DISCUSSION1: Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - Discussion Thread #1

The thread in the original announcement post was getting too lengthy. Therefore, I have started a new discussion thread for Kerchner v Obama with this posting. Please use this thread to ask questions or post comments about Kerchner v Obama. For your convenience, I have provided a link below to the Amended Complaint posted at SCRIBD.com. There you can read and download it to aid in discussing the case.

Case Doc Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

Now for some new rules. Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in the case threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this case. Unsubstantiated statements which I determine are false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts of this case, repetitive, argumentative, personal attacks, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics of the case as to my planned tactics or strategies for pursuing this case. That will be only be revealed at the appropriate time in subsequent court filings and in the hearings or trial. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on this case, it may be several hours to 1/2 a day at times before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Thank you for your kind consideration of the purpose of the blog posts about Kerchner v Obama and for your comments.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

COURT DOCUMENT: Kerchner et al v Obama et al Filed 20JAN09 about 3 a.m. As Amended 21JAN09.

For your convenience, here is the access link to the Amended Complaint to the original Complaint which I electronically filed on January 20, 2009, at about 3:00 a.m. Today, I uploaded the document to Scribd.com. You can read, print, and download a personal copy of the complaint as amended from this site.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

NEW CASE FILED: Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - Announcement

On early Tuesday morning, January 20, 2009, at about 3:00 a.m., I electronically filed a Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto on behalf of my clients, Mr. Kerchner, Mr. Patterson, Mr. LeNormand, and Mr. Nelsen, against defendants, Barack Hussein Obama II, United States of America, United States Congress, United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, Richard B. Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi. I filed the complaint in the Federal District Court of New Jersey and is now pending in Camden. It bears Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00253. The complaint seeks to learn the truth about whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. On January 21, 2009, I filed an Amended Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto. The Complaint and the Amended Complaint can be accessed and viewed at the District Court of New Jersey and Pacer web site. I will also be uploading a copy of the documents at this blog site as soon as possible so that they may be more easily viewed.

The defendants have not yet been served. I am now in the process of requesting that the Court issue to me the summonses so that I can then serve as soon as possible the Summons and Amended Complaint on the defendants.

As you know, the courts have refused to reach the underlying merits of the many lawsuits that have been filed on the question of whether Mr. Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Since no case such as this one has ever been filed in the history of our nation, this case would be precedent setting. My clients and I hope that we will get a court to reach the underlying merits of this question so that the American people will be assured that Mr. Obama is their legitimate President and not an usurper. I will appreciate whatever comments anyone has on the procedural posture and underlying merits of this lawsuit.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “NATURAL” AND “NATIVE” AS APPLIED TO AN ARTICLE II “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

Article II "natural born Citizen" is a word of art. In our quest to determine what it means when applied to a candidate’s eligibility to be President, we have to consider the particular context or knowledge environment out of which it originated. That means that we have to go back to the context and political and social environment in which the Founders and Framers found themselves. In this endeavor, we must first recognize that the term is found in our Constitution, a document that cannot be so simply changed because of the changing winds of political opinion. Next, we must look to the surrounding political and social circumstances with which the Framers were faced.

During the founding, "natural born Citizen" meant the same thing as "native born citizen." It is only in later years that the the term "native born citizen" came to mean a child born in the United States without any reference to the citizenship of his or her parents. The term was so used to distinguish a born citizen from a naturalized citizen. But use of the word "native" in this sense caused it to no longer mean the same thing as "natural born Citizen." In this modern context, "natural born Citizen" means much more than "native born citizen," for the former also has a connection to the child's parents and not just to the soil on which the child was born. The connection to the parents is of utmost importance because a child to a great degree "inherits" his/her values, condition, and allegiance from his/her parents. Knowing who a child's parents are tells us a great deal (of course not all) about the child in this connection. Put all together, this vital information helps the people to know who their would-be leader is and place their trust and national security in his hands. See Oxford English Dictionary for the definitions of "natural born" and "native born." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2160462/posts.

