Obama Continues to Deny America the Protection of the Constitution’s “Natural born Citizen” and Residency Clause

The test to determine whether one is a “natural born Citizen” is an objective one. The status is determined by looking at the person’s circumstances at the time of birth and applying a bright-line test that is comprised of objective factors.

Going back as far as the Roman Empire, nations have bestowed citizenship upon individuals based on where they were born and/or to what parents they were born. These factors for granting citizenship are technically known as jus soli (right by soil) and jus sanguinis (right by blood).

It has been believed that being born on a certain soil or to certain parents passes to a child at the time of his/her birth a state of being causing the child to have allegiance and attachment to the nation in which that soil is physically located (his/her birth nation) and to the nation of either of his parents. It is generally accepted internationally that it is the allegiance that one owes to a nation that gives that person the right to claim that nation’s citizenship. We saw an example of this in the now-expired grandfather clause of Article II wherein the Founding Fathers allowed the original citizens (not “natural born Citizens”)--all those who were citizens and fought for the Revolutionary Cause and risked their very lives and therefore objectively manifested their attachment to the United States--to be eligible to be President of the United States, regardless of where or to whom they were born.

We can readily see that United States and English common law and statutes, treaties, European civil law, and other foreign law all show that a child can acquire citizenship at birth by either being born on a nation’s soil or by being born to a nation’s citizens no matter where the child is born. Hence, it follows a fortiori that allegiance can be acquired from either being born on a nation’s soil or being born to parents who are citizens of a certain nation and thereby owe that nation their allegiance.

Allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) is not simply a dusty thing of the past but very much with us today. The role that allegiance plays in granting citizenship to an individual is seen when we examine our own naturalization laws. During the Washington Administration, the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so created by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance only to the United States, is not eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of the nature and quality of the allegiance of a “natural born Citizen” who can be President of the United States.

We have seen that one who is a citizen of a nation owes one’s allegiance to that nation. It is also generally accepted in the international community that allegiance carries with it both political and military obligations in exchange for which a person receives his/her nation’s protection.

From all this we learn that the factors that determine whether one is a citizen at birth are (1) the child’s place of birth; (2) the mother’s citizenship at the time of the child’s birth; and (3) the father’s citizenship at the time of the child’s birth. These factors are objective, for they do not readily change over time and because their existence vel non may be confirmed in the minds of most reasonable persons who may come to examine through a scientific process the nature and quality of the evidence that supports their existence vel non. Concerning a “natural born Citizen,” whatever experiences a person has later in life are not relevant in making that person as such, for the very test requires that the person be born with the status. Conversely, the circumstances of one’s birth surely influence one’s later life experiences and values.

When a person can satisfy all three prongs of the objective test which are necessary conditions, i.e., that he/she was born in the United States to a mother and father that were United States citizens (by birth or naturalization) at the time of his/her birth, that person is indeed an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for no other nation can claim that person as its citizen and consequently expect that person to owe that other nation any allegiance and military or political obligations whatsoever. Nor will the person himself/herself in such case have any doubt that he/she has any such connection or obligation to any foreign nation. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” is a citizen only of the United States, as recognized not only by the person himself/herself, but by all other nations under principles of natural law as confirmed by international law. This principle was codified by Emerich de Vattel in his treatise, The Law of Nations (1758) (1759 first English translation), upon which the Founding Fathers heavily relied in creating the new Constitutional Republic. This is the natural quality that the Framers wanted a would-be President to have from the time of birth, a quality that needs no law to be created. This is the natural quality they wanted a would-be President to carry throughout his or her growing years and into adulthood, for they believed that only with this innate status and quality could the unique and powerful Office of the President be insulated and protected from any foreign influence emanating either from the person himself/herself or from any foreign nation or both. Even assuming that Obama was born in the United States, this is the natural quality that Obama does not and cannot have because not only at the time of his birth his father was a British subject but also because under English nationality laws his father gave his British nationality to his son, Obama, thereby causing him to be born with dual allegiances. Also, his father had absolutely no attachment to the United States, not being a legal permanent resident and having come to America on a student visa only to benefit from its educational institutions and always having an intent to return to Kenya. In fact, when his father completed his studies, he returned to Kenya. Under these birth circumstances, how can we reasonably expect Obama’s father to impart to his son American constitutional values that the Framers considered to be so important for the future survival and safety of the Constitutional Republic?

