Friday, July 31, 2009

MommaE Radio Rebels - BlogTalkRadio - 8:00 p.m. EDT Friday 31 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress - Update by Atty Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner:

MommaE Radio Rebels - BlogTalkRadio - 8:00 p.m. EDT Friday 31 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress - Update by Atty Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner. You can listen to the show via podcast at the below link. Discussion of the case with the host starts at about 39 minutes into the show.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels/2009/08/01/Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels-Politics-And-News-At-Its-Best-Host-MommaE-

Join us on the show. And if you want to help the current advertising and educational project also visit: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

For More About What Obama and Google Want to Hide About Obama's Citizenship Issues See:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html
####

What to Tell The Birthers Bashers

You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama's eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen," not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen" in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a "natural born Citizen." The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

The distinction between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a "citizen" is simply a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only "citizens" who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a "citizen." Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. It is this definition of "natural born Citizen" which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth.

Obama's father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, at best, he is a U.S. "citizen" under the 14th Amendment and federal statute. But he is not a "natural born Citizen" under the Constitution, for at the time of his birth under the British Nationality Act 1948 his father was a British subject and Obama himself through descent was also a British subject. Obama has himself admitted to the controlling effect of the British Nationality Act 1948 on his birth. Additionally, in 1963, both his father and Obama also became Kenyan citizens when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain.

Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). Obama also obtained Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father in Indonesia at age 6. The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military. We the People have too many "natural born Citizens" in our country, the largest group of citizens by far, from whom to pick to risk jeopardizing the best interests of the United States by allowing a person born with conflicting allegiances and loyalties to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military. There simply is no sound reason for risking America’s national security, welfare, and ultimate preservation by allowing a non-"natural born Citizen" to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. To permit it is a violation of Article II of our Constitution, the supreme law of our land.

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

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/

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen

This essay was originally posted by Mario in his blog on 7 April 2009. An excellent piece by Atty Apuzzo and well worth reading again.
Re-Posted by: C.F. Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress, Contributor and an Editor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., was Born a British Subject Governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, and is Currently also a British Protected Person and/or a British Citizen to This Day

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Written: April 7, 2009
Updated: July 29, 2009
Minor Edits: August 6, 2009
Printed Wash Time Natl Wkly: August 10, 2009


Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:

"4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...."

Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.

Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.

Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

“1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.”

Under the Kenyan Constitution of 1963, Obama’s father and Obama became citizens of Kenya. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain, nor the Kenyan Constitution, nor the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended, caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.

Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:

"97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament."

While the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948 and which he did not lose under the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.

The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:

"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.

Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality."
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.

"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality."
British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.

Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning "declaration of renunciation" at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any "declaration of renunciation" of his British citizenship.

What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya's 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.

This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen born after 1789, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he should have to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?

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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

####

For More About What Obama and Google Want to Hide About Obama's Citizenship Issues See:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html


Tuesday, July 28, 2009

MommaE Radio Rebels - Monks Media - 8:00 p.m. EDT Tues 28 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress Update

MommaE Radio Rebels - Monks Media - 8:00 p.m. EDT Tues 28 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress - Update by Atty Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner:

http://www.monksmedia.com/

Join us on the show. And if you want to help the current advertising and educational project also visit: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Monday, July 27, 2009

Filing Announcement: DOC 37 - Kerchner v Obama & Congress - Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition Brief to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (MTD)

Filing Announcement: Defendants have filed their reply to Atty Apuzzo's opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss (MTD).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17727971/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-37-Defendants-Reply-to-Plaintiffs-Opposition-Brief-to-Defendants-MTD

As I read these documents and the docket, the motion decision dates are now scheduled as follows: on or about 3 August 2009 on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit and on or about 17 August 2009 on the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to get leave from the court for the 2nd Amended Verified Complaint portion of the lawsuit Nunc Pro Tunc, which said motion the Defendants are opposing as the defendants want that 2nd Amended Verified Complaint stricken. Note: The 2nd Amended Verified Complaint was the only one served on the Defendants.