Finally, we must keep in mind that Article II only provides for threshold eligibility standards which are only the minimum requirements to be President. It does not make any further value judgments. Hence, once a would-be candidate satisfies the strict standard of what a "natural born Citizen" is, i.e., born on U.S. soil or its equivalent under military circumstances to two U.S. citizen parents who have acquired that status by birth or naturalization, it is still up to the people to vote for that individual based on their perception of what that candidate stands or does not stand for. In other words, there are no value judgments made by the people when it comes to a Presidential candidate's Constitutional eligibility requirements, for the Constitution has already given the people what those requirements are. Once that candidate shows the people through objective, credible, and sufficient evidence that he/she meets those minimum Constitutional eligibility requirements, the rest is in the hands of the people.

© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

January 10, 2009

Amended on November 16, 2009

NATIONAL SECURITY SHOULD DRIVE THE MEANING OF AN ARTICLE II “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

A would-be President in order to be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II of the Constitution has to be born on U.S. soil (or what is deemed equivalent under military circumstances) to two parents who were U.S. citizens (by birth or naturalization) at the time of his/her birth. Obama cannot be a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii (which is still in dispute) because, while he was born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, his father was a British citizen at the time of his birth. See E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations Sec. 212 (1758); July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution; Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.103,104); Naturalization Act of 1795 (1 Stat. 414) (children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States as opposed to natural born citizens); 14^th Amendment; Rep. John Bingham of Ohio speech on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898); Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1938), aff’d 307 U.S. 325 (1939); restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org.

In defining what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, we are attempting to define what the standard to be President of the United States is as envisioned by the Founders of our nation and the Framers of the Constitution who had just fought a revolutionary war against a foreign power. That standard has to be an exacting one. We are not talking about the requirements to hold any other political office, to be a judge, or to be an ordinary citizen. We are not referring to a citizen defined in the 14^th Amendment or by a Congressional Act. The Founders in their wisdom recognized the importance of the highest office in this country and for national security reasons singled it out in Article II, limiting it to individuals who have no conflicts in allegiance to our nation. The President alone has great power which is not the case for any Senator, Representative, or Judge who may not act alone but rather acts as part of a collegial body. The President may act alone, despite surrounding himself with a Cabinet and other political advisors. A non-Article II U.S. citizen (born on U.S. soil regardless of parental citizenship status or naturalized [14^th Amendment citizenship] or born abroad to one or two qualifying U.S. citizen parents [Congressional Act citizenship ] is eligible to serve as governor, senator, representative, judge, mayor, etc. but not President.

The question of what is a "natural born Citizen" must be answered not only with the thought of what is "fair," "popular," or "politically correct" in our immigrant America, but also with what makes sense from a self-survival standpoint. Perception of how safe our world is today is not relevant in this analysis. When analyzing the national self-survival factor, we have to assume the most extreme examples, existing not only in today's world but also in that of the future. If there is any doubt on this issue, we must err on the side of national security and not on the side of a liberal philosophy espoused to please all people.

© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

January 8, 2009

Jamesburg, New Jersey

DEFINING WHAT AN ARTICLE II “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” IS

Many have argued that a would-be President in order to be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II of the Constitution has to be born on U.S. soil to two parents who were U.S. citizens (by birth or naturalization) at the time of his/her birth. These same individuals have argued that Obama cannot be a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii because, while he was born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. In disagreeing with this argument, one commentator said the following:

"Yes. He is a natural born citizen. He was born in the USA, Hawaii. There are a few who comment on the Web that in their OPINION "natural born" where Article II is concerned requires that both parents be US citizens as well as the candidate being born in the USA. But most Constitutional experts hold that the Supreme Court will accept the definition of a "citizen at birth," which is defined in US law, which is Title 8 of the US Code.

After all, the Constitution does not specifically say: "A natural born citizen must have two parents who were citizens at the time of birth,” and it does not say "no dual national persons", and it does not say "no persons with divided loyalties at the instant of birth."

