Friday, July 31, 2009

Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition

Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition for the Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit has been filed today by Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17914196/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-38-Plaintiffs-Reply-Brief-Supporting-CrossMotion-for-Leave-re-2nd-Amend-Complaint

Atty Apuzzo, time permitting, may comment more on this here later.

For more information and details contact Mario Apuzzo, Esq., at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al

P.S. See this site for how you can help with this lawsuit: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

9 comments:

jayjay said...

Mario/Charles:

Outstanding job which, indeed, bring things to a head very shortly!

"click, squeek, ping ..." Oops, just heard some more cracks in the Obama dike.

sjc said...

Senator John Cornyn (R) Texas is a member of the Senate Judicary Committee. He has a facebook account which he uses as a means to converse with his constituents. As a member of the Judicary Committee he represents us all with regard to Constitutional matters.

Here is my recent written facebook exchange of dialogue wth Sen Cornyn:

.



Stephen J Cyrier Thank you,Senator Cornyn for taking my tele-townhall question Wednesday evening, it was a true honor. I did have another question, but I refrained from employing an ambush question on a live broadcast, out of my deep respect for you both as my Senator and as a man .

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you understand that Article II Sec I requires the Presidency be occupied by a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Barack Obama Jr is ineligible by his own admission, that admission being-- his father was a British citizen ; and to our knowledge never a US citizen. Obama's admission is found in his book "Dreams From My Father."

The 3rd US Congress of 1795 recorded into the Congressional Record provides the statute which defines NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. If the chapter citation is needed please email me.

Sentor Cornyn we have a Usurper in the White House and it is your sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, Please do your duty sir. ASKED 7/29/09
You like this.


John Cornyn
I believe a lawsuit on this subject has been dismissed
RESPONSE 7/30/09

Stephen J Cyrier: Thank you for your reply Senator regarding my questioning of Obama's eligibility. While it is true a suit was dismissed (unfairly) that does not preclude the Senate Judiciary Committee from launching a Senate Hearing on the matter, or conducting a Senate Investigation into this matter, which millions of Americans, including our military are questioning. ASKED 7/30/09

The question above was deleted from his page. 7/31/09


Stephen J Cyrier Please explain to us the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Was Barack Obama's father ever a US citizen? ASKED 7/31/09


The question above was deleted from his page. 7/31/09


Stephen J Cyrier Is our beloved Constitution, the original contract with America now a worthless piece oF paper? ASKED 7/31/09

Status:Pending Cornyn's response



Some form of representative government of WE THE PEOPLE don't you think. Now even our Senators practice censorship of the 1st amendment.

Sure Cornyn could claim, albeit weakly, 4 questions over a 3 day period from one citizen was spamming his facebook site. But these questions were respectfully submitted and worthy of a response, not erased as if to sweep something under the carpet.

Apparently Sen Cornyn does not want to hear from me further on this matter.

How about you, maybe he would take your respectful, and I emphasis respectful question on this matter. Shrillness only makes us look like fools. Go to his facebook page ask the question he erased. If it comes from many of us he will get our point.

Please send this on to all in your address book and ask them to continue sending it along.

Steve Cyrier

jayjay said...

sjc:

Actually, NONE of our Beloved CongressCats want to hear about the matter as they are frightened to death of it - and the implications thereof.

If you've not seen the (unintentionally, I'm sure) hilarious set of "interviews" of mainly Republicans in DC - ambush journalism fer shure - by Mike Stark of HuffPo, you should Google it up. Perhaps then you conserve the electrons until We The People can bring some of the perps into court.

But you're sure to be commended for your efforts since it helps "spread the word" as do the Washington Times advertorials.

jayjay said...

All:

Here's the mis-quentioning by HuffPo's Mike Stark in two parts. Note how misinformed several of the CongressCats are on the matter (and how Startk helps Obama byu framing it as a "BC/Born in US" issue when it is really an eligibility issue):

Part 1 - http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/birthers_on_the_hill_1/

Part 2 -
(may have to pick it up from the YouTube clip shown)
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/birthers_on_the_hill_part_2/

It;s amazing not what Stark does in misinvorming his audience, but how uninvormed Congress is - and how cowardly they are.