It is important to understand that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not the same as a 14th Amendment “citizen.” The 14th Amendment Framers knew that the Founding Fathers in Article II used the terms “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States” and that they must have concluded that there was a difference between the two terms. The 14th Amendment framers chose to address “citizens of the United States,” not “natural born Citizens of the United States.” This Constitutional amendment simply does not and cannot nullify the special and distinct meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for it was never the amendment’s framers’ intent to do so nor do the amendment’s exact words accomplish such. Furthermore, for want of Constitutional authority, an Act of Congress cannot nullify or alter the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Given subsequent U.S. Supreme Court interpretation that has had nothing to do with an Article II “natural born Citizen,” a 14th Amendment citizen qualifies as such when he/she is naturalized or when he/she is born on U.S. soil without the need that the child’s parents also be U.S. citizens. But a decision of the United States Supreme Court that does not specifically address the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” cannot be reasonably read to render that clause meaningless.

It is not bad enough that Obama does not agree with the objective test described herein (jus soli and jus sanguinis combined at the time of birth). Ostensibly, Obama has taken the position that being born on U.S. soil is all that is necessary for him to satisfy the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II, arguing that his father’s foreign citizenship status is not relevant in the analysis. Many Americans who have a deep concern and love for the Constitution have made a reasonable request of Obama that he produce conclusive proof that he was born in the United States. But for some unknown reason, Obama has refused to show the American people that he satisfies the simple test that he himself advocates (jus soli).

But the suspected fraud upon the American people does not stop there. Article II, Section 1 not only requires that one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President, but also that one be 35 years old and a resident within the United States for 14 years. The Founding Fathers wanted a Presidential candidate not only to be a “natural born Citizen,” but also to have developed American constitutional values by living in the United States and thereby learning and assimilating its ways and political and social culture. Hence, they included the 14-year residency requirement. During this 14-year time period, a candidate can engage in various educational, social, cultural, political, and work activities, all of which will shape and develop his/her character to hold the highest political office in the land. It is during this time period that a candidate also contemporaneously creates a paper trail of his/her activities which in the end is a better way to judge him/her than just relying on self-serving speeches. That the candidate must be at least 35 years old guarantees the people that the candidate will engage in a great part of those character-building activities at a minimum between the years when he/she is 21 to 35 years old. These are adult years, a time when the people can truly learn about the character of a would-be President.

In Obama’s case, a great part of his life that is so important in this regard centers on his years as a student at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. Obama’s working activities as a lawyer are also important in this regard. Apart from the time he spent living and going to school in Indonesia when he was younger, Obama also did quite a bit of international travel during these formative years, traveling to Pakistan and Kenya. The reason for his travels, what he did during his travels, and other details about those travels could provide the American people not only with credible and objective evidence showing where he was born but also great insight into Obama’s character. Apart from refusing to allow the American people to assure themselves that he was born in Hawaii, Obama has also refused to allow the American people to look into his education, work, and travel experiences. Some details that we do know about his international travels which are quite revealing are his going to Kenya and personally getting involved in that country’s internal politics and traveling to Berlin, Germany where he proclaimed on July 24, 2008 to 200,000 Germans: “…I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before, although tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world” (emphasize supplied). Yes, Obama described himself as a world citizen. How can Obama have sole allegiance to the United States if he is a citizen of the world? Alexander Hamilton cautioned: "safety" of the Republic "depends" upon "love of country" and "the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice." Woodrow Wilson stated in 1915 that "the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes." Hence, "world citizens" need not apply for the Office of the President. Would the Founding Fathers have allowed such an individual, with dual or more allegiances, to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States? More troubling is the question of why does Obama see himself as a “citizen of the world?” Obama’s papers could reveal even more about him.

