Thursday, September 30, 2010

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit

News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30 September 2010, 8:00 P.M. EDT

CONTACT: Mario Apuzzo, Esq., Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax: 732-521-3906, Email: apuzzo@erols.com

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit

[Update 4 Oct 2010: U.S. Supreme Court Assigns Docket Number: 10-446. Response from Defendants due to the U.S. Supreme Court by 3 Nov 2010.]

[Update 13 Oct 2010: Kerchner v Obama - Supreme Court Activity]

JAMESBURG, NJ – (Sept. 30, 2010) - Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC, on behalf of plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ. Plaintiffs are challenging the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, which affirmed the dismissal by District Judge, Jerome Simandle, sitting in the Federal District Court, Camden, NJ, of plaintiffs’ lawsuit in which they charge that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has NOT conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and that he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born Citizen of the United States

Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama's father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident. Obama's father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship. According to this lawsuit, Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiance and loyalty and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the President to have unity of citizenship and sole natural allegiance to the USA from the moment of birth, which Obama does not and cannot have. This was a national security issue to the founders and framers.

Obama has multiple foreign allegiance claims on him because of his British citizenship which also converted to Kenyan citizenship at age 2. Obama was also an Indonesian citizen as a youth when he was adopted or acknowledged by his Indonesian step-father when he married his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

The lawsuit seeks a trial on the merits to determine the true facts of Obama’s legal identity and exact citizenship status and to require Obama to prove to the courts that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which states: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The legal term of art, natural born citizen, is defined by the world renowned legal scholar, Emer de Vattel, in his pre-eminent legal treatise and enlightenment to the world of jurisprudence in the revolutionary period, The Lawof Nations or Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, and which was used by the founders by the Continental Congress during the formation of our country and by the framers of our U.S. Constitution, and whose definition of natural born Citizen is incorporated in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Vattel and U.S. Supreme Court decisions agree that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA. Thus Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.

The original lawsuit was filed early in the morning of January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn in. The case was dragged out by delays by the government in addressing the case and deciding on whether the case would proceed to a fact finding trial on the merits or not. The courts have decided that it will not go to the merits and have dismissed the case using technical and procedural tactics to keep the Plaintiffs from getting to the merits of the charges.

By the lower Courts finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the lower Courts were able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know conclusively where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Being a born “Citizen of the United States” is a necessary part but is NOT sufficient to be an Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States”. We have asked the relevant questions and provided for the U.S. Supreme Court in our Petition various reasons why it should accept this case and promptly resolves this constitutional crisis.

--more--

For a copy of the Petition and more information about the lawsuit see these links:

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-at-250-am-20Jan2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09Feb2009

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17748032/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Docket-Report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22556305/Docket-Report-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-U-S-3rd-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Philadelphia-PA

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

http://www.protectourliberty.org

For additional comments or information please contact Mario Apuzzo, Attorney at
Law, 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, NJ, 08831, Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax:
732-521-3906, Email: Apuzzo@erols.com

####

UPDATE 04 Oct 2010: The Petition is now posted in the Docket of the Supreme Court of the United States and can be seen at this link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

####

38 comments:

Benaiah said...

Mario & Charles,

Thank you for your persistent determination to seek due process for "We The People"...

Love,

Benaiah

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

Great news. Which justice was the writ filed with?

Michael said...

Excellent!
Mario, may I suggest a means to address one of the legalese favorites that is used to muddy the water.
When the English 'common law' card is played, then it is important to point out that the 'common law' of England deals only with what gives one birth-right to ordinary subject (albeit called 'natural born subjects')subject to their highest office, in their case a monarch.
Being a 'natural born subject' of England does not make one eligible for the highest office in the land.

The use of the term 'natural born Citizen' per USC Article II has no precedent in English 'common law' because it relates to eligibility for a president of a republic.

cfkerchner said...

Direct link to read and download the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed to the U.S. Supreme Court today by Atty Mario Apuzzo is at this SCRIBD.com link. Pass the link around and post it in blogs you frequent. Thanks.

30 Sep 2010: Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on 30 Sep 2010 for Kerchner et al vs Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al lawsuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

Guy4013 said...

Thank you Mario and Charles.

I only pray that there will be an honest review of the case by SCOTUS.

Let them tell the American people how a son of a British father can be a Natural-Born Citizen. Something the founders would never have accepted and why they insisted on only a Natural-Born Citizen[ 100% American ] to command the American armies.

