Wednesday, February 4, 2009

DISCUSSION2: Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - Discussion Thread #2

New month, new thread for this case. Thus, 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 There you can read and download it to aid in discussing the case.

Case Doc Link:

The 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.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Post moved from prior thread for continuity to start off this new thread.

Mtngoat61 said to AP:

You are wrong again and imo are deliberately misleading people here once again in this forum. I have studied your postings closely ... and you continually want to mislead people reading here.

For you to argue there are only two types of citizens is ridiculous. And, as I said, I believe that you must know that, but simply wish to camp out here and conveniently mislead people and forget the contents of the Constitution in your postings by using the tactic in debate of the deliberate error of omission on your part. Obama was good at that too, i.e., deliberately omitting release of his long-form, vault copy, signed by his mother, original CERTIFICATE of Live Birth (Birth Certificate), possibly stapled to the front of a Kenyan Birth Certificate document, imo. As they say, birds of a feather flock together ... you are known by the company you keep ..., etc., comes to mind in reading you and in reading Obama and the company he kept in Chicago.

There are five types in the U.S. Constitution. Of course folks of your crowd (the O-Bot supporters) don't care about the Constitution, do you?

To remind you, just in case you never read the Constitution, here are the five types of citizenship mentioned and/or referenced in the Constitution:

1. The Citizen in the general and broadest all encompassing sense mentioned in many places in the Constitution.

2. The grandfathered group, original citizen subset mentioned in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

3. The "natural born citizen" subset mentioned in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

4. The "born" citizen subset listed in the 14th Amendment.

5. The "naturalized" citizen subset listed in the 14th Amendment.

You only want two types of citizens in order to lump "natural born citizen" and "born citizen" as being one and the same. Nice try. ;-) But even erroneously doing that you missed other types.

Read the Constitution instead of trying to twist it here in this forum. Also, read the "natural law", Wong, Elg, and other cases which dispute your attempts to mislead people on the parsing of the term, natural born citizen, and decide that there are only two types of citizens. John has it right and you have it wrong.

John can answer you some more, if he cares to, but I think you are here just playing games and running people in circles and wasting time and trying to plants seeds of false logic to support you and your O-Bot crowds position regarding Mr. O, the usurper in the Oval Office. Thus, debating you further is a waste of time.

M Publius Goat

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Post moved from Discussion1 thread for continuity purposes.


You collapse "natural born" into one citizenship status and equate that status with Fourteenth Amendment birth citizenship. You then proclaim that as long as a person possesses Fourteenth Amendment birth citizenship status, he/she can be President. I might agree with you if the Founding Fathers when writing Article II said "born Citizen." But the simple and most profound and powerful truth is that they said more than that. They said "natural born Citizen."

I will not allow you to so easily dismiss the Founder's words and to discredit all intelligent effort at finding meaning in all their words by characterizing such efforts as mere "parsing of words" or "sophistry." You have still to unlock the secret. Keep trying.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

mtngoat61 said...

Hi all,

I updated my citizenship types chart, which I first prepared in the late Fall of 2008, which shows the various citizenship terms and types (five) used and mentioned in the U.S. Constitution in various places and for various persons and qualifications for various offices in our federal government, with a provided short definition and some legal reference to the legal and historical sources of those definitions and the meanings of those terms. Hope this is helpful to all. If desired, feel free to print it out and hand it out to friends and family or post the link to it anywhere you wish.

M Publius Goat


What is the current status of this case?

Thanks, Ken

Anonymous said...


In an act dated June 27, 1782, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts naturalized Micheal Cunningham and John Prescott (see the article titled "The Naturalization Acts of Massachusetts: 1776-1790" at There they used the phrase "natural Subjects".

Do you agree with the following statement?:

The meaning of the phrase "natural Subjects", as it was used by Massachusetts in the naturalization act for Micheal Cunningham and John Prescott, may be composed from the meanings of its two constituent words.

John Greschak

Anonymous said...

Mr. Apuzzo:
I have received multiple emails as it has been stated that Orly Taitz is co-counsel on the Kerchner matter. Mrs. Taitz was asked if this was true in the comments section of her blog. She deleted the comments and did not respond. As such my response has been, that to my knowledge there was no co-counsel on your case and that you are not requesting donations. They requested clarification in Mrs. Taitz comment section and these were deleted. The only response was in her blog (now scrubbed) where she stated she was"co-counsel" on many cases." She did not specify which cases.she chose to let this rumor persist. Individuals have donated money assuming that it was for the Kerchner case. I would appreciate it if you would please inform us if Mrs. Taitz is co-counsel, and if you have authorized her to collect donations for the Kerchner case.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To 34N2NBC:

This is the first time that I have heard of such a rumor. Orly Taitz, Esq. is not co-counsel on the Kerchner case. In fact, I never spoke to her about the Kerchner case and I am the only attorney in this case. I at no time authorized anyone including Mrs. Taitz to solict or collect any donations for the Kerchner case. I am also not aware that Mrs. Taitz has done so. I am immediately posting this response without even communicating with Mrs. Taitz conerning the veracity of these allegations because I wanted to quickly dispel any such rumors. Please pass this response to those who have been emailing you. Also, please feel free to contact me by email regarding this matter if you so chose.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
apuzzo [at] United States Marijuana Party said...