Atty Apuzzo will likely comment more on this 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
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Censorship by Google and BlogSpot Robots, Altered Search Engine Algorithms, Biased Google Staff. Internet Cyber-Attacks on Conservative Blogs/Websites

Censorship by Google and BlogSpot Robots, Altered Search Engine Algorithms, and Biased Google Staff. A National Resource and Public Corporation has been Compromised by an Extremely Politically Biased CEO. Other Internet Cyber-Attacks Being Attempted & Orchestrated by the Obots . Some Cloaked and Subtle. Some Not. Is Obama's New Cyber/Internet Czar Actively or Passively Involved and Does He Know What is Going On to Shut Down Opponents of Obama on the Net?

25 July 2009 - Note from the moderator and contributors:
A notice has been received from Google and Blogspot that this blog may be deleted in 20 days based on complaints (probably phony spamming and TOS violation charges filed by the Obots or concerns being passed down from the top itself). If this blog is taken down or deleted in the next few weeks, please move to the parallel/mirror blog which has copies of the posts posted here. It is located at: http://puzo1.wordpress.com/

Please make a note of that URL. However, do not post any new comments there at that site until such time as we have to abandoned this blog due to this obvious attempted harassment and censorship by Google and BlogSpot staff disguised and hiding behind the guise of it being anonymous unnamed "robots" having flagged and locked this blog. Note: Google's CEO is a member of the Obama technology team and a major funds contributor to Obama. Google has changed their "robot" algorithms to protect Obama and are censoring and "sand boxing" conservative websites such as WorldNetDaily.com. See this post at WND.com for more details: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104947

26 Jul 2009 - Update: The threat and warning message in the owner and moderator's screens that this blog is being reviewed as a spam blog and if found to be so would be deleted in 20 days was addressed by Atty Apuzzo, the blog owner, and the warning message has now been removed.

31 Jul 2009 - Update: Denial of Service (DOS) attacks are being reported at various websites on the net which have been critical of Obama and his lack of eligibility under our Constitution to be the President. The official "TheBirthers.org" website was temporarily blocked for about 9 hours from access by normal users by a coordinated DOS attack late Thursday and early Friday. Others have reported similar attacks. We believe these DOS attacks are being orchestrated via ACORN and affiliated groups using "zombie programs" installed on the computers of 10s of thousands of their members nationwide and even worldwide (they have 1 million members outside the USA) and that these zombie sleeper codes in these thousands of computers are being controlled by a central "war room" operation operated by ACORN and/or the Obama campaign staff, which is still in operation, to engage in cyber-warfare against their current targets of interest. I believe they also engage paid and/or volunteer ACORN chapter members as bloggers who are turned loose on the internet when needed to flood conservative blogs or main stream media sites with trolling type messages in any blog where any a thread about the Obama eligitiblity issue is gaining traction or in the news. This internet war room, with its paid bloggers and 10s of thousands of zombie computers world wide, can then send out a simple internet coded command at any time at will to attack any website on the net at any given time with massive, overwhelming numbers of internet "page serve" requests, blog postings and attempts, or emails to block access to the site by normal users, and to cause servers to crash and to clog up email in boxes with robotically generated page serve requests and emails. Keep you firewalls and virus checkers up to date and report any DOS attacks to your ISP immediately and request they report it to law enforcement and/or report it yourself directly to the FBI cyber crimes unit for investigation. I believe ACORN and all its affilations and "cousins" should be investigated under the RICO laws. and under international criminal conspiracy crime laws.

For More About What Obama and Google Want to Hide About Obama's Citizenship Issues See:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html
####

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Race Has No Part in the Obama Eligibility Issue

There is an interesting debate going on at http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors Please check it out and join in. Here is one comment:

"Hey You Low Life...[Rebel Flag Waving -Stuck, In Robert E.Lee's Era] Reality is Hard for Sacred & Desperate Race Mongers like You. If You are a [Christian] you are the Christian Wearing a White Sheet and Burning Crosses from Town to Town.."

Another comment that is very subtle and very disturbing is the following from "Omaar:" "Christian My A!! [Bigot] on Parade, [Bigot] on Display. President Barack H. Obama is Your Commander In Chief. Live with it or Move to [Canada-W-E.Europe]"

There is a very subtle message here that needs to be understood. The message is that the only place left for the "white" race outside the U.S.A., assuming that you accept usurper Obama and stay here, is Canada or Western or Eastern Europe. What is the commentator saying? We have to ask ourselves who are the real racists? Who are the real bigots?

