Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Kerchner v Obama & Congress - U.S. 3rd Circuit Appeal - Appellant's Opening Brief - Filed 19 Jan 2010

Kerchner v Obama & Congress - U.S. 3rd Circuit Appeal - Appellant's Opening Brief - Filed 19 Jan 2010

Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed the Appellant's Opening Brief in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al lawsuit appeal. The Brief was filed with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA. See this link to download and read it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19

We look forward to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing this matter and ordering a trial on the merits as to the Article II Constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

We say Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a Usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic.

"We the People" will be heard on this matter! As the People in Massachusetts have demonstrated, "We the People" are the Sovereigns in this country and the Constitution is the fundamental law of our nation, not Obama or Congress. We will not be silenced.  The chair Obama sits in in the Oval Office is not his throne. It is the People's seat too.  And Obama despite all his obfuscations to date must prove to Constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that seat.

This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for President. Obama at birth was born British and a dual-citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenship during his life-time. He's a Citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a "natural born Citizen" with sole allegiance and Unity of Citizenship at Birth to the USA as is required per the Constitution per the intent of our founders and the meaning of the term "natural born Citizen" to Constitutional standards.

Attorney Apuzzo will comment more on this Appellant's Brief in the next few days.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org

20 comments:

medical said...

May the facts presented in "Appellant's Opening Brief" be fairly and impartially weighed by the court, thus resulting in a successful outcome for the Plaintiffs and everyone who believes in upholding the United States Constitution.

jayjay said...

Mario & Charles:

Haven't finished digesting it yet, but it sounds very good so far. I surely concur with "medical" and think it's far past the time for the Judicial Branch to do their job.

Benaiah said...

Thanks Charles and Mario...

Doublee said...

I have yet to fully understand various courts' reasoning regarding the doctrine of standing. At the risk of a layman's oversimplification, it seems that the current doctrine of standing makes it virtually impossible for any plaintiff to get a hearing to adjudicate a constitutional issue. In other words, we the people have no means to enforce the Constitution that we the people, through our state representatives in the Constitutional Convention, created in the first place.

The problem of standing is further muddied by the fact that even if a President is not a natural born citizen, he may act in way that is consistent with the intent of the founding fathers. That is, he is person who has abandoned any foreign allegiances he might have had, and all his acts are motivated by a sense of complete loyalty to the United States.

We could make the same argument about a person who drives his car while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Such a person could drive safely, and indeed people have driven a car without causing harm or even death.

Yet, because there is a risk that driving under the influence can result in harm, we have passed laws making it illegal to drive under the influence.

I view the natural born citizenship clause in the same way. It is a means to prevent the election of someone whose allegiances to a foreign country would cause that person to act in ways inimical to the interests of the United States. If we the people cannot establish standing to enforce the NBC clause, the clause in effect becomes nullified, and it becomes nullified without benefit of a constitutional amendment.

Bob said...

Mario & Charles --

I ran across this article from Professor Edward J. Erler of California --

I don't know whether or not you have it already, but it is good for your readers also to read -- here:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07

"Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny."

cajapie said...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122542
Posey's office--let me paraphrase my conversation--they say they know about the pink elephant in the living room, aka Obama's British citizenship and they know a natural born citizen requires 2 US citizen parents...
and they wish to "not" have this eligibility problem ever happen again...
however, they are not going to focus on the obvious constitutional breach, rather pay lip service to it via focus on "certified birth certificates" and they believe that Obama's downfall will come from his own mistakes instead
they said the citizenship issue was "too charged"

So what this says to me is that certain persons in government are terrified to speak the obvious, which makes them enablers who are also desperate to placate us constitutionalists. At least they want to placate us. I told Posey's people we are aware of their glaring omission and wished he and others would get on with the truth of the matter.

As MA showed us, the truth has a life all its own no matter how they try to suppress it, and the People will win in the end. Now whether Obama's complicits and enablers go down with him is entirely their choice.

Frankly compared to the heroes from America's past, these guys/women are total wimps.

joedel said...

Near the bottom of page 37, it reads "we are now suing" shouldn't it read "we are not suing"?

Otherwise, great document. Thank you for your efforts.

cfkerchner said...

Joedel,

You are correct, that is a typo error. The word should be "not" instead of "now".

Charles

medical said...

No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.
Theodore Roosevelt. When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "Present" or "Not guilty."
Theodore Roosevelt. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.
Theodore Roosevelt. It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.
Samuel Adams. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams. Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams. Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.
Benjamin Franklin.

cajapie said...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122525
Just 51% of Americans believe Obama is eligible.

That pink elephant in the living room is getting harder for them to pretend isn't there, eh?

Sallyven said...

Part 1 of 2:

The article by Erler that Bob referred to above is excellent. In addition to the “racist” overtones that are being used to attack the eligibility issue, I wonder if it goes even deeper, to the political correctness of the illegal immigration issue. This article addresses the history of the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants in this country, to our later acceptance of dual citizenship, i.e. dual allegiance, in this country. The argument that the citizenship clauses of the Constitution for both the President and congressman are “non-inclusive” has also been used frequently, as it has whenever there have been proposed amendments on this issue.