Mr. Apuzzo,
Has this case of yours been
served yet?
If you want a copy of the
e-mail U.S. Senator
Patrick Leahy sent me
regarding this subject,
e-mail me and I'll send
it to you.
Vermont resident

at4 said...


If I am reading you correctly, you are saying there are two kinds of citizenship from the 14th Amendment--born citizens and naturalized citizens.

I have been told the words in the US Constitution mean exactly what the framers meant for them to mean. The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution defines a person born within the jurisdiction of the United States to parents who are both US citizens, as a natural born citizen.

John Bingham, as he defined the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen;”

(Rep. John Bingham, a framer of the US Constitution and father of the 14th Amendment. The above quote is from the Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866).)

And Sen Howard Jacob, the framer who actually penned the citizenship clause, was very clear about people who did not owe total allegiance to the US. He stated the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment excluded persons born in the USA but who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...

Since Father Obama was an alien (he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and here temporarily in the US as a foreign student), son Obama (according to Bingham) was not a natural born citizen of the United States regardless of where he was born.

According to Sen Howard, Son Obama was not a US citizen at all. By virtue of natural and national law, Son Obama inherited his father's citizenship--United Kingdom and Colonies.

I am realistic enough to expect strange rulings from judges. Still, as a non-lawyer, I believe the best way to keep myself strong and able to resist the propaganda from the opposition is to read and reread the US Constitution, and the words of Bingham, Howard, et al. As a result, regardless of what birth certificates, passports and school records turn up or not turn up, I know Son Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and that's all that matters as regards the presidency. (He appeared to have been a NBC of the United Kingdom and Colonies, though, for awhile anyway.)

mtngoat61 said...

Hello at4:

I am saying there are five types of citizens of the U.S. mentioned in the Constitution. Two were mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Two were mentioned in Article II, Section I, Clause 5. And the general named type is citizen, which is the fifth type mentioned, is the all encompassing group of which the others are subsets, is mentioned many places in the Constitution. All citizens of the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. but not all Citizens of the U.S. are born citizens, not all are naturalized citizens, and not all are natural born citizens, and none remain who were the original U.S. citizens when the Consitution was adopted. And only the subset who are "natural born citizens" can serve as the President and Commander in Chief of our military, that is the subset of citizens which is the largest group, those born in the USA to two parents both of whom were citizens at the time of the child's birth. See my chart which shows the above in table form:

Look over the chart. Print it out. Hope this clarifies. The Constitution mentions five types of citizens, not just two as some O-Bot obfuscaters here and in other blogs try to claim.

M Publius Goat

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Apuzzo,

You may want to add this information for your case if you haven't already.

On January 27, 2009, the Department of Defense issued a press release stating they will be signing up civilians for an "expeditionary workforce" to deploy overseas.

This program is open to "former and retired civilian employees who agree to return to federal service".

It's carefully worded here, but as you can see, they indicate a draft if the numbers they are seeking are not sufficient:

"volunteers be sought first for any expeditionary requirements, before requiring anyone to serve involuntarily or on short notice"

Duty tours may include combat. United States Marijuana Party said...