The American people and media, to properly vet him, are entitled to know this information. But he has refused to release all his important education, work, and travel documents for public scrutiny. One could say that he has satisfied the letter of the residency requirement. But has he really satisfied the spirit and purposes of Article II’s residency requirement? Notwithstanding one judge recently ruling although without any factual basis that “[t]he issue of the President's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Obama's two-year-campaign [sic] for the presidency,” Obama surely has not satisfied the reason for that important Constitutional requirement, for he has violated the very purpose for which the Framers made 14 years of residency a requirement to be President, that purpose being to give the American people and their political and media institutions a real and meaningful opportunity to learn about (“vet”) an individual who would aspire to be the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of all its military might.

Obama has not conclusively shown he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Nor has he honored the spirit and purpose of Article II’s 14-year residency requirement. Hence, let us ask ourselves, what has he done to show that he is constitutionally eligible and qualified to be President? Nothing! Which leads me to my final two questions: How did America’s people and her political and media institutions--leaders of the educated and free World--let him get away with it? And what are Americans who care for and love America and her Constitution going to do about it?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

MommaE Radio Rebels - BlogTalkRadio Network - 8:30 EDT Friday 20 Mar 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress et al - Update & Q&A

I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the MommaE Radio Rebels talk radio show Friday evening, 20 March 2009, from 8:30 to 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host MommaE and guest host Mark McGrew, a writer and contributor to the online English version of the Russian news organization Pravda, and via phone calls from the listening audience. There is also a chat room which the listeners can participate in live while the show is on the air. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you Friday night on the radio show.

To listen to the BlogTalkRadio.com show live Friday night or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels/2009/03/21/Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

America's True Form of Government

Here is a link to a very good educational video at YouTube.com about America's True Form of Government. At least we had it originally. It is now further under threat by the trampling of Article II of our Constitution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw
Can we keep it?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Andrea Shea King Radio Show - BlogTalkRadio Network - 9:00 EDT Monday 16 Mar 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress et al - Update & Q&A

I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Andrea Shea King talk radio show Monday evening, 16 March 2009, from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Andrea Shea King and via phone calls from the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.

To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live on the air or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingRight/ASKShow/2009/03/17/The-Andrea-Shea-King-Show

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

On the People’s Unalienable Right to Safety and the Pursuit of Happiness

In the words of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

From these fundamental truths we can see that safety and happiness are the essence of life and liberty. If life and liberty are themselves unalienable rights, so must be its essence, safety and happiness. It is also clear from these truths that government obtains its power to govern from the consent of the governed and that the people consent to give that power to a government for the sole purpose of having that government protect their safety and happiness. It is also a fundamental truth that when the people give their consent to the government to govern them, they have entrusted that government with the protection of their safety and happiness.



The people spoke when THEY drafted the Constitution. Among other things, in Article II they proclaimed what will be the qualifications to be President. One of these qualifications is that the President be a “natural born Citizen.” The people therefore gave to a would-be President their consent that he govern and protect them, provided that, among other things, the President meets that necessary qualification for the office, all this so that once in power that President can protect the people’s safety and happiness. Our Constitution shows that the people would not give their consent to govern to any would-be President if that President is not so qualified and therefore constituted so as to protect their safety and happiness.

A putative President who would desire to sit in the Office of President without the trust and consent of the people surely cannot reasonably claim that the people have given that trust and consent to him to govern and protect them, for if the putative President has not met the people’s Constitutional qualification test, how can he claim that he has the people’s trust and consent to govern and protect them? If the sole purpose of the people’s government is to protect their safety and happiness, and if the people have not given that government their trust and consent to govern them, then it only follows that the people have not put their trust in that government to protect their safety and happiness. A government which does not have the people’s trust and consent to govern them cannot continue to do so, for it does not have the people’s permission or warrant to protect their safety and happiness. The people have a right to remove that putative President from power if they have not given him their trust and consent which he needs to claim that he is legitimately protecting their safety and happiness. If the people are compelled to live with a putative President in power who has not received their trust and consent to govern and protect them, then that would-be President and government that would allow that usurper President to illegitimately stay in power have violated the people’s unalienable rights to safety and the pursuit of happiness.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