Best wishes to you both.

Mick said...

On page 29 (d.), it should say
"and BEFORE he was sworn in".

Dixhistory said...

I am posting the below on all the blogs that will allow it.

Long live our US Constitution and teach your children our form of Republican government.

What's his name was a British Subject at his birth as was his father. These are what's his name own words not my words.

For an education on what this means look here for the best case to right that wrong.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

May the force of Nature's God and the law of the US Constitution be with you in this legal matter.

Puzo1 said...

Mick,

Thank you for taking the time to so carefully read my petition.
You said: "On page 29 (d.), it should say "and BEFORE he was sworn in".

May I suggest that you are not reading my sentence correctly. The sentence at page 29(d) is:

"Petitioners sued Obama when he was still the President-Elect and after he was sworn in and became President."

This means that the petitioners sued Obama both before (when he was still only the President-Elect which covers what you are saying and after he was sworn into office which is what you missed. This was accomplished by my filing the complaint/petition while Obama was still the President Elect which means we then sued him in his capacity as President Elect and later amending the pleading after Obama was sworn into office which means that we were then suing him as the President Elect and as the putative President of the United States.

Suing Obama at two different time periods and in two different capacities is important for standing because he was sued both as a private person who had already become the President Elect, which avoids the ripeness, lack of injury, political question, and 1st Amendment problems faced by all the other previous cases filed against Obama, and as the putative President, who acquired, unlike a mere candidate for office or just a President Elect, executive powers which have enabled and continue to enable Obama to cause injury in fact to the petitioners. Suing Obama as the President Elect (who is more than a mere candidate who has yet to win the popular and Electoral vote) is also important to show that the Court has the power to provide petitioners with a real remedy (redressability). Petitioners are not asking the Court to compel Congress to undertake any impeachment of a sitting President, a power which arguably the Constitution does not give to the judiciary. Rather, in crafting remedies against both Obama and Congress, the Court can deal with Obama as a mere President-Elect and craft injunctive, mandamus, and other remedies that are available to it and within in its powers to grant to petitioners.

Hence, what I wrote in the petition is correct.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Mick said...

Thanks Mr Apuzzo. I understand now.

Doublee said...

From Mario Apuzzo's Writ:

If plaintiffs do not present a legitimate case or controversy under Article III, then the presidential eligibility clause has effectively been nullified, not by a constitutional amendment but rather by the court-created rule of standing which plaintiffs have in any event shown they adequately satisfy.

From my layman's perspective, this is the most cogent argument in the entire writ.

This gets at the core isssue. If a violation of the Constitution cannot be challenged, then we no longer have a Constitution.

8by8 said...

If Obama is not NBC then he is not a legitimate president and all he signs is not valid. then those he appointed to the supreme court are not legit SC justices. Should they be not allowed to vote on this important case. ( I forget the legal term for taking youself off a case. ) Certainly this most recent SC justice a woman is never going to vote against Obama. she does not even believe in the Constitution.

cfkerchner said...

Who hit the "mute" button is Washington DC and the main stream media and national talking heads types and why. Read these essays.

Read this ...
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html
And this ....
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=Open+Letter+to+John+McCain
And this ....
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/08/republicans-want-review-of-birthright.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Dixhistory said...

Charles I have checked this out and seems this is all true. If you think so please post a link to his obit at:
http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=Donald-Unsworth&lc=4768&mid=4371599

You must click on the: Read complete obituary. link at bottom to read the below part. His guest book is getting a few folks saying thanks.

This is out of order but it is what I wanted people to see. Also this is Rome, Floyd County Georgia and I live fairly close to this area.

The family respectfully asked in lieu of flowers that memorial contributions be made to the American Cancer Society or to the campaign of whoever is running against President Barack Obama in 2012.


Mr. Unsworth was a veteran of the United States Air Force where he served at Kessler Air Force Base. He was a Rome City Police officer and later became Safety Director of the Floyd County Police Department. He owned and operated Rome Driver's Training School and also started drivers training programs for Darlington, Thornwood and Rome City Schools. He owned and operated Carter's Hardware and Auto Parts for 35 years. He attended The University of Georgia and the Carol School of Business. Mr. Unsworth will always be remembered for his generosity and his willingness to help needy families and friends.