In other words, the really strict constructionist justices on the Supreme Court (two of whose fathers were born in Italy) will not accept that the definition of "natural born" means more than what US citizenship law requires. After all, does it actually say “the President of the USA must be born in the USA of two parents both of whom are citizens,” or does it say “in Article II the standards are higher than US citizens at birth”? No, it just says “a natural born citizen.’”

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/two-reasons-why-obama-will-neither.html.

I do not agree with the commentator for this reason. In defining what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, we are attempting to define what the standard to be President of the United States is as envisioned by the Founders of our nation and the Framers of the Constitution who had just fought a revolutionary war against a foreign power. That standard has to be an exacting one. We are not talking about the requirements to hold any other political office, to be a judge, or to be an ordinary citizen. The President alone has great power which is not the case for any Senator, Representative, or Judge who may not act alone. These later individuals are part of a collegial body. The President may act alone, despite his surrounding himself with a Cabinet and other political advisors.

Hence, the question of what is a "natural born Citizen" must be answered not only with the thought of what is "fair" and "politically correct" in our immigrant America, but also with what makes sense from a self-survival standpoint. When analyzing the national self-survival factor, we have to assume the most extreme examples, existing not only in today's world but also that of the future. When one puts these factors on the scale of justice, which way does the scale tip?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

January 7, 2009

WHAT IS OBAMA'S TRUE RELIGION?

Maxine Box, Stanley Ann Dunham's best friend in high school, in speaking about Obamas’s mother, said, "‘She touted herself as an atheist, and it was something she'd read about and could argue. She was always challenging and arguing and comparing. She was already thinking about things that the rest of us hadn't.’"^{[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham.}

“In his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father Barack Obama wrote, ‘My mother's confidence in needlepoint virtues depended on a faith I didn't possess... In a land [Indonesia] where fatalism remained a necessary tool for enduring hardship... she was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism.’"^[38] “In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope Obama wrote, ‘I was not raised in a religious household... My mother's own experiences... only reinforced this inherited skepticism. Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones... And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known.’"^[39] “Religion for her was ‘just one of the many ways — and not necessarily the best way — that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives,’" Obama wrote.^[37] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham.

Some of Obama's answers he gave during a 2004 interview to Chicago Sun Times columnist Cathleen Falsani when he was running for U.S. Senate in Illinois are rather revealing. http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html.

“FALSANI:
Who's Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)
OBAMA:
Right.
Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.
And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.
FALSANI:
Is Jesus someone who you feel you have a regular connection with now, a personal connection with in your life?
OBAMA:
Yeah. Yes. I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”

Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s sister, when asked if her mother was an atheist, said, "‘I wouldn't have called her an atheist. She was an agnostic. She basically gave us all the good books — the Bible, the Hindu Upanishads and the Buddhist scripture, the Tao Te Ching, Sun Tzu — and wanted us to recognize that everyone has something beautiful to contribute.’"^[36] "Jesus, she felt, was a wonderful example. But she felt that a lot of Christians behaved in un-Christian ways.’"^{[37] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham.}

Now in 2007, Obama said the following: “In 2007 Obama described his mother as ‘a Christian from Kansas.’" "‘I was raised by my mother,’" he continued. "‘So, I’ve always been a Christian.’"^[40][41] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham. “Also in 2007, he said in a speech, ‘My mother, whose parents were nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists, was one of the most spiritual souls I ever knew. But she had a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution.’"^{[42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham.}

