by Sharon Rondeau

On Monday morning, Atty. Mario Apuzzo argued for three New Jersey residents and registered voters that Sen. Ted Cruz must prove that he is a “natural born Citizen” in order for his name to be included on the state’s primary ballot for voting on June 7

(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.”

Apuzzo then explained the three-pronged process of declaring oneself a candidate for office in the Garden State.  “In New Jersey, first you have to certify that you are eligible to the office.  Second, you have to consent to stand for that particular office, and finally, you have to accept that if you get the nomination, you’re going to take it.  What happens is when it comes to the president, he doesn’t have to consent to stand for the nomination.  Because of that, they declared that he doesn’t have to certify that he’s eligible.  But if he’s not eligible, it doesn’t matter whether or not he’s certifying it.”

Apuzzo continued, “That makes perfect sense, because can you imagine… he would have to consent in every state.  But if he’s eligible or not eligible?  That can’t disappear.

Of Masin’s approach to the arguments presented by both sides, Apuzzo told us:

The judge was scratching his head because the lawyer for Cruz said, “Well, judge, you already decided this four years ago, that there’s no burden (of proof).”  However, I was not willing to concede that Cruz was born to a U.S.-citizen mother, because the judge wanted me to concede that.  I told the judge, “I’m not saying he’s not, but he has the burden.  Why doesn’t he just conform with a little paperwork?  There are rumors that she (Cruz’s mother) was registered to vote in Canada…I don’t know.  It’s a very complex thing.”  I said, ‘I’m not willing to concede that.  I think he has a burden to satisfy that particular condition, but that doesn’t make him a natural born Citizen in any event.”

I said to the judge, “If someone is 20 years old, do you mean to tell me that the Secretary of State can’t do anything about that?  This person is good to go; they don’t have to be eligible?”  The president has to be 35 years old.  So the judge started scratching his head and said, “You know something? Maybe it was different four years ago.”  I said, “Back then, there was a dispute as to where Obama was born; here, there’s no dispute.  Cruz was born in Canada.  We know the facts, and the law says he has to be eligible.”

Apuzzo told us that Shalom Stone, Cruz’s attorney, included a two-and-one-half-page footnote in his brief with “every case under the sun with Obama and Cruz saying that nobody has standing.”  “He was arguing political question but he sneaked in a footnote on standing,” Apuzzo said. “Those are two different things.”

“I addressed both issues.  He put in two issues:  one is political question, and the other is that he’s a natural born Citizen.  But he sneaked in standing under political question, which is a different thing.

Apuzzo continued:

We talked about standing.  I said, “Judge, the lawyer has this killer footnote.  It’s not going to be possible for you to read all the cases that are in there by the time you have to render a decision, which is tomorrow,” and he said, “Well, my law clerk is going to have to help me.”  And I said, “It’s not going to be humanly possible, but don’t worry about it, because most of it is not relevant.r

He hasn’t shown that New Jersey follows the federal standard under Article III.  New Jersey doesn’t follow that.  Some states in the country adopt the federal standard; some don’t. I said, “New Jersey is very liberal in that respect,” and the judge agreed with that.  He said, “New Jersey has pretty liberal standing, doesn’t it?” and I said, “Absolutely; we don’t have Article III standing.  Most of those cases that he’s citing there are all federal.”

Then I went into how New Jersey has a special statute that doesn’t even say a an objection must be filed by a “voter” or a “citizen;” it just says you can file an objection.  I said, “Judge, it doesn’t say yo have to have a yellow hat or a green hat; it just says you can file an objection.”  They were trying to knock out Williams saying that he’s not a resident or voter in New Jersey, and he said, “I have competitive standing.”  He made a point to say that the statute doesn’t say you have to be a resident or a voter or anything.”  I said, “Well, whatever it says, my client is a resident, he’s a citizen, he’s a voter; they got everything.  They’re good to go.  The state legislature said they can do it; they’re good to go; the standing is satisfied.”

I think we’re going to get standing.

The next thing was political question.

I said, “Judge, political question — that’s a red herring.  It’s not a political question. Look at all the cases where the courts decide whether somebody’s a citizen or not.  The elephant in the room:  Wong Kim Ark, and before that, Minor (v. Happersett).  And they say that was a political question?  They decide whether you’re a citizen or not. Just because it’s an election year, that makes it a political question?   The court’s not being asked to vote for the president.  We’re not interested in who wins or who loses the election; we’re interested in whether the guy is a natural born Citizen.”

If that’s a political question, then the court can never decide anybody’s a citizen.  It’s absurd.

They’re thinking, “This guy’s running for president; I’m not going to get involved in that.”  But it doesn’t matter if he’s running for president; we want to know if he’s a natural born Citizen or not.

Then the Electoral College — “Oh, they’re fully committed.”  I said, “Judge, the Electoral College?  They’re not going to sit there and analyze what the Constitution means.  They’re voters.  When you’re an Elector, all you are is a voter, except that you’re voting for the president.  The meaning is determined by the judiciary.”