On the contrary, the "Birthers" have not asked much of American society. They have simply asked where is the credible proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. They asked that Congress, which fully investigated McCain's Article II "natural born Citizen" status, do the same for Obama. Congress refused. They have asked and continue to ask that our courts, the guardians of our Constitution and Constitutional Republic, decide whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." I fail to see where the racism is in these questions. Of course, some of those who oppose the Birthers do not want our society to answer these two questions, for they are afraid of the answer they might get from one honestly answering those questions.

There are many examples from history that show the devastating effects race war has on society. Those who believe in liberty for all people, regardless of race, must stand up and fight those who use racism as a means to win the Obama eligibility issue. Do not let the race mongers take the high ground and cause you to turn a blind eye to the question of whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." Do not let Obama get a free pass in the name of you having to avoid the specter of racism. Do not let these race haters cause you to fear being called a racist should you stand up and demand that the Constitution be respected. Indeed, using race to win the Obama eligibility issue is racism itself.

Race simply has no place in the Obama eligibility issue. The eligibility question is a constitutional one and nothing more. Those who want to bring race into the issue simply want to win without a legitimate and fair battle. That is not right and should not be tolerated in our Constitutional Republic that was founded and built on the rule of law and due process.

Many who supported Obama's run for the Presidency said that Obama would be a unifying force for American race relations. Frankly, from everything that I have seen so far, I think quite the opposite has occurred in our country.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Our Constitution Show - Patriot's Heart Network - BlogTalkRadio Network - 9:00 p.m. EDT Tues 21 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress Update

Our Constitution Show - Patriot's Heart Network - BlogTalkRadio Network -9 p.m. EDT Tuesday 21 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress Update. We're on in the first hour.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/07/22/Our-Constitution-Foundation-and-Principles

Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Filed

Filing Announcement 20 Jul 2009: Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed his opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint/Petition Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and Alternatively to Strike the Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The Defendents' motion to dismiss decision date is now scheduled for on or about 3 August 2009.
The Plaintiffs' cross-motion decision date is now scheduled for on or about 17 Aug 2009.
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
###

Update 30 Aug 2009: There are currently two motions before Judge Simandle and he is now late in ruling on both. The Defendents' Motion to Dismiss had a return date of 3 Aug 2009 and thus the Judge is 4 weeks late in that ruling. The Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to grant leave retroactively to the Plaintiffs and allow the 2nd Amended Complaint to stand in the case and not be stricken had a return date of 17 Aug 2009 and thus the Judge is 2 weeks late in that ruling. And according to the federal rule on amending cases the regs say that the Judge should be very liberal in granting such leave. Thus making a decision on the second motion aforementioned should be rather easy for the Judge. But it appears that he is choosing to address them both together and is taking his time in doing it. There is nothing we can do to speed up a Federal Judge. Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff.
###
Update 23 Sep 2009: The two motions before Judge Simandle are now very late in his ruling on both. The Defendents' Motion to Dismiss had a return date of 3 Aug 2009, set by the Judge himself, and thus the Judge is 7 weeks late in that ruling as to meeting his own set date to make the ruling. The Judge had all the required information from the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in July. The Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to grant leave retroactively to the Plaintiffs and allow the 2nd Amended Complaint to stand in the case and not be stricken had a return date of 17 Aug 2009 and thus the Judge is 5 weeks late in that simple procedural ruling on granting leave. Making a ruling on that point could have been done by the Magistrate Judge Schneider as it is a minor procedural issue. And according to the federal rule on amending cases, the Fed Regs say that the Judge should be very liberal in granting such leave. And that 2nd Amended Complaint was the only one served on the Defendants so it is hardly new to them. They had it for over 4 months before they even replied and addressed it. Thus making a decision on the second motion aforementioned should be rather easy for the Judge. But it appears that he is choosing to address them both together for his own reason known only to him and is taking his time in doing it. There is nothing we can do to speed up a Federal Judge if he chooses to delay as it appears he is to me. Very frustrating to say the least. Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff.
###

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Washington Times National Weekly, 20 July 2009 issue - Advertorial on Page 9