A memorial service will be held Friday at 1 PM in the Thomas B. Griffin Memorial Chapel of Daniel's Funeral Home with Rev. Bert Brooks officiating. The family will receive friends Thursday from 6 PM until 8 PM, at other hours the family may be contacted at the residence

cfkerchner said...

Hi all,

I want to personally thank all the people who donated to the $4000 challenge fund raiser to pay for the cash out of pocket special printing and filing costs for this Petition. As you know, Mario is working pro bono and donating his time and his superbly trained (and battle hardened from years of legal practice in the federal courts) legal mind to fight this battle. He took the oath to the Constitution as an officer of the court as did I as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy. It is a battle to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, so help us God. Without your financial support this effort would have been a lot more difficult for us on the tip of the spear. Thank you to all. Bravo Zulu.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
P.S. We still need to raise about $800 more in our current $9000 challenge to help fund publicity and advertising. If you can, visit the above link and put that campaign over the top too. Here is an example full page ad as an example of what the money is used for:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38156915/Obama-Ineligible-I-tried-and-lied-but-it-won-t-go-away-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-2010-09-27-pg-5
Help us keep the battle going and front and center in their faces in the national print media, where they cannot scrub it. They can run but they cannot hide. The truth and the Constitution will win in the end.

8by8 said...

Charles I posted at your first listing.

The correct word is unalienable not inalienable. Please get this correct. It is fundamentally important especially on any legal document.

http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

explains the difference. My rights are unalienable. The Constitution uses the word unalienable. The article at that first link wrongly uses the wrong word inalienable. you might want to edit the story to correct the error.

cfkerchner said...

Duly noted and fixed.

Charles

Big Boo and Boo said...

You and Mario have done unbelievable work. As a scholar of American history I salute you...however,

You both realize for the Court to accept or act in any way on your petition will force a crises in government, and possibly a full blown civil crises as well. In my opinion there is no way that SCOTUS or anyone in Congress would choose the possibility of civil unrest and such political consequence versus simply ignoring the Constitution.

If you succeed, you will be accused of precipitating the crises. If you are ignored, you know that part of the Constitution is dead.

One can argue that Americans are mature enough to work through such a crises, but so many of those you would need to help keep things on an even keel (the military command, all sitting Republicans, most every single conservative commentator) are in on the "fix". How would you expect them to do an about face and say they were so wrong?

Ain't going to happen.

Being right doesn't mean you get your way, even if the Constituion is thereby amputated.

If you disagree, can you describe how a favorable ruling will play out politically? Exactly how the "about face" can be expected from so many? To leave this unanswered leaves your case incomplete.

Future historians will find your work very useful as they tell the story (or try to, if they are allowed) how the U.S. ended up where it did.

The Big Boo

Dixhistory said...

@ Big Boo and Boo

I don't think you are telling anyone that follows this issue anything they haven't thought of. Much less Charles and Mario.

So should history say a few good men did nothing.

That history can't include these good men that did something.

Is that not reason enough?

Michael said...

English 'common law' per Calvin's case The STATUS DE NATIS ULTRA MARE, relates to establishment of English 'natural born subject', none of whom are eligible for highest office in England.
The highest office in England (the sovereign) relies on jus sanguinis & has NOTHING to do with jus soli.
A n English 'natural born subject' is NOT ELIGIBLE to be sovereign.
Sovereign of England can only be of the parents (jus sanguinis)
Because the US Constitution sets the PEOPLE as sovereign, it provides for the those who are to be eligible for highest office in the land (POTUS) to be from sovereign parents i.e. CITIZEN parents.

Regarding the Hawaiian COLB, Hawaiian Statute 338-13 excludes 'part thereof' (a COLB) from being 'considered for all purposes the same as the original'.

According to HRS 338-13, a certificate with 'ALL the contents' is required, for that certificate to be used as a birth certificate.

Hence a COLB is not sufficient & is merely a certification of some details that have been filed & are on HDoH records that may have been submitted to HDoH from a relative of the one born, without official verification of those details.

Hence Obama's COLB shows that the information was 'filed' but has yet to be 'accepted' because the information that was filed has not been officially verified.

There are COLBs of other people that have 'accepted', but Obama's only shows 'filed'

8by8 said...