If we can’t agree, who decides?  You have to have some neutral magistrate, or we’re going to have a civil war.

It was very interesting when we got to “natural born Citizen.”  But you just don’t know.

The Post & Email mentioned to Apuzzo that it has filed approximately a dozen FOIA requests in an attempt to obtain documentation on Cruz, to which Apuzzo responded, “I didn’t remember that it was you who did that, but I made a point of saying that in the hearing.  I said, ‘Judge, there have been requests of this campaign to bring forward the registration, the passport.  There’s no paperwork, absolutely nothing.”  That’s why I’m not willing to concede that his mother was a citizen. I’m not saying that she’s not, but it’s not my burden of proof.  He never really addressed that. Actually, that’s still very important; I said, “If his mother was not a citizen (at the time of his birth), then that’s it; the whole thing is over.”

A decision is expected from Masin sometime on Tuesday.

Williams was unavailable for comment for this article.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Mr. Apuzzo is a true patriot. Against all odds, he soldiers on in his effort to restore undivided allegiance and loyalty to the office of President and Commander in Chief.
    Those who dismiss Mario’s efforts or dare to conclude that Constitutional definition of the now ancient phrase “natural born Citizen” is settled law – are traitors willing to discard the will of the founders and framers for the whims and wiles of the moment.
    God Bless America and Patriots like Mario Apuzzo !

  2. Ted Cruz, IF USA Laws were diligently followed, which IS doubtful for Cruz considering his sealing of records as Obama HAS DONE,at BEST, CRUZ can ONLY achieve a NATURALIZED citizen STATUS after ALL Laws have been CAREFULLY obeyed and followed to the letter.NATURALIZED USA citizens CAN NEVER FOR ALL TIME, PURSUE AND SEEK THE OFFICES OF THE USA PRESIDENCY or VICE PRESIDENCY! A naturalized USA citizen IS a FOREIGN born USA citizen who required naturalization LAWS applied to him or her to BECOME a USA citizen.Ted Cruz IF he is a USA citizen can ONLY be a NATURALIZED USA citizen since he was born on CANADIAN soil, a FOREIGN country, although the USA’s geographical neighbor to the North on the North American Continent.Canada IS a Sovreign country of their own jurisdiction and has NO connection to the USA except diplomatic as is the case with all relations the USA has with FOREIGN countries worldwide.So Ted Cruz no matter how hard he tries CANNOT defy MOTHER NATURE and be considered a USA Natural born citizen for all time and ETERNITY!Cruz self admittedly born on Canadian soil and IS a natural born citizen of CANADA under that sovereign nations jurisdiction at the moment of his birth!THEIR EXISTS NO MAGIC WAND ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE THAT IS ABLE TO CHANGE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CIRCUMSTANCES!To be a USA PRESIDENT or VICE PRESIDENT an individual MUST HAVE BEEN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT THE VERY MOMENT OF THEIR BIRTH!BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION CAN TED CRUZ EVER BE A GENUINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE USA EVER FOR ALL TIME AND ETERNITY!Natural Law made TeD Cruz a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of CANADA ONLY FOREVER!Ted Cruz’s renunciation of his CANADIAN citizenship DID NOT MIRACULOUSLY CHANGE HIS GEOGRAPHY OF PHYSICAL BIRTH FROM CANADIAN SOIL TO THAT OF USA SOIL!From watching and listening to Cruz you would almost believe that he somehow believes he was able to change the Laws of nature and now considers himself to be born on USA soil.It is beyond belief that America’s Legal court system continues to grant this “NATURALIZED” citizen access to America’s Highest office which IS very obviously UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Maybe Arnold Schwartzneggar former Governor of California should NOW also run for the USA Presidency seeing how Congress and the USA court system don’t care anymore about Constitutional LAWS!

  3. My public open message to the LtGov of NJ regarding the constitutionally ineligible NATURALIZED citizen Ted Cruz: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/an-open-message-to-nj-ltgov-kim-guadagno-from-cdr-charles-kerchner-ret/ CDR Kerchner (Ret) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

    P.S. Atty Mario Apuzzo and Atty Victor Williams have filed Exceptions (an appeal of sort) to the LtGov of NJ re the judges decision. Links to those at end of my open message to the LtGov.

  4. Actually, there is also speculation that Sen Cruz’s mother, while she was in England, after she left Alan Wilson, became the common-law wife of a British subject after giving birth to child that died within one year (Michael Wilson). As a British subject, it would have taken her only a year to become a Canadian subject, and after becoming a Canadian citizen, she weds Cruz Sr., thus allowing him to also expedite his Canadian citizenship to three years.

  5. I’ve had it with the weasel wording and political judges.
    Since when does “citizenS” mean ONE?
    Even if we find a way to chisel out one parent, how do we get past the fundamental age old axiom that lineage descends from the Father?

    I am a taxpaying citizen with plenty at stake. My taxes, my freedom, my rights are all on the line.
    I object with all my rights, including GOG given above any public laws, that I do not “have standing”. To “rule” that I do not have standing is pure unadulterated political nonsense.