Obama has stated and written that his mother was the most influential force in his life. You would then think that she had a great influence on his religious upbringing and the religious beliefs he eventually developed as an adult. In her high school years, she proclaimed to be an atheist, not a Christian In his Dreams From My Father, Obama wrote that his mother survived in Indonesia on “secular humanism,” not on Christianity. In the Audacity of Hope, he wrote that he was not raised in a religious household. Hence, he did not say he was raised in a Christian household. He explains that his mother’s memories of “the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones.” This shows that his mother did not consider herself a part of those Christians. During the Falsani interview, he said he had been going to church for so many years and that his Christian faith ran deep. But the way he answered the question on who Jesus is does not suggest that his Christian faith runs very deep. He called Jesus a "historical figure" and a "teacher in history." To refer to Jesus as a historical figure is a standard answer by someone who really does not believe in Jesus as a religious person but rather only as a person that lived in history. It is a secular answer or could even be an answer provided by someone from a different faith when speaking about Jesus. It is also a polite way to answer such a question and not offend the person asking the question. It is also unusual for a Christian to refer to Jesus as a "bridge between God and man," for he or she would not reduce Jesus to being a "bridge." Later in his answer, he tried to gain religious credibility by talking about his "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." But nothing in his answers in any way showed that he had any such real relationship. All his answers do not seem genuine but rather words given to the interviewer because that is what she and the voting public wanted to hear. Obama’s own sister said Obama’s mother was an agnostic and that she thought of Jesus as only an “example” of someone who “contributed” good to the world. A Christian would never see Jesus as only a contributor, for to such individuals Jesus through his Father is all that was, is, and ever will be (so much greater than a mere contributor). Then during his recent political campaigning in 2007, Obama described his mother as “a Christian from Kansas.” But what happened, now she was a Christian? He went on to say that he was raised by his mother and that he has “always been a Christian.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham. Also in 2007, he said that his mother was “one of the most spiritual souls I ever knew.” ^{[42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham.} But when did his mother’s religious transformation occur and when did that transformation become a spiritual part of Obama?”

Given what appears to be his rather shallow, even if that, faith in Christianity, one wonders what Obama did in the Trinity United Church of Christ for nearly twenty years, notwithstanding his statement that “[m]ost importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html. I am not saying that any one running for President must be a Christian. I am not questioning Obama's religion, whatever it is. Rather, I am only questioning Obama’s sincerity regarding what he says his religious faith is. I believe my suspicions are justified given that he made his statements in books he personally wrote and while campaigning for public office. Then, my next question is why would Obama tell us he was a Christian if he really is not? Why could he not tell us what his real religion is, if he has any?

Again, I am not condemning or denouncing Obama’s religion, whatever it is. I fully support freedom of religion for all people, provided that the religion is not used to harm others or self, is tolerant of other religions, is not used to convince its followers that they are superior in some way to the non-followers, and is not used for political purposes. I also believe that religion should never be used as an excuse to hurt or subjugate other people. Religion is suppose to show people that we, regardless of sex, race, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and physical and mental disability, are basically all the same, mortals with limited time on earth. It is suppose to show people that they are to do good works during their time on earth and that they will be rewarded in the afterlife based on those good works. How can a religious person therefore use religion to harm another human being? I also recognize that all religions have been guilty of doing harm at one point or another in history. That has been the human condition and does not mean that we cannot find good in those religions. We have to prevail and make a peaceful world today and in the future. Why could not Obama, who professes to be a unifying force for all peoples, tell us what his true religion is and give us the same message?

© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

January 4, 2009

THE TWO REASONS WHY OBAMA WILL NEITHER PUBLICLY SPEAK ABOUT WHERE HE WAS BORN NOR PRODUCE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Statements have been made in the public domain that if Obama was not born in Hawaii but rather in Kenya, that he actually committed a crime involving fraud. That leads me to think that if that were true, then Obama has a Constitutional and state common law right to avoid further self-incrimination and to remain silent. That could explain why he has neither talked publicly nor wants to talk in any court of law about where he was born. But his right to remain silent would not extend to withholding his original Certificate of Live Birth. Disclosure of documents is not testimonial (coming from a person's mouth) and his 5th Amendment and state common law right to remain silent and to not incriminate himself would not prevent such disclosure. This leads me to the main point.

