Monday, November 15, 2010

Atty Mario Apuzzo & Mr Don Nelsen were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 16 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo & Mr Donald Nelsen, one of the four plaintiffs in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 16 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST. The subject was the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court and the latest activity in that case including an Amicus Curiae Brief filed by the Western Center of Journalism in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more about the Jim 'Howie' Mandel Radio Show see: http://www.howieunveilsgodsshield.com/

You can listen to a podcast of this show at:
16 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-111610.mp3
Podcasts of prior Jim Howie Mandel shows covering the Kerchner et al v Obama et al case:
09 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-110910.mp3
05 Oct 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-100510.mp3
For podcasts of all Jim Howie Mandel shows see the lower half of this page:
http://www.latalkradio.com/Mandel.php

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010. To read the Petition see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please make a donation to help the cause if you can at:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

12 comments:

Joe said...

Hi Mario & Charles,
I've been listening to the podcasts you've been making lately and I have a good hypothetical question for you.

You win your case! Fast-forward to 2012 and Bobby Jindal is nominated as the Republican candidate. What happens next?

The reason I ask is that we have all witnessed the government break the law with no consequence thousands of times. The government seems to just ignore the laws that they do not want to comply with. Do we have to bring them to court again?
And
In light of the Congressional Research Service report released recently, admitting that nobody in Congress vetted Obama, would that re-open if you will, cases that have been or will be dismissed based on the theory that Obama did go through the "political process"?

Ted said...

November 23, 2010 marks a fork in the road for the future of America of more than historic proportions -- perhaps on par with events leading to the Civil War. To date, virtually all federal and state courts where actions have been brought seeking decision on the meaning of the Constitution's Article 2 "natural born citizen" clause as a prerequisite for Barack Obama to be a lawful President and Commander in Chief of the United States (Mr. Obama having been born to a father of British/Kenyan nationality and father not a citizen of the United States), have been shut down, never getting beyond the issue of standing. To date, courts have very strategically (narrowly if not artfully) characterized and applied law and legal procedure steadfastly to prevent the question from ever rising to the merits -- this on a host of different types and classes of plaintiffs, causes and defendants -- admittedly under the most intensely implicit (if not more) pressure to do the same. The national media (some say our 4th branch of government) has aided and abetted the avoidance by mischaracterizing this as a "Hawaii birth" a/k/a "birther" issue which is nothing more than a "red herring" in that the issue for Article 2 "natural born citizen" is Mr. Obama's father. Moreover, the legal community has aided and abetted the avoidance by mischaracterizing the 1898 Supreme Court Case, Wong Kim Arc, which dealt with the meaning of "citizenship", not the meaning of "natural born citizen" under Article 2.

Ted said...

continued...

November 23, 2010 may very well be the last chance for the Judicial Branch realistically to take up the issue, this on a case of legal standing solidly presented by Attorney Apuzzo and Commander Kerchener. If the Court finds no standing here, by a narrow interpretation of the same or otherwise, coming after all the rest of the "no standing" cases, it is doubtfull this important Constitutional issue can and will be resolved in any court of law. The question will nevertheless continue to fester, at tremendous national cost, never to abate, potentially to reach crisis stage, and in any event to undermine the structure of our Constitutional Republic.

It is more than chilling and says volumes that NOT ONE member of Congress will publicly speak on this or, better yet, since the Congress of the United States has more than a vested interest, opine if not as a "friend of the court" at the Supreme Court, in the court of public opinion -- BEFORE the Supreme Court convenes on November 23, 2010.

The world is (should be) watching!

Puzo1 said...

Joe,

Simply stated, if Jindal is not a "natural born Citizen," then he is not eligible to be President.

No court, except for the Indiana court in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), reached the merits of the Obama eligibility issue, reaching those merits without even having one shred of competent and admissible evidence before it that Obama was born in Hawaii (like Obama's original birth certificate or at least the alleged Certification of Live Birth). Hence, vetting was not the "stated" basis of any court decision, even though some courts took some shots at the "birthers" by ridiculing them based on alleged vetting during the political process and on the internet.