Newest version of Advertorial Series 2 inserted in tomorrow's issue of the Washington Times National Weekly edition, on page 9. This one introduces to the readers of the paper and points out that Obama was a British Subject at birth in 1961. With citizenship of another country at birth, i.e., in Obama's case British citizenship at birth he is not, and can never be, a natural born citizen of the USA. Also this insertion points out that the framers such as Franklin, Jay, Washington, and others used Vattel in the drafting of the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17478578/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090720-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-9

To help the cause and do more such advertorial insertions in national newspapers see: http://www.protectourliberty.org And to all the patriots that have helped to-date, I thank you.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Friday, July 17, 2009

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT identically equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC) at Birth.
Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

by: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)

While a natural born Citizen is obviously a Citizen at birth, not all Citizens at birth are natural born Citizens at birth. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal. All "natural born Citizens" are Citizens at birth but not all Citizens are "natural born Citizens" at birth. If you cannot grasp that logic concept then try this analogy, "all trees are plants but not all plants are trees".

There are five types of Citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. All Citizens have equal rights as a member of the society but not all Citizens have the privilege and legal eligibility requirements to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military under Article II of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.

There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401 that addresses "natural born Citizenship". The law addresses basic "Citizenship at Birth", i.e., who is a "Citizen by Birth", (which is needed under various situations and conditions of a child's birth spelled out in Section 1401) which requires such a man-made act of law to grant the Citizenship by an act of Congress, i.e., naturalized at birth by act of Congress. USC 1401 does not grant “natural born Citizenship" to anyone. Natural born Citizens do not need man-made laws to grant them Citizenship. The facts of nature of their birth do that. The legal term of art “natural born Citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Title 8 Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “Citizen” or a “National” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic "Citizen at birth", i.e., a person entitled to the rights and privileges of membership in the society of our nation under our Constitution, the supreme and fundamental law of our nation. The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature. The legal term of art “Citizen at birth” is not the same legally as the legal term of art “natural born Citizen”. Simply note that in one case we are talking about who is at least an ordinary, basic “Citizen” at birth with no adjectives in front of the word Citizen, and in the other case we have two very important adjectives placed in front of the word Citizen by the framers of the Constitution, i.e., “natural born” Citizen. Since that term was used in the Constitution only once in Article II for singular most powerful office in our new federal government, the framers intended that it have special meaning. And the source of that meaning is written down and well known by legal scholars. That specific type of citizenship and "legal term of art" natural born Citizen was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise "The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law", published in 1758, in which he said that ... a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country. And this group or class of citizens are the most populous group of any nation. They do not need statutory law to be considered Citizens of the nation. Nature and the facts of their birth in the country to two Citizen parents granted that to them, not Congress.

Most citizens of the USA are natural born citizens. Most citizens of the USA were born in the USA to two parents who were citizens of the USA. And that is the pool of citizens that must be chosen from for the singular most powerful office in our nation, the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. Simple citizenship at birth by being born in the USA without regard to the citizenship status of both your parents ... or by naturalization and swearing an oath to this country and renouncing all allegiances foreign kings, princes, and potentates later as an adult, is adequate for the offices of Senator, Representative, or a Governor of a state. But it is not sufficient to be the President under Article II, to Constitutional standards. Article II requires that the person to be eligible to be President must be a "natural born Citizen". And that means that person must be born in the USA ... AND ... both his parents must be citizens of the USA.

Natural born citizenship status in a nation is granted by the facts of nature of your birth. No law or statute is necessary to grant it. The nations can make any law they wish to make a person a citizen at birth or later. But natural born citizenship can only be conveyed by nature by the facts at birth of the child. If you are born in the country of two citizen parents you are "naturally" ... a "natural born Citizen" … a citizen too … but a specific kind of citizen who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military since the child when born has sole allegiance to this country and there is no claim on him/her by a foreign country or power as to their citizenship at birth by that country too. Natural born Citizens have unity of citizenship at birth. A natural born Citizen is NOT a dual citizen at birth. A natural born Citizen has no divided loyalty issues by his birth since the child was born in the country to two citizens of the country.