Obama at present finds himself in a trilemma: (1) Does he state publicly that he was born in Hawaii if he knows he was not and thereby "perjure" himself in the court of public opinion should the truth be eventually discovered? If he so swore under oath before Congress or any court of law, it would be actual perjury. (2) Will he produce his original birth certificate which may show and will he tell the public the truth that he was not born in Hawaii but rather Kenya and thereby betray his natural instinct of self-preservation and his life-long ambition to be President of the United States? or (3) Does he remain silent as to where he was born and continue to refuse to release his original birth certificate and thereby earn the contempt of those in the public who believe that he has not convincingly proven that he is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be President? I submit that Obama has made the third choice.

The consequences for Obama are the least drastic and he gains the most benefits under the choice involving remaining silent and not producing his original birth certificate which is exactly what he has done to date. There are at least two reasons for this:

(1) To date, no court of law has been willing to accept any case challenging his "natural born Citizen" status. The courts have dismissed law suits against him for reasons of jurisdiction, standing, political question, justiciability, and for reasons unknown. These procedural obstacles have allowed him to escape having to defend the underlying merits of the claims against him which would necessarily involve his having to make declarations under oath as part of legal discovery and before the court itself in case of a trial. He will simply continue to pursue this procedural strategy, for being so successful will allow him to maintain his silence and not produce his original birth certificate with the cost to him personally of only having to pay his team of lawyers. This strategy explains why he is willing to spend enormous amounts of his own money and resources for his legal defense (maybe not even his own money if he can make a case that he can use his campaign contributions to meet the costs involved) and cause private individual plaintiffs and public institutions (courts and public entity defendants) to spend theirs with no end in sight. This strategy also provides great impetus to the sales of his past and future books, thereby further filling up his coffers. This strategy also explains why he is not willing to simply spend less than $100.00 and produce his original birth certificate for the benefit of those Americans who want to see it. Lastly, this strategy provides an answer to the question of, assuming that Obama in the end simply produces his original birth certificate which shows he was born in Hawaii, why would Obama risk the public then perceiving him as one who played a dirty little game for the sake of aggrandizing his own image and increasing his profits.

(2) Obama wants (i) people who simply voted for him, (ii) people who are apathetic to the eligibility issue or because of ignorance, fear, or self-ambition refuse to address it; and (iii) people who in good faith believe he is eligible to be President (these categories may overlap), to believe that all the law suits and internet chatter questioning eligibility to be President is political sour grapes, racism, or "tinfoil hat" conspiracy nonsense. These "explanations" for this outcry against him provide great camouflage for his silence and refusal to release his original birth certificate. This strategy limits any contempt backlash to only those who oppose him on the eligibility issue and to no one else, thereby greatly reducing the price associated with the public contempt component.

The benefits Obama gains from stonewalling compared to the price he has to pay for complete disclosure makes the choice to refuse to speak about where he was born and to produce his original birth certificate most attractive for Obama. The stakes are high in this game for the Office of President. Obama has shown that he has the arrogance and audacity to play the game any which way he wants simply to win that Office and greatly profit thereby. The question for many concerned Americans who doubt whether he is eligible to be President is what they can do to get the nation’s political, legal, and social institutions to adequately and honestly investigate and decide whether he is indeed qualified to be President. Obama’s strategy is now preventing these Americans from learning the truth about whether he is eligible to be President. The ball is in the court of those who challenge Him.

© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Jamesburg, New Jersey

THE ARROGANCE OF OBAMA

Some criticize those of us who continue to want to know who Obama really is. What they fail to understand is that we are simply still investigating Obama. It is our right and obligation under the United States Constitution to do so. It is our right and obligation to continue vetting him if no other national institutions will do so and to continue doing so until WE THE PEOPLE get a straight answer. This thought leads me to my greater concern.

Obama has refused all reasonable requests for information regarding his true identity. Hence, he expects that Americans will just accept him on his word, both spoken and unspoken. Does Obama believe in the goodness of the American people or rather, in his own arrogance or "audacity" as some others have described his trait? And this leads me to the most alarming question of all-Will this arrogance be so effective that the American people themselves will cause their own demise for failure to stand up to him?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

January 1, 2009