A few notable quotes from the article:

“BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP—the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship—is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true…We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction…... “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S….

…In sum, this legacy of feudalism—which we today call birthright citizenship—was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance—or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.

…The constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious and it could easily be overturned. This would, of course, require a proper understanding of the foundations of American citizenship, and whether the current Supreme Court is capable of such is open to conjecture. But in any case, to say that children of legal aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with illegal aliens, who are here without permission. Thus repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.

Sallyven said...

Part 2 of 2:

…The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe exclusive allegiance to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And the citizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of such allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship—and dual allegiance—is allowed…

It is remarkable that 85 percent of all immigrants arriving in the U.S. come from countries that allow—and encourage—dual citizenship. Dual citizens, of course, give the sending countries a unique political presence in the U.S., and many countries use their dual citizens to promote their own interests by exerting pressure on American policy makers. Such foreign meddling in our internal political affairs has in fact become quite routine. Thus we have created a situation where a newly naturalized citizen can swear exclusive allegiance to the U.S. while retaining allegiance to a vicious despotism or a theocratic tyranny.

…The doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship. The continued vitality of the nation-state and of constitutional government depends on the continued vitality of citizenship, which carries with it exclusive allegiance to what the Declaration calls a “separate and equal” nation. Unless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.”

cajapie said...

What about a front door approach:
Obama is a statutory citizen (in US code 1401), and Article II says statutory citizens are ineligible for POTUS.

Isn't this sufficient?

Benaiah said...

Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia: “Is Barack Hussein Obama ‘eligible to the office of President'"?

Bill Clinton: “No, Barack Hussein Obama is not ‘eligible to the office of President.’ But, the beauty of this is that this will allow you to blackmail him…"

Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia: “But, how will he ever get elected if he isn’t ‘eligible to the office of President'"?

Bill Clinton: “We instruct the media to ignore the issue, and then when the public becomes aware of the issue, we instruct the media to tell them ‘It depends on what the meaning of the word [natural born citizen] is is…'" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

medical said...

I smell a rat! The silly tale of the "All White Basketball League" was obviously written by someone with a far left political agenda, who positively despises the U.S. Constitution. It's very odd that the usurper's supporters automatically refer to anyone who challenges his eligibility as a "racist", but those same supporters intentionally fail to mention the fact that any time you see a group helping the Haitians (or the perpetually "starving Africans", or any other needy third world group), at least 95% of the persons who are collecting funds and supplies, organizing and making deliveries, volunteering as aid workers, AND making donations are white. Why aren't the usurper's propagandists striving to bring that fact to the forefront? Because it doesn't fit their ultra liberal agenda that places 100% of the blame for every one of the world's problems from the beginning of time on "evil white men" (sorry to disappoint, but I feel no guilt). The feeble minded "progressive" (aka "Marxist/socialist") usurper supporters have been conditioned to instantly employ the old worn out 60's term "racist" in a futile attempt to silence anyone who DARES question his eligibility to hold office OR his treasonus policies. In the United States, the term "racist" has been overused and misapplied for so long that it is now almost totally meaningless. Frankly, the usurper's followers have no accepted legal facts to present in support of his eligibility, that's the reason they resort to vicious ad hominem attacks and twist and turn court decisions until they are no longer recognizable, then present their intentionally erroneous interpretations as "irrefutable proof" that the usurper is a "n.b.C.". The vast majority of Americans now know the usurper is NOT a "n.b.C."!

medical said...

There is never any mention in the U.S. media of the bloody massacre that has been happening in South Africa since 1994. The same evil Marxists who put the usurper in office are the ones who demanded "change" in South Africa. Read this link and learn the facts concerning the racially motivated murders of 750,000 Afrikaners (of mostly Dutch, German and French ancestry - please don't be so foolish as to believe the same horrible tragedy can't occur in the U.S.A. http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/ .

peter said...

cajapie, A variation on your front door approach:

A President must be a Natural Born Citizen (NBC).

No law is needed to make an NBC a citizen.

Obama needed a law to be a plain old citizen.

Go figure.

Sallyven said...

Another article that may interest you, Mario:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Legalissues/lm18.cfm

"From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship"

It includes a lengthy discussion of the problems with Wong Kim Ark.

squinlivan said...

Where is the "substantial proof" that Obama is 35 as the eligibility clause requires????

It is not a fact until "proven" just like NBC......maybe this should be emphasized during oral argument "if you get that opportunity???

Shawn

medical said...

The American public needs to be aware that Reggie Love, Nick Colvin, and Kal Penn, three flagrant homosexuals, spend an inordinate amount of "personal" time with the usurper. Their names frequently appear on the official Secret Service sign in/sign out sheets listing persons entering/leaving the private living quarters of the White House - the records prove they often take turns "spending the night" (or longer). The arrogant refusal of the usurper to "man up" and prove he's Constitutionally eligible to hold office is only one of the many abhorrent behaviors which prove he is an amoral sociopath. We now have an illegal squatter and admitted cocaine user, who possesses absolutely no morals, ethics, or character whatsoever, living in the White House. What a horrible example he is setting for the children of this nation! We owe a solemn duty to future generations to be certain the usurper is brought to justice and we shall not fail them.