See this chart showing the five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S Constitution:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/

And "natural born Citizens" are not rare in the USA. The "natural born Citizens" are by far the most populous group in the nation. And it from this group, under Article II of our Constitution, we are to choose our President and Commander-in-Chief, the group with sole allegiance at birth to the USA and only the USA, not someone who has foreign and/or dual citizenship and divided loyalties at and by birth.

Obama's father was not a citizen of the USA, nor was he an immigrant to the USA, nor was he even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject via his British Subject father, per the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed the status of children born to British Subjects. Obama thus was born with dual citizenship and allegiances and a foreign claim on his allegiance. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and he is not eligible to be the President under Article II of our U.S. Constitution. He is a Usurper.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al
Help the Cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.

Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”

As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States.

The issue of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote “natural born Citizen” into Article II is surely ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine. The issue is one of first impression and the Supreme Court needs to decide it. The national security and survival of the United States as conceived by the Founders are at stake. Because of the utter failure of our political and media institutions to give proper and honest attention to this issue, only the highest court in the land can now come to the aid of the Kerchner plaintiffs and We the People.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Plaintiffs Obtain Extension of Time to Answer Obama/Congress Motion to Dismiss.
Motion Decision Date Now Set for Monday, August 3, 2009.

Defendants, Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint/petition. Their main argument is that the plaintiffs do not have standing and that all the defendants have immunity from all of plaintiffs' constitutional claims.

The current defense motion to dismiss the complaint/petition was returnable Friday, July 20, 2009. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due by Monday, July 6, 2009.

The defendants took over 4 months to file their motion. I was only given 2 weeks to respond. Given the critical importance of this case, the complexity and novelty of the constitutional issues, and the need to do a thorough job, I sought fit to request a 2-week extension of time to answer the defendants' motion to dismiss.

I realize that by the extension we are losing two weeks, but winning the motion is more important than not losing the two weeks.

The new motion day is Monday, August 3, 2009. I will file our opposition papers at least 14 days prior to the new motion day, and the defendants shall file their reply papers, if any, at least seven calendar days prior to August 3, 2009.

I know that many of you have been posting on this blog your thoughts and analysis on how we can defeat the defendants' motion. Your input is highly appreciated. I am asking that you continue to give me your ideas in this public blog. I encourage the open exhange of ideas so that we may all arrive at the best answer. Only strategy and personal matters will be treated confidentially. I will appreciate that if you do have a point you want to make, you provide a citation to support what you are saying, if a citation exists. If you do not have a citation, still make your argument. I will consider all comments and choose which points to incorporate into our opposition brief.

The points to research and comment on are standing and immunity. For a full reading of how the defendants are using these defenses to try to convince the judicial branch of government not to address the issue of Obama's Article II "natural born Citizen" eligibility, you may clique on the link in this blog and view the defendants' brief that they filed in support of their motion to dismiss.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

The Blog Rules

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 post subject, Article II natural born citizenship, and/or merits of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts of that lawsuit, repetitive, argumentative, personal attacks, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling and flaming by internet trolls or stalkers, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, posting links to notorious Obot disinformation sites, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics of any lawsuit or case as to my planned tactics or strategies for pursuing that 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, and other cases with my law office, 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 to educate the American electorate about the legal term of art "natural born Citizen", the Obama Article II eligibility issues, and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Plaintiffs Obtain Extension of Time to Answer Obama/Congress Motion to Dismiss

Defendants, Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint/petition. Their main argument is that the plaintiffs do not have standing and that all the defendants have immunity from all of plaintiffs' constitutional claims.

The current defense motion to dismiss the complaint/petition was returnable Friday, July 20, 2009. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due by Monday, July 6, 2009.

The defendants took over 4 months to file their motion. I was only given 2 weeks to respond. Given the critical importance of this case, the complexity and novelty of the constitutional issues, and the need to do a thorough job, I sought fit to request a 2-week extension of time to answer the defendants' motion to dismiss.

I realize that by the extension we are losing two weeks, but winning the motion is more important than not losing the two weeks.

The new motion day is Monday, August 3, 2009. I will file our opposition papers at least 14 days prior to the new motion day, and the defendants shall file their reply papers, if any, at least seven calendar days prior to August 3, 2009.

