Nonsense. The first paragraph you copied has no citations to a stated legal precedent. The second paragraph contains nothing directly related to presidential eligibility with the possible exception of Wong Kim Ark's citation of U.S. v. Rhodes, which itself was referencing Shanks v. Dupont. That citation proves that Obama cannot be a natural-born citizen because he was born "in the allegiance of the king." That's what that citation was referring to. It allowed that persons born in the United States could be born in the allegiance of another country WITHOUT just being born to an "ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born." Thanks for helping prove my point so very clearly.
You are most welcome, I’m glad that I could offer assistance.
Now I’m sure that you understand and I’m happy to read that you have acknowledged that the original jurisdiction judge in Purpura & Moran v. Obama did indeed include cited legal precedent in his opinion.
Perhaps you’ll also be interested to learn that when a three judge panel of the New Jersey Appellate Court was asked to review the Purpura, Moran v. Obama decision, their affirmation of the initial ruling stated, in part: “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.” [capitalization, mine]
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2012/a4478-11.html