MommaE Radio Rebels - BlogTalkRadio Network - 8:30 EDT Friday 13 Mar 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress et al - Update & Q&A

I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama et al' case, and I will be on the MommaE Radio Rebels talk radio show Friday evening, 13 March 2009, from 8:30 to 10:00 p.m. EST. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host MommaE and Guest Host Mark McGrew, a writer and contributor to the online English version of the Russian news organization Pravda, and via phone calls from the listening audience. There is also a chat room which the listeners can participate in live while the show is on the air. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you Friday night on the radio show.

To listen to the BlogTalkRadio.com show live Friday night or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels/2009/03/14/Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Natural Born Citizen - a 'Term of Art' put in our Constitution in 1787 by Jay - Written & Defined by Vattel in 1758 - The Law of Nations Tome 1 pg 197

Please use this discussion thread for the continuing discussion regarding "natural born citizenship" as per the Constitutional standards and the intent of the founders and framers who embarked up the creation of "a more perfect union" inspired by the writings of Vattel in his preeminent legal treatise of the time on government of a nation, "The Law of Nations - Tome 1". The work of Vattel was read by the founders and framers before the Rev. War, during the Rev. War, after the Rev. War, and at the Constitutional Convention where our Constitution was written. Minds like Madison, Hamilton, and Jay wove the inspiration of Vattel into a new national government. A government that would guarantee to the people that created it; life, liberty, and happiness. Vattel was the recipe and the 13 colonies loosely confederated were the laboratory for the creation of a new form of federal government, a more perfect union, that the world had not seen in reality before. It existed in the inspirational writings of Vattel. A Constitutional Republic with separation of powers and an independent Judiciary with a written Constitution as the ultimate and supreme law of the land for its new federal government, the United States of America. Our founding fathers created it. A Republic. Now can we keep it?

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, user IDs with embedded messages or URLs, inappropriate user IDs, and 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. If your post does not appear in 24 hours it has likely been rejected for violations of these rules.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: appuzzo [AT] erols.com
Tel: 732-521-1900 ~ Fax: 732-521-3906
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Justice and the American People Not Served by the Hollister v. Soetoro Decision

In the case of Hollister v. Soetoro, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently granted Mr. Obama's (Soetoro) and Mr. Biden's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff, a retired Air Force colonel, filed his lawsuit as an interpleader action. Such an action is designed to protect someone who does not know to whom the person should pay money by allowing the person to pay the money into a court for later resolution. Plaintiff argued that he is not yet convinced that Obama is qualified to be President under Article II. He said that he has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and that should he be recalled to military duty he would not be sure whether or not he should follow Obama’s orders, which uncertainty caused him to suffer fear of exposure to multiple claims, hazards, and injury. Basically, plaintiff sought to equate his fear of multiple claims he potentially could face should Obama give him any military orders with someone being conflicted with multiple economic claims.

We have already witnessed so many courts around the country dismiss cases regarding the Obama eligibility question because of standing. Standing is the showing that a plaintiff has to make which convinces a court that he has suffered an injury caused by the defendant’s conduct which the court can remedy by its potential decision. Because of the serious standing hurdle, I am sure the plaintiff’s attorneys used the interpleader argument in their effort to convince the court to find standing and eventually get to the merits of the case which is were the justice lies. Given how courts all over the country have dismissed the eligibility cases because of standing, we cannot fault the plaintiffs’ attorneys for trying something creative in order to overcome the standing issue.

Defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing plaintiff did not have standing and that he failed to state a claim upon which the court can grant any relief. They did not challenge the plaintiff on the merits of his law suit (i.e. whether Obama was born in Hawaii) but rather on the threshold question of whether they stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ potential military duties were not property and that no interpleader action could be maintained.