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/10/guess-who-obamas-lawyer-is-for.html

Kagan the new SC justice just appointed by Obama was the lawyer who represented Obama on all cases against him no the issue of NBC. Kagan must be recused

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/10/guess-who-obamas-lawyer-is-for.html

Michael said...

In English ‘common law’ the ORDINARY subjects (aka citizens in USA) were CALLED ‘natural born subjects’.

English ‘natural born subjects’ are the equivalent to US 14th Amendment ‘citizens’ (nothing to do with Artcile II ‘natural born Citizen’

The English ‘natural born subjects’ were NOT eligible for the highest office of England.
The US ‘natural born Citizen’ IS eligible for highest office of USA.

The highest office of England is sovereign, and the eligibility for highest office in England is due to the status of the parents (jus sanguinis)

Similarly the in the constitutional republic of United States of America, founded on the US Constitution, it sets the CITIZENS as sovereign.

Consistent with English ‘common law’, the USA draws those eligible for highest office from the sovereign ‘Citizens’, i.e. Citizen parents.

Big Boo and Boo said...

@Dixhistory

Of course you can find a quote from Churchill to suit every occasion, but an applicable one for this occassion is:

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."

Having the best theories and interpretations is of little value without practical results. This isn't a reflection of the work done here. That after all is the interpretation part.

The failing is in the many who serve the usurper, including all sitting Republicans.

Even the most ardent teaparty constitutionalist shys away from this subject.

I have long arugued that the large majority vote for Obama was in fact nullification of the natural born requirement by the electorate in this instance. While much was hidden, everyone knew he was a "citizen of the world" and he was open about the nationality of his father.

While his hiding infuriates those who love truth and purity in their politicians, the folks that voted for him in reality don't require that.

The Supreme Court will say (in one way or another), it will be for the people to change this through another vote. (they can "say" this through denying the petition).

If someone like Jindal is nominated, for example, you know the requirement is truly nullified.

I have also arugued that many who oppose Obama misunderstand the great amount of "change" in the electorate that has occurred. The "memory" of America is not lodged, as it used to be, in the minds of the new Citizens (or non-citizens as the case may be).

With my heart, wishing the petition all possible success. With my brain, thinking through the likelihoods and fallout.

The Big Boo

Michael-Is-Great said...

Keep fighting to defend our American Constitution from being trampled upon. Never give up and you will prevail, no matter when.
Your cause is the noblest, to defend the American Constitution from those who think that they can do without it!
Obama will resign, no matter when, he will uncovered as a usurper of the vilest kind, who lied to the American people like no other.

NEVER EVER GIVE UP ON FIGHTING FOR THE RESPECT OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION TO UPHOLD THE CRITERIA THAT IT DEEMED NECESSARY TO BE A PRESIDENT OF THE USA AND THAT OBAMA DO NOT MEET. NEVER EVER GIVE UP.

Thank you to keep fighting against the evil forces that desperately try to hide the truth from the American People.

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

I have heard various responses to the question I am going to pose. I believe that this is place to get the correct answer.

If your case or any other case were to cause Obama to be removed from office due to not being eligible does that cause all of what he has done to be undone. Such as judicial appointments, laws signed, etc.

cfkerchner said...

Part I of multi-part comment post:

U.S. Senator Bond of Missouri staffer says to constituent caller ... the Constitution is fluid and changing ... NO LONGER VIABLE | @ The Post & Email

The Post & Email received a message from another reader who related the following:

I live in Missouri and telephoned early this year Sen. Bonds Washington office to ask why he was not asking about O’bama’s birth certificate. I was connected to Sen. Bonds First Assistant. He stated in high tone response; “Obama’s place of birth is NO longer an issue..” I reminded him of the Constitution requirements. He stated: “The Constitution is fluid and changing, and that requirement of natural birth IS NO LONGER VIABLE.”

I asked him when the Constitution was changed? He responded: “THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS NOW.”

He then hung up on me. I thought you might like to know.
See full story here ....
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/02/congressmen-and-senators-remain-in-denial-about-obamas-ineligibility/

[My comments on the above outrageous statement from Senator Bond's office staff will in the next comment post. CDR Kerchner (Ret)]

cfkerchner said...