    Is there, anywhere in America, a real judge?

  6. from the department of state site:

    A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.

    According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.

    The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.

    Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.

  7. SR

    you stated:

    His mother was legal Canadian citizen when there was no dual citizen by Canada in 1970′s. It means She was not US citizen at when he born.

    unfortunately, the only suggestion that eleanor cruz was a canadian citizen appears to be her name on a voter registration list. the problem is that list was for the 1974 canadian general election. ted was born in 1970. so, even if she were a citizen in 1974, that is not proof of citizenship at the time felito was born.

    a better measure might be finding eleanor’s name on a calgary municipal voter list or an alberta provincial voter list prior to the time felito was born.

    however, even though canada did not recognize dual citizenship at the time ted was born, even if eleanor had in fact become a canadian citizen, i believe there is case law indicating that isn’t enough for eleanor to lose her u.s. citizenship.

    she must have affirmatively renounced her u.s. citizenship as opposed to just getting canadian citizenship.

    yes, a crba, a u.s. passport for felito applied for at the time of his birth in canada would be nice. also, u.s. tax filings for the period 1968-1974 when eleanor was in canada might prove useful as well. if she failed to file during that time, why? if she did, did she do so as single, married head of household, married filing jointly, etc. any of that might also be helpful.

    if she actually renounced her u.s. citizenship, she would have been required to file a “final” u.s. tax return.

    regarding the crba and a passport for felito, if you examine the link for eleanor’s son, michael, who was born and died in london, it shows some interesting information:


    first, notice it was a consular form of death, second, notice that the name of the minor child was listed on eleanor’s passport. both of these items would serve as proof of citizenship for michael.

    it doesn’t seem to be a stretch that eleanor was aware of the requirement of filing a birth with the consulate or listing felito on her u.s. passport with the consulate in calgary, either one of which would have established felito’s citizenship.

    that is why i believe that eleanor never intended for ted to be a u.s. citizen. she fled to canada with rafael b. cruz (who went there i believe to avoid being drafted into the army during the viet nam conflict). if the oil industry hadn’t collapsed in canada i don’t believe that the cruz family would have returned to the u.s.

    if business records were public in canada, the papers establishing r.b. cruz and associates might have listed eleanor and rafael as owners and possibly list them as taking permanent residence in canada. again, i believe there have been attempts to obtain this information but denied for privacy reasons.

    seems odd that since rafael b. cruz renounced his canadian citizenship in 2005 when be became a naturalized u.s. citizen that canada would any defense for privacy since he is not longer a canadian citizen.

  8. Can we dispel the myth that a CRBA is a requirement? It is not. It is only recommended that the parents get one. Cruz could still receive a US passport with four supporting documents, his BC, his mother’s BC, his parents’ marriage certificate and a statement that outlines the mother’s US residence.

  9. Cruz has to release his original certificate of naturalization and supported document. Just wondering how can Cruz apply US passport without attaching certificate of naturalization?

    His mother was legal Canadian citizen when there was no dual citizen by Canada in 1970’s. It means She was not US citizen at when he born.

    May be she applied for US citizenship again and then Ted applied for certificate of naturalization after?

  10. The fact is Cruz is guilty of submitting a false statement to the State of NJ and he has to defend it. Which , of course, he can’t.
    There is precedent: George Romney had to suspend his campaign, since he was born in Mexico to Two American parents. Barry Goldwater born in Arizona before it became a state.

  11. Rodgers v. Bellei
    SCOTUS case law precedent establishing that a man of a similar nativity story as Cruz is a “naturalized citizen”
    ” Bellei was not “born . . . in the United States,” but he was, constitutionally speaking, “naturalized in the United States.” Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship
    under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”

  12. I’m worried about the statement “If his mother was not a citizen (at the time of his birth), then that’s it; the whole thing is over.” If his mother was a citizen and did not file a CRBA, then Cruz was never a US citizen – and he holds his Senatorial seat illegally. The fact that his father was a Cuban citizen also makes Rafael “Ted” Cruz ineligible.

  13. The arguments by Mario are ‘irrefutable’ … except by a ‘Mickey Mouse would qualify’ judge like “Mickey” Masin.

    Our best hope is that Masin is a ClintonObot who thinks that Hitlery (even behind bars) will do better against Trump than Cruz… and rules accordingly.

  14. Great article. Please pass it on to your friends and family. America needs to know that many patriots are defending our Constitution, and candidate Cruz desires to rewrite it.

  15. We the People honor you for seeking the truth for us. We have been requesting transparency and an answer to this elusive question from Mr.Cruz since he decided to run for our President of the United States of America! Lin DiCesare, A Patriots Voice for Freedom!

  16. If Mario wins this it will be the first time an attorney has won a case against the Obama lie because Cruz is doing the exact same thing.

    Forcing the voter to prove a candidate is unqualified when the candidate has sealed records is asking for a pitchfork rebellion.