbots are too stupid to research these issues.
Are you still peddling this BS??? One more time - Ted's parents moved to Canada in 1967. Ted was born in 1970. 1970 - 1967 = 3 years. Canadian law required that someone live in Canada full time for 5 years before they could even apply for citizenship (not sure how long the naturalization process takes up there - it takes years here, even after you apply). 5 years > 3 years. So even if Ted's mom had decided to become a Canadian citizen, she was still an American citizen in 1970. So your whole argument is bunk, because you apparently cannot do simple math.
You are the one full of BS. If Ted’s mom was a citizen of Canada, and by all accounts it looks like she was - Canada at that time did NOT allow dual citizenship. Got that, or do I need to write it in crayon for you to understand? God, you Cruzbots are dumber than a box of rocks. Ted’s dad had only been there 3 years - (if true) and not the required 5 - so that means that he became a citizen by marriage. Now, can you spell c-a-t, or d-o-g?
When you start your argument based on a lie, then your argument fails. Sorry, you fail.
Canada at that time did NOT allow dual citizenship.
It doesn't matter what Canada allowed - the US doesn't allow other countries to determine the status of its citizens.
Oh my God, you really are a stupid arse, aren’t you? Ted wasn’t born in the US, and his mother had to renounce her citizenship in order to vote. What aprt of this don’t you understand? Dear God - you bots are stupid, stupid, stupid. The US had nothing to do with this - she went to Canada willing, and in order to even register to vote - she could not have been a dual citizen. Did you even graduate kindergarten?
I have to disagree with you there. The ballot challenge process does not require the plaintiff to be another candidate to have standing. A voter in that state has standing. This is an administrative hearing.
Hi libertylover, I always felt like this;
if Obama lost, the supreme court would take the case.
If a pee-on lost the case the supreme court ignores it.
Tomorrow will be interesting as the judge has acknowledged this is different than Obama’s case. One thing is for sure. Judges are running out of reasons to dismiss the cases.
Exactly. Anyone with an ounce of reasoning ability knows the canadian creep is not eligible.
Besides, what court is going to rule Count Copulot ineligible while Ogabe is currently usurping the Constitution?
“When you start your argument based on a lie, then your argument fails. Sorry, you fail.”
It’s a pity for you that your above comment applies to your own arguments.
“It doesn’t matter what Canada allowed - the US doesn’t allow other countries to determine the status of its citizens.”
That is an illogical and false argument, because it falsely assumes the issue had something to do with Canada determining U.S. naturalization law, which it did not and was never argued so. The argument concerns Canadian citizenship and naturalization law and what Eleanor Darragh Cruz, Rafael Cruz, and Ted Cruz did about that Canadian law that affected her U.S. citizenship and Ted Cruz’s Canadian and/or U.S. naturalized citizenship.
For example, it is alleged that Eleanor was born and always retained her U.S. citizenship, but we cannot know whether or not this is valid information without the documentation necessary to assess the validity of the claim. Although there is public documentation which appears to indicate affirmatively that Eleanor was a natural born citizen of the United States, there are other circumstances which potentially dispute the assertions she could only have retained her U.S. citizenship.
Eleanor Darragh was first married to a Mr. Wilson and resided in London England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, where she divorced. She subsequently gave birth to a child in the U.K., who not long after perished; but not before she secured permission from her ex-husband to give the child his surname. It has been generally assumed the child was not conceived in wedlock, but there is no publicly available evidence to indicate she did not marry a British subject and expatriate her U.S. citizenship or else conceal her retention of U.S. citizenship contrary to British law.
Another false conclusion on your part is that Eleanor had to wait a period of 5 years to acquire naturalized Canadian citizenship. Although the 5 year period is true of most immigrants in Canada, there was a provision for a British subject to acquire Canadian citizenship in only 1 year. If in fact Eleanor became a British subject by marriage to a British subject while residing in London, England, she theoretically could have acquired Canadian citizenship as early as around 1968 to 1970. There are also those unconfirmed reports of her Canadian neighbor lady in Calgary, Alberta, Canada accompanying Eleanor Darragh Cruz on her rounds to various offices in Calgary as she renounced her U.S. citizenship to complete the steps necessary to sign up as a Canadian citizen and receive Canadian benefits. other unconfirmed reports claim Cuban refugees and their families were granted a shortened time period to acquire Canadian citizenship.
One of the other key lines of evidence is the status of Ted Cruz and his Canadian citizenship. Working backwards we know he apparently retained Canadian citizenship until it was formally renounced and the document placed on the Internet for public view in 2014, less than just two years ago. Given this documented fact that Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen from 22 December 1970 to 2014, the applicable Canadian law implies Ted Cruz either never possessed U.S. citizenship from 22 December 1970 to 15 February 1977 or unlawfully concealed from the Canadian Government that he acquired the U.S. naturalized citizenship that causes the automatic loss of Canadian citizenship under the provisions of the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946. In either case a fraud was committed by the Cruz family and by Ted Cruz.
Furthermore, the only path to U.S. citizenship for Ted Cruz was by the authority of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 providing naturalized citizenship to a child born abroad with a U.S. citizen parent. The problem with that path to U.S. citizenship is that we have no public documents affirmatively demonstrating Ted Cruz’s mother had lawfully retained her U.S. citizenship at the time of Ted Cruz’s birth or in the years after his birth; and the fact that such citizenship by authority of a statutory naturalization law is naturalized citizenship that is not the natural born citizenship required by the Constitution for eligibility to serve in the Office of the President of the United States of America as stated in the U.S. Supreme Court case: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
bkmk
For later viewing.
I still cannot believe Obama got in with a father who was Kenyan. Heck I believe a Kenyan at that time was a British Royal Subject.....literally what the framers meant to prevent.
The burden of proof rests with Ted, as Ted Cruz made the claim his mother remained a US Citizen
Ted‘s mom got married and lived in Englad. Ted‘s mom could be a British subject. British people always got preferential treatment in Canada.
Ted‘s mon may have gotten Canada citizenship
Ted can clear up this mess in a new york minute> release ALL of his records, and his parents records.
Otherwise, Ted cements his rep as lyin Ted, who cheats and steals his way to political office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.