I know that many of you have been posting on this blog your thoughts and analysis on how we can defeat the defendants' motion. Your input is highly appreciated. I am asking that you continue to give me your ideas in this public blog. I encourage the open exhange of ideas so that we may all arrive at the best answer. Only strategy and personal matters will be treated confidentially. I will appreciate that if you do have a point you want to make, you provide a citation to support what you are saying, if a citation exists. If you do not have a citation, still make your argument. I will consider all comments and choose which points to incorporate into our opposition brief.

The points to research and comment on are standing and immunity. For a full reading of how the defendants are using these defenses to try to convince the judicial branch of government not to address the issue of Obama's Article II "natural born Citizen" eligibility, you may clique on the link in this blog and view the defendants' brief that they filed in support of their motion to dismiss.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

The Chalice Show - Patriot's Heart Broadcasting - BlogTalkRadio Network -10:30 p.m. EDT Sunday 5 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress Update

The Chalice Show - Patriot's Heart Broadcasting - BlogTalkRadio Network 9 to 11 p.m. EDT Sunday 5 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress lawsuit update and discussion of the new publicity campaign to make more people aware that Obama is not an Article II natural born citizen to Constitutional Standards and to increase public awareness of the existence of this lawsuit. The Main Stream Media (MSM) still refuses to discuss the eligibility issue and thus more paid media Advertorial type advertising will be done using the following theme:
Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090706-Issue-Wash-Times

I was on the last 1/2 hour segment of the Chalice Show from 10:30 to 11:00 p.m. EDT. Below is the link to download and listen to the two hour show. The discussion of this case and the new advertising initiative begins 90 minutes in, the last half hour. Listen to it all or download it and fast forward to the last half hour where I discuss the case and the new publicity fund initiative: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/07/06/The-Chalice-ShowThe Chalice Show

Charles

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Vattel: On Those Claiming Sovereignty of a Nation also Having to Respect the Fundamental Laws and the Constitution or Contract with the People

Vattel's writings on the sovereign and sovereignty and the need of the sovereign to respect fundamental laws in which Vattel included the nation's Constitution, and also when the People no longer owe obedience to the one claiming sovereignty if he breaks the Contract with the People:

The Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758, Vol.1, Chapter IV:

§ 46. The Prince ought to respect and support the fundamental laws.

. . . The prince ought to respect and support the fundamental laws. But when the sovereign power is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws of the state, those laws show the prince the extent and bounds of his power, and the manner in which he is to exert it. The prince is therefore strictly obliged not only to respect, but also to support them. The constitution and the fundamental laws are the plan on which the nation has resolved to labor for the attainment of happiness; the execution is intrusted to the prince. Let him religiously follow this plan; let him consider the fundamental laws as inviolable and sacred rules; and remember that the moment he deviates from them, his commands become unjust, and are but a criminal abuse of the power with which he is intrusted. He is, by virtue of that power, the guardian and defender of the laws: and while it is his duty to restrain each daring violator of them, ought he himself to trample them under foot?

and then in section 51 ....

§ 51. But the nation may curb a tyrant, and withdraw itself from his obedience.
. . . As soon as a prince attacks the constitution of the state, he breaks the contract which bound the people to him; the people become free by the act of the sovereign, and can no longer view him but as a usurper who would load them with oppression. This truth is acknowledged by every sensible writer, whose pen is not enslaved by fear, or sold for hire.

Contributed by:
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

Kerchner: On all citizens inalienable right to defend their liberty -- It is the inalienable right of all citizens of the nation to stand up and protect their liberty right and support and defend the Constitution, the contract made by the People to which they agreed to be governed by, and the fundamental and supreme law of our land, against those who claim sovereignty over it and claim to be above it and the law, and/or attempt to betray, trample, or ignore it. Our first recourse of course is to the legal system and courts who in our system are supposed to be the legal guardians of the sanctity and supreme sovereignty of the Constitution, protecting it from the usurping of powers not granted to the other branches under our system, and/or their ignoring the Constitution and thinking they are sovereign to it. The courts are there to speak out via taking legal cases brought to it and making legal decisions to correct the offenders when the Constitution has been wronged. The courts should not shirk their responsibility. It is time for them to stand and support and defend the Constitution as they took an oath to do so. It is not a time for them to hide behind bureaucratic legal technicalities to find a means to hide from their duty to the Constitution and dismiss hearing the merits of a case. I seek that remedy with my lawsuit to demand a legally binding definition by the federal court, and if necessary which it likely will, by the Supreme Court, as to what the framer's intended it to mean for the Article II term "natural born citizen" and also to demand hearings from Congress thereafter to use that definition and the history of our Constitution, and then acting together, the Supreme Court and the Congress will remove the usurper from the Oval Office in a legal and constitutionally proper way, as they shall determine. And at that point in time, if SCOTUS and Congress declare Obama to be an illegitimate President and they cannot enforce their decision that he is constitutionally ineligible to be the President and order that he should step down, and the Usurper refuses to leave the office, I believe the People will enforce the step down and leave order, with the help of the military if need be. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so to the best of my abilities. History will record the events of these times. ~~~ Charles Kerchner