(continued from prior comment post)

Comment from CDR Kerchner (Ret) on the above:

Senator Bond has trained his staff in such a way that he betrays the Oath that he took to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic ... Senator Bond should issue an immediate retraction, fire that staffer, ... or Senator Bond should resign ... or never be re-elected. The staffers merely parrot what they know their boss' position is on some subject. Senator Bond should be ashamed of the answers he has told his staffers to tell his constituents when they call or write about the "natural born Citizen" clause in Article II of the United States Constitution. That clause is in there for national security reasons. If you wish to why, read this.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

We are supposed to be a nation of laws not men. And the Constitution is the fundamental, foundational law of our Constitutional Republic upon which all other laws stand. We are a Constitutional Republic governed by a written Constitution (social contract and law) not a simple democracy governing at the whims of the momentary simple majority vote ignoring that law or any law.

The Constitution cannot be amended by fiat by one Senator such as Senator Bond. Not even by a 100% vote the whole Senate, or even the simple majority vote of the People at any one moment in time. There is a clearly written process for amending it given in Article V of the Constitution. It requires a proposed amendment be passed by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and then it must be ratified via a 3/4 vote of the sovereign states of the United States of America. The several states must approve it. Not the Congress or any one Senator or all the Senators. The People speak in the amendment proposal through their elected officials in Congress during the proposal process and then through their legislatures in their sovereign states vote in that amendment ratification process via their elected legislatures in the several states. And no one has done that or even started that process to amend Article II.

(continued in the next comment post)
CDR Kerchner (Ret)

cfkerchner said...

(continued from above)

Senator Bond needs to read the Constitution for the first time if he never has, since it does not sound like he ever read it, before if he teaches his staffers to say things like above quoted material in The Post & Email online newspaper ... or he should re-read the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution a couple times so it sinks in. It's a small compact booklet even in book form. For his job a copy should be in his pocket or office at all times. But if not, he can read it at the Library of Congress. I'll even help him find a copy that he can listen to while driving his car or jogging. He or anyone can buy a copy in audio CD or kindle book format or printed format at:
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/books.htm

If Senator Bond knows what the Constitution says and its purpose, and is still at this point in time having his staff put out such erroneous statements to his constituents about Article II of the United States Constitution, then Bond is deliberately trying to subvert and undermine the authority of the U.S. Constitution the fundamental law of our nation and the sovereignty of We the People and the several states who created that Constitution. That would be a despicable thing for a sitting U.S. Senator to do. In that case, Senator Bond is committing treason to the Constitution and the oath he took. He is aiding and abetting the domestic enemies of the United States Constitution. He should resign or be tried and legally removed from office and expelled from the Senate and never be re-elected.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
###

Michael said...

The US Citizens are sovereign in the Constitutional Republic of United States of America.

In keeping with English 'common law', where eligibility for highest office is by way of sovereign parents, the ONLY people eligible for USA highest office (i.e. POTUS) is by way of sovereign parents aka US Citizen parents.

jayjay said...

Everyone should continue to vote for the Judge Napolitano TV show on both the Subject to Discuss AND the Person to Interview:

Subject to discuss:
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/969299-natural-born-citizen-meaning-in-natural-law-s?ref=title


Person to interview:
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-

Sallyven said...

I think we’ve had discussions here and elsewhere on our differences of opinion on the 14th amendment—that is, I believe it does not grant automatic “birthright citizenship” to babies born here of temporary residents, whether here legally or illegally, because of the “subject to the jurisdiction clause” (i.e. negating the possibility of dual citizenship at birth) but I know you will find this amicus brief recently filed in the soon-to-be-heard (by SCOTUS) case of Flores-Villar very interesting as it relates to your own case, especially beginning on page 34:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-5801_RespondentAmCuIRLI.pdf

http://www.immigrantjustice.org/litigation-update/supreme-court/floresvillarbriefsfiled.html

cfkerchner said...

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari filing for the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit is now displayed in the Docket of the Supreme Court of the United States and can be seen at this link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

Kit Bond is retiring and not running for reelection in 2010. His seat is being hotly contested. I wrote him and our other joke of a senator from Missouri regarding the eligiblity issue early in 2009. Bond never responded. The other Commie said she wasn't concerned about the constitution. Her only concern was pushing Soetoro's communist agenda. Obviously not in those words but that was gist of her response.

Michael said...

An English 'natural born subject' is not eligible for highest office of the land unless they are child of sovereign parents.

A US 'natural born Citizen' is the only citizen that IS eligible for highest office in the land.

