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http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2012/a4478-11.html
You need to review what I said earlier which was:
We've already discussed Purpura elsewhere. The court's claims are not backed up by any legal citations, while the principle I'm talking about was brought up first in Shanks v. Dupont, affirmed in U.S. v. Rhodes and then affirmed again by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
You avoided posting any direct citations, and now we see why. The few sentences this court quoted do not back up its claims. As I said, the only thing that even mentions natural-born citizen is from a citation that makes Obama a British subject.
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.”
Why would this be interesting?? It's a blanket statement that also fails to give any direct legal citations that supports it claims. There's no compelling argument here. You keep proving my point over and over and over for me. br