In my own personal litigation experience, a simple tiny item can be the biggest thing. Defendants in my case lied, I noticed the fine print on a permit, that was a legally required notice, making it so that they had a legal duty to reveal the reason the notice was there. U.S. Supreme Court Reports by Daniel A. Klein LEXIS Publishing 2001 Page 119 Cris Ericson, Petitioner v IDC Services, Inc., et al. 528 US, 146 L Ed 2d, 2000 US Lexis 1560, 120 S Ct 1265. February 8, 2000 and Federal Register April 15, 1997 EPA response to citizen petition against Lead Azide. Two published federal opinions, me, not an attorney, representing myself, exposing an industry trade secret, which they started off by claiming were harmless chemicals, and ended up being 3 federally regulated toxic hazardous substances. What was the tiny legal notice on the Los Angeles Fire Department permit? It said, "D-8-2", only there was no such thing. The employer of record had a legal duty to reveal the underlying material facts which that legal notice on the permit stood for. It turns out it stood for D 80 2, the 80 being a huge difference between harmless chemicals, and a federally regulated toxic hazardous substance. The EPA ruled that I still didn't have enough facts. I had to file a complaint against state OSHA to bring in federal OSHA and to find out that the Los Angeles Fire Department Permit just happened to fraudulently conceal two more chemicals, PETN plastic high explosive detonators and Lead Styhpnate. These combined with the first chemical, Lead Azide, are three of the most dangerous chemicals in the world. These were PUBLISHED court opinions because I was the first to break the inside-industry trade secret.
Then U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy took campaign contributions from Dewey Ballantine PAC, Dewey Ballantine was the employer of my opposing attorneys, and then all appeals were dismissed and denied, even though one of their attorneys filed a Waiver before the U.S. Supreme Court which meant I made no mistake of law or fact. My case was dismissed after two published opinions admitted the use of these chemicals and that I was injured with them; and this industry is still exposing workers. After my first petition to the Supreme Court of the U.S. was dismissed, I filed a petition to individual Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg asking the Court to appoint me an attorney because I was pro se, and I was handling multi-district litigation against multiple mega corporations, alone, and injured, a case that began in Unemployment for wrongful termination, not workers' comp., so that I had a legal right to go to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Ten years in court, close to winning, and batted out of the ball park by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy. The United States District Court opinion I was seeking to have overturned was full of fraud and errors, including the eroneous statement that my injuries were healed.

Because of my legal experience, I just want to really impress upon everyone how important details are.
So what if I lost, I only lost because of wrongful abuse against me. I was right. The chemicals are too dangerous to expose employees the way they are being exposed.

I can't impress upon you enough how important it is to dwell on the three legal notices on Barack Hussein Obama's "Certification of Live Birth":
(1) Date of birth Aug. 4, 1961
Date filed with Registrar Aug. 8, 1961
(2) [HRS 338-13(b), HRS 338-19]

HRS 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of 338-16, 338-17, 388-18

(3) (Rev. 11/01) LASER

Barack Hussein Obama obtained this Certification of Live Birth AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE U.S.A.,
AFTER 9/11,

"District Court did not abuse its discretion in applying Federal Rules of Evidence rather than Hawaii Health Department Rules in finding results of intoxilizer test admissible under public records and reports exception to hearsay rule of Rule 803(6)(8). United States v De Water (1998, CA9 Hawaii)
846 F2d 528,
25 Fed Rules Evid Serv 748."


The most important thing is to prove is that the defendant has a duty to reveal material facts.

The DUTY to reveal material facts is based on a piece of paper, on the legal notices on the piece of paper.
Keep it Simple.

President Obama is the government now.
28 USCS, Section 1491 (a)(1)
The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States.

Cris Ericson

Anonymous said...

I have been considering the issue of whether or not the following is a necessary condition for a given person to be a natural born Citizen of the United States:

The person's country of legal residence has been the United States, throughout their life.

The interpretation of natural born Citizen that I have put forward in my essay "What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?" (at is:

Interpretation. The natural born Citizens of the United States are those particular born Citizens that one would expect to be the most numerous kind (with respect to the degree to which they belong or have belonged to, or owe or have owed allegiance to, a foreign country), by reason that this eventuality would be in accord with the essential nature, function or mode of being of the United States.

To apply this interpretation, one must consider the factors that come into play in measuring the degree to which a given born Citizen of the United States belongs to a foreign country. To that end, I have compiled a list of factors that are used by the United States (and other countries) to determine the degree to which one belongs to, or owes allegiance to, a given country. Here is what I have so far:

- The place where one was born.

- The date on which one was born.

- The country, or countries, of which one was, at birth, subject to the jurisdiction.

- The citizenship of one's parents from the time of one's birth until one's age of majority.

- The country, or succession of countries, of legal residence of one's parents from the time of their births until one's age of majority, including any dates on which the country of legal residence changed.

- One's country, or succession of countries, of legal residence since birth, including any dates on which one's country of legal residence changed.

- One's country, or succession of countries, of residence since birth, including any dates on which one's country of residence changed.

- Any voluntarily actions one has done with the intent to gain or lose citizenship of a country, that resulted in a change in one's citizenship.

John Greschak

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


This Kerchner et al v. Obama et al "DISCUSSION2" thread is now closed. I have started a new Discussion #3 thread above to continue these discussions of the case and the "natural born citizenship" debate. Please post your comments and questions about this case and continuation of these discussions at the new post. I will post replies to any still unanswered questions and comments you posted in this thread in that new thread. But please do not post any more new comments or questions here. Click below to go directly to the new discussion thread for the Kerchner v. Obama case.

Thank you,
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.