Therefore an English 'natural born subject' is not equivalent to a US 'natural born Citizen'.

An English 'natural born subject' is equivalent only to a US 14th Amendment US citizen, who is not eligible for highest US office unless they have the additional quality of 'natural'.

That additional quality can ONLY be born of US Citizen parents, because 14th Amendment US citizen is based only on born in the land with no reference to parents citizenship status.

To be eligible for English highest office, one must be born of sovereign parents, with nothing to do with 'natural born subject'

To be eligible for USA highest office, one must also be born of sovereign parents, and in the constitutional republic of USA the Citizens are sovereign.

Horace Gray was a lackey for another usurper Chester Arthur, Gray through the course of the Wong court, attempted to erode the US Constitution's meaning and intent of Article II and even still all Wong got was 'citizen' under 14th Amendment.

Much like Kagen & Sotomayor are lackeys for the usurper Obama.

In fact Horace Gray was known to fiddle with court transcripts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Gray
"Gray is best known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; the justices, feeling that the opinions written had not adequately explained their view of the situation (the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), wished to rehear the case. After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer's Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional. He was in the minority, however. After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff. He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing."

No 'natural' for Wong, and rightly so.

As it can be seen, Gray's logic was flawed and he was in error.

English 'natural born subject' is only equivalent to USA 14th Amendment citizen because for one to be eligible for highest office in either land one must be born of sovereign parents, who in USA are sovereign US Citizens & in England also sovereign parents.

Michael said...

Calvin’s Case:

“and so in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances to two several persons.”

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

Ergo, Obama is “alien born”.

Puzo1 said...

Some Obama supporters attack my legal position on whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" by saying that by my arguing that Obama was born a British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1948, I am allowing British law to trump American law and therefore allowing the British Parliament to effectively determine who is eligible to be U.S. President.

First, if British law makes an Hawaiian-born Obama (assuming he was born in Hawaii which he has yet to conclusively show) a British citizen at birth just like U.S. law makes a Panamanian-born McCain a U.S. citizen at birth, we cannot complain about that. Rather, we must just recognize that it is a nation's sovereign right to determine who are its citizens based on time-honored principles of citizenship.

Second, this argument is inconsistent with how these same persons justify Obama being a "natural born Citizen." They are the ones who insist that the Founders and Framers used the English common law to define an Article II "natural born Citizen" and not the law of nations, notwithstanding that the latter law is explicitly recognized as applicable to the national government in the Constitution in the text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 and by the words of the Founders and Framers and the former law is not.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

To Big Bo and Bo;

WHEN the '0' is DECLARED not to be an 'American natural born citizen' under the 'definition, meaning and intent' of the Constitutional 'idiom' of Article II Section I Clause V by SCOTUS, making the determination based both on the 'Citizenship Question' and 'transient' Political aspects of the 'idiom, the Congress will be forced to bend to the Will of the Law and the People and Draft Articles of REMOVAL and, upon an affirmative Vote, send the Articles to the Senate for CONCURRENCE, a Senate Trial being made MOOT by the SCOTUS Declaratory Judgement.

I say that the Congress will be FORCED by the Law and the WILL of the People because I think you misjudge the AWAKENING that has occurred by the Communist/ Socialist insurgency that is now fully exposed and being resisted by the MAJORITY of the American public.

Chaos, Riots, Turmoil...?...Better fought preserving the Constitution than fighting the Communist/Socialist on the fringes of their agenda.

jayjay said...

United Natural Born Citizens:

Well and rightfully said. It is beyond belief that massive multidues would riot and murder to retain a putative President who is clearly breaking the law of the land. If so, the revolution has already started and we have no laws worth mentioning!

Most people are law abiding despite what yhe Obama-backers would like you to believe ... that sort of nonsense is old news to most of us who have heard these desperate claims to try to retain "their boy" in power.

The odd thing is that most of those making these preposterous pronouncements don't even own guns or know how to use them; they rather try to grab them from others by force of law and those who own and operate the majority of the many firearms in the country indeed DO know how to use them.

cfkerchner said...

Excellent new video at YouTube about our Petition to the Supreme Court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_381358&v=Q3djvS0kdZQ&feature=iv

Pass along this well done video to friends, family, and associates who are concerned about our Constitutional Republic and Obama's usurpation of the office of the Presidency and command of our military.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org