I thought they took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and NOT to run away when a biased reporter asks a loaded question. Guess not, eh?

MarkR said...

Why is there no mention that in a complaint about an offense against the Constitution, everyone must have standing?

sjc said...

Brown v Board of Education

Standing

My father once told me " it doesn't matter what size school or university you attend, there is more there to be learned than you will be able to learn."

Taking that point of reference, one could argue, the central theme of Brown v Board.. that schools blacks attended were inferior; was not a valid argument. That the plantiffs in the case lacked standing because no actual harm occurred to them, that is was nothing more than anxiety, as all schools had more to learn than was possible to learn, and they should go to the polls for remedy.

On a lighter note, I watched "My Cousin Vinny" and found myself thinking "Nooooo,no way.....! our guy Mario? He would never dress like that in court, or refer to Obama etal, as.... the Utes in question...."

I do think as a participant of this band of brothers, I have earned a T-shirt. emblazoned with " Associate Legal Assistant to "My Cousin Mario". I hereby give leave to Charles to print'em up and even sell'em back to us.

You have done your best gentlemen, that's what we say to you.

squinlivan said...

Mario,

Having reviewed more than 20 Federal and State lawsuits where a Motion to Dismiss was being used to fend off a "day in court" it appears that "immunity" because the last and best "STOP" button for the lower courts to use in "getting rid of cases thhey dont want to deal with....I repeat my earlier assertion that enforcing, excuting, and complying with the "qualifications for President...IS A MANDATED MINISTERIAL DUTY OF CONGRESS...to which they DO NOT HAVE immunity, big key to immunity is "the character of the "ACT" and nnot the position of thhe actor. Judges hhave no immunity for ministerial acts, even when wrongly done from the bench, nor should Congress....

BIG QUESTION: Is the response from the Court going to happen, without any further "oral argument" or appearances...????

Thanks for all you have done!

Puzo1 said...

Squinlivan,

I agree with you that a cause of action based on ministerial acts with no request for any damages which could affect the public coffer is not subject to immunity. I made that exact argument in my opposition brief.

There is no oral argument on the motion. It is listed for decision on Monday, August 3, 2009. I have not received any word yet from the Court.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

Hello Everyone,

I was just over at Dr. Conspiracy's site. I found the following there written by the good doctor:

"When looking at Greshak, and Apuzzo, and Taitz and Berg, and P. A. Madison, and the rest of that crowd, I am reminded of this phrase from the Bible:

(Mat 6:7b NRSV) “…for they think that they will be heard because of their many words."

He then continues:

"What is interesting is to compare Emerich de Vattel with Edward Lord Coke. Both derived concepts of citizenship from natural law, but arrived at different conclusions. De Vattel believed nature made allegiance something inherited from one’s father (as it was in Swiss society) where Coke (Calvin’s Case 1608) said that allegiance was created when one was born under the protection of one’s lord. De Vattel’s analysis formed the basis of Swiss common law, including the rule of the 13 Swiss colonies of Swiss North America. Coke’s analysis formed the basis of British common law for nearly 300 years, including the rule of the 13 British colonies of British North America."

I responded to the good doctor as follows:

"I see you have gotten religious lately.

I also see that you are fond of Coke and I of Vattel. Could you provide me one case or more wherein the Court defines what a “natural born Citizen” (not just a “citizen”) is by referring to Coke and his definitions (or any other English common law authority). I do have several cases in which the Court does refer to and cites Vattel directly and his definition of what “natives” or “indigenes” or “natural born citizens” (all three distinguished from an ordinary “citizen”) are or just gives his definition thereof in defining those words. I have cited some of these cases in my opposition brief to Obamas’s and Congress’s motion to dismiss my complaint/petition.

I do hope that you will take me up on my challenge.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

I also offer anyone on this blog to help the good doctor find any such case. Let me know of your findings. Happy hunting.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.