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 U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Kerchner: On the Sovereign and Sovereign Immunity


Kerchner: On the Sovereign and Sovereign Immunity


In the case of constitutional issues We the People and/or the Constitution created by We the People are sovereign. The fundamental law of our nation, the Constitution, can only be changed by amending it by the process provided in that Constitution, not by a branch of the federal government usurping or ignoring it. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by itself and certainly not with a simple majority vote. It takes a vote of 2/3 the members of Congress to put forward such an amendment to the several states and ratification by 3/4 of the several states of our nation. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. All rights and power not given to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the several states and to the People. See the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights for the details on that fact. We the People created the federal government enabled by the founding document, the federal U.S. Constitution. The Congress or the President cannot arbitrarily ignore the U.S. Constitution and those branches of the federal government cannot hide behind sovereign immunity. For if they can the Constitution is then no longer the supreme law of the land and the Congress and the President have placed themselves above that supreme law. We would no longer be a nation of laws if the supreme law of the land can be ignored and not enforced by the whims of the simple political majority in control of Congress.

I believe that Article I, Section 6, clause 1 protects the individual Senators and Reps from arrest and/or charges due to their speech and debate. It does not grant sovereign immunity to the Congress as a whole or the Senate as a body or the House as a body to totally ignore the Constitution, the "fundamental law" as Vattel describes such laws, and the foundational law of our federal government and nation. The sovereign power in our Republic is “We the People” and the Constitution we established to limit the power of the Federal Government, and thus the Congress which is part of that. Thus the Congress as a body in our government is not sovereign and thus cannot have sovereign immunity regarding charges that it as a body did not do its constitutional duty and/or ignored parts of the constitution. Who or what is the USA. It is the several states and We the People and the Constitution. It is not the Congress and it is not the President. The Constitution is the supreme and sovereign law. Congress is not sovereign and neither is the President and thus they cannot use sovereign immunity to betray and undermine the constitution. If the Congress is sovereign, then Congress would be the ultimate power and even be above the constitution. That is not our system of government. And that is not what Vattel taught either and wrote about a republic with a written constitution. The elected officials are our representatives and we acquiesce to them to run the government as long as they obey the Constitution and not ignore any part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and that these elected representatives act in a way to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our patriot ancestors and many who have served since fought and died to obtain and keep for us. The written Constitution is supreme and sovereign as that contract was established by We the People acting through the several states. And it states it takes 3/4th of the several states via agreement of the People of those states speaking through their respective legislative body to change that sovereign law, the U.S. Constitution.

We the People are the sovereigns and the Constitution is the supreme, fundamental, sovereign law in our federal system. The President and Congress are not above the law. No executive order or statutory law passed by them is supreme to the Constitution and the inalienable rights of We the People. I did not swear an oath to defend a man or any particular person serving as the President or a piece of land. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We the People retain the ancient right of the sovereign, which is us in our system, to bring a Quo Warranto charge against a usurper Putative President. And I did so in my lawsuit. Any order or law made by Congress or anyone else in our federal government which stands in the way of We the People's inalienable right to protect our Constitution, which we created, from a usurper must fall. Those laws must fall by the wayside as subservient and that they are not applicable to blocking our inalienable rights and cannot be allowed to block the People getting answers in the federal courts to Constitutional questions. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

P.S. A printable and downloadable copy of this essay is available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17049463/

P.S.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 U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####