What is incredible about the courts saying that Obama has been adequately vetted is that the whole world knows that Obama has refused to disclose to the public his birth certificate (his 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate), education, travel, study, and work papers. Even the recently discovered April 3, 2009 CRS memo by Jack Maskell proves this. The memo states: "[I]t may be noted here briefly that the only 'official' documentation or record that has been presented in the matter of President Obama's eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the record of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth" (emphasis in the original). Note that Maskell, despite his cursory comments by way of “hidden” footnotes, does not say that this "official" record has been proven to exist only in the form of a 2008 internet image. Also, we all know that the 2007 Certification of Live Birth (“COLB”) (not to be confused with a Certificate of Live Birth which is a long-form birth certificate) that Obama released to the public in 2008 as an internet image is no "certified" anything and has been attacked by knowledgeable individuals as a forgery. Even Hawaii, although saying that it has birth records on Obama, has yet to confirm that the internet image is the true representation of anything that it allegedly officially released as an Obama birth record in 2007. Maskell also refers in a footnote to the two newspapers announcements of Obama’s birth without explaining that these announcements were simply produced by the Hawaii Health Department based on what can be uncorroborated information that was told to it and that they do not in and of themselves prove anything. In short, how can there be any real vetting if Obama has hidden himself from public scrutiny and has disclosed nothing but a questionable internet image of an alleged COLB? Moreover, even if the COLB is authentic, under Hawaiian law 338-13, it is not acceptable as a "certified" copy of the long-form 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate, for it is an incomplete document given that it fails to disclose the birth hospital and delivery doctor. How can a document that does not contain all the material information of the original be "for all purposes the same as the original? Finally, the prima facie value of the COLB has been defeated by all the existing circumstantial evidence showing that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

Given that Obama has refused and persists in refusing to release his identification documents (including his long-form birth certificate) to the public, that Obama only released to the public in 2008 a questionable internet image of an alleged 2007 COLB, and the existence of contradictory information showing that Obama was not born in Hawaii, it is rather disingenuous of Maskell to state that “[no] official documents or records have been produced or forwarded contradicting the prima facie indications of President Obama's birth in Hawaii” and to refer to the COLB internet image as an “official certification (or certificate) of live birth.” There will be more to come on Maskell’s CRS memo.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Michael-Is-Great said...

Concerning:
(Start)
4. Whether Congress ... and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
(End)

First, I am pretty sure that the second condition that BOTH parents must be American citizens for the president to be considered a "natural born" citizen did come up during the inquiry on the "natural born" status of John McCain.
Therefore, Obama knew fully this second condition, the first one being that Obama should be born in the USA. The first condition should be proven with the long form birth certificate, BUT it also must be fully valid because Obama could come up with an officially "genuine" long form birth certificate that could nevertheless not be valid for several reasons:
---false information written despite the fact that the long form birth certificate is completely genuine (!!);
---false statement that Obama was born in Hawaii made by his mother or grandmother when, in fact, he was born in Kenya!!! We already know that a grandmother could have made in Hawaii the declaration that Obama was born in Hawaii on behalf of her grandchild even though obama was not even around!
---and more deceptions of this type.

Second, Obama played a role during this inquiry concerning the "natural born" status of John McCain and therefore he was already at that time (even before running as a Democrat presidential candidate) FULLY AWARE that to be president of the USA, the president MUST BE a "natural born" citizen, a criterion that requires 2 conditions that Obama knew very well [1) Obama must be born in the USA; AND 2) BOTH parents of Obama must be American!!!]. Condition 2 is already not met and therefore condition 1 does ot matter at all!!!
Consequently, Obama will not be able to claim that he did not know the 2 conditions for being allowed to be a president of the USA!! Not to mention that Obama studied law at university!

Again, and it is worth repeating, KEEP FIGHTING AS LONG AS YOU FINALLY WIN BY PROVING THAT OBAMA WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
NEVER EVER GIVE UP THIS HOLY FIGHT BECAUSE NOTHING LESS THAN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA IS AT STAKE and therefore, in many ways, it is a holy fight to defend the very essence of the USA, its Constitution.
I know, for Obama, he thinks that he is above the Constitution of the USA but, one day, he will be proved to have been a deceiver of the highest calibre at the expenses of the American people!!