In its ruling, the court said:

“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case, has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end. “

***
“The issue of the President's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Obama's two-year-campaign [sic] for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”

The judge went on to chastise plaintiff’s local lawyer because in his opinion the lawyer who filed the case used the courts to harass the defendant and now threatens to force him to pay the defendants’ attorney’s fees.

It is important to understand that the court did not rule that Obama was born in Hawaii or that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The only thing the court did was to rule that the plaintiffs’ potential military duties or orders are not property and therefore no interpleader action could be maintained. Hence, the court never addressed the underlying question of whether Obama is qualified to be President.

The court however went much too far in its opinion in suggesting that Obama has been fully vetted (ridiculing the internet activity regarding the eligibility issue), the courts are not the proper forum to resolve the Obama eligibility issue, and in threatening to impose sanctions against the plaintiff’s local attorney. Additionally, the court unreasonably strayed from the facts and the law and entered into the political arena and in so doing has caused serious repercussions for freedom of expression, participatory democracy, and public access to the courts.

The court’s comments about wanting to avoid the law being perceived as foolish, that maybe there are too many lawyers with nothing to do, that the case has only excited the “blogosphere and conspiracy theorists,” that Obama’s eligibility question has been fully “raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry,” and that the real plaintiff is on a crusade and does not merit to be taken seriously can do nothing for justice and public respect for the court. If anything, such comments will only mislead the public into thinking that the underlying issue of Obama’s eligibility has no merit when the court never reached that issue. One can see from how the media has reported this case that they only report on the judge’s scathing attack on the plaintiff’s lawyers and his order that he is looking to sanction the attorney, all without telling the public that the court never decided where Obama was born or whether he is a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s comments can only serve to have a chilling effect on plaintiffs who may want to pursue what they in good faith believe to be constitutional challenges to Obama’s eligibility to be President. If the court does not want any such further actions, then it could have decide the merits of the case rather than publicly ridicule the plaintiff and his lawyers which will only cause citizens to fear bringing any other legal actions. Additionally, threatening sanctions against the local attorney will also make it hard for concerned citizens to find lawyers who will take up their cause in the District Court for the District of Columbia. In the end, justice suffers and a backlash is created in the many concerned Americans who have been offended by the court’s words.

There is no way for the court to take back what it said. Nevertheless, those concerned Americans who still want to bring the Obama eligibility question to justice need to understand what the court said and did not say and not be thwarted by such judicial conduct in their effort to learn whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Let Freedom Ring BlogTalkRadio Show with John & Michelle - 8 PM EDT Thursday 12 Mar 2009 - Kerchner v Obama Case Update & Q&A

I am pleased to announce that lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case and I, will be on the "Let Freedom Ring" on the BlogTalkRadio show with the hosts John and Michelle on Thursday, 12 March 2009, from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. EST. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an overview and update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host John Hinton and via phone calls from the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.

Here is the BlogTalkRadio.com URL link for the 12 Mar 2009 show:
Let Freedom Ring with John and Michelle

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
Tel: 732-521-1900 ~ Fax: 732-521-3906
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

1330 AM WEBY Radio N.W. Florida's Talk Radio Station - 6 PM EST Tuesday 3 Mar 2009 - Kerchner v Obama - Case Update & Q&A

I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, Mr. Kerchner, and I will be on the WEBY radio station, 1330 AM on the dial, Tuesday evening, 3 Mar 2009, from 6 to 7 p.m. EST ... "Northwest Florida's Talk Radio Station". The show host will be Mike Bates. Also co-hosting with Mike for this show will be Carl Gallups.

As shown in their web page, with 25,000 watts of broadcasting power, the station covers the northwest panhandle area of Florida and further west over to Mobile AL of the Gulf Coast and inland. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then do Q&A with the host and via phone calls from the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. For more information on the station and dial in numbers and how to listen in via the internet see their webpage at:
http://www.1330weby.com/
The show can be listened to in the online archives at:
http://weby.cybersmartcomputers.com/news/view/weby/5

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####