Thank you for all your efforts, Mr. Apuzzo, and NEVER EVER GIVE UP UNTIL COMPLETE SUCCESS IS FINALLY OBTAINED.

bdwilcox said...

In my opinion, the most grotesque facet of the CRS memo: quoting one of the greatest instances of judicial malfeasance I have ever witnessed as if it carried veracity. Namely, 'Judge' Land's claim that Obama was vetted by the internet, so the courts are off the hook: "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," (Hollister v. Soetoro) Footnote 15, pg. 3 of the CRS memo.

Good grief. Before you know it, one of these judges will claim Obama is a natural born citizen because his wife's hair-dresser's cousin's dog-walker told her that he was and that the people questioning it are all crazy.

Ted said...

IMHO, of course both Obama and Team Obama were always fully aware of the Natural Born Citizen issue (father British) -- which is precisely why they've (successfully) diverted attention to the "red herring" "birther" Hawaii birthplace issue!

Ted said...

Mario & Charles:--

I KNOW you are not doing this for national recognition, but for love of country. Having said this and having followed very closely the progress of your case as well as those of Mr. Donofrio and Ms. Taitz before you, you are to be more than thanked for giving the Supreme Court a case of standing (if they so elect). Whether the Court elects to use your gift to address what is the most serious challenge to our Constitutional Republic (IMHO) since its founding, you are truely heroes and should be the subject of future history textbooks. Hopefully that history will appear in the context of the Court taking the case in conference next week on November 23. Either way -- whether historic as a day of rejuvination of our now faltering Constitional Republic, or a day of infamy if the Supreme Court shrinks, in what would seem our judiciary's last chance, from duty, on a pretext of their finding no standing -- again, you are national heroes.

Let us move forward said...

If Sotomayor and Kagan recuse, must four justices vote positively in the conference for the petition to proceed? Or will three be sufficient?

jayjay said...

Ted:

You are oh, so right. Nov. 23 will be a very important day (assuming SCOTUS acts in some definitive fashion) - one way or the other.

Let us move forward:

I believe the answer is THREE.

Spaulding said...

Mr. Mandell, in his first interview, appeared not to respond, seemingly not to want to hear, the common-law, the dicta, defining natural born citizenship.
He wanted only to hear and talk about birth certificates.

Mr, Apuzzo, in the response above, appears to be steering in the same direction. Many of your fans have read the cases, the essays, the history explaining John Jay's recommendation. Noting that Orly Taitz, clearly not steeped in legal history or international law as Mr. Apuzzo was from law school years, introduced the irrelevancy of the birth certificate in 2008 when, following Berg in a press conference. She explained, without the deep analysis Mr's Apuzzo and onofrio provided.

Has there been a shift in your strategy, and if so, can you explain why? I doubt there is anyone of your supporters who is not now convinced that the prepoderance of the examples of our most important framers understood the definition cited by Vattel, who was only one legal author to have a category for jus soli and jus sanguinis.

Allegiance would seem to be a more important qualification than birthplace; naturalized citizens are often more vociferous supporters, and understand our Constitution better than the remarkable number of native citizens who have never read it.

The liklihood that clever socialists have set a trap, perhaps for reasons similar to Chester Arthur's concealment of his birth certificate, to misdirect concerns seems too likely a possibility to allow the focus to be a birth certificate. Obama descibed seeing his birth certificate among his grandmothers effects. Did he take it? Given the reluctance of the Supreme Court (Justice Thomas's admission) to get involved, the production of a valid birth certificate would almost certainly end examination of the legitimacy issue (though leaving the "equal protection under the law" complaint).

Why is the birth certificate being elevated as the principal concern - it it is?

Puzo1 said...

Spaulding,

I have not abandoned the issue of the true meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." Be careful not to take conversations out of the total context.

We covered that meaning on the previous show and Mr. Mandell simply wanted to learn other information regarding place of birth.

All my writing to the court, including the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on this blog clearly set out both the issues of the true meaning of a "natural born Citizen" and the place of birth.