The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Receives Kerchner v. Obama/Congress for Decision

As I have already reported, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (retired), Lowell T. Paterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., have filed a legal action against Barack H. Obama II, in both his private and public capacity as putative President of the United States. They have included claims against Congress, former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

First, they argue that the Founders' and Framers' definition of a "natural born Citizen" may be found in the law of nations as commented on by Emer de Vattel in his highly influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1758 French edition, 1759 first English edition) and not in the inapplicable English common law. The Framers adopted the “Law of Nations” as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States” but did not so adopt the English common law. We also know that under Article VI, the “Laws of the United States” which are made in pursuance of the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the law of nations, a “natural born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents, meaning both mother and father. Vattel, Sections 212-33. The Kerchner plaintiffs maintain that under the law of nations, Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the military because, being born with conflicting allegiance to Great Britain which he inherited from his non-United States citizen father and possibly to the United States if he was born in Hawaii as he claims but has not shown, he cannot meet the Founders’ and Framers’ constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which requires the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth only to the United States which status is acquired at birth only if the child is born in the United States (or its equivalent) to a citizen mother and father.

Second, they also argue that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was in fact born in Hawaii or any other place in the United States and that even if he were born in the United States, at most he is a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States" but not an Article II "natural born Citizen." At the time the Framers adopted the Constitution, they allowed persons who were "citizens of the United States" to be President, provided that they had that status as of the time the Constitution was adopted which we know was 1787. If a child did not have that status at that time, the Framers required that a would-be President be a "natural born Citizen." There is no denying from a simple reading of its text that the Fourteenth Amendment only grants to individuals, who can acquire by either birth or naturalization in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the equal status of a "citizen of the United States." The amendment makes no mention of a “natural born Citizen” and surely would not by implication equate a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen” since the Framers in Article II were careful to make a distinction between the two types of citizens and we must give meaning to the words the Framers so chose and a naturalized citizen can be a “citizen of the United States” but cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Amendment only defined the Framers' "citizen of the United States," which status created doubts throughout our history but did not define the Framers’ "natural born Citizen" which never created any doubts as to its meaning and therefore needed no clarification through any constitutional amendment.

Hence, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he would fall under the Framers’ "citizen of the United States" status as later defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. But being a born "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment in 1961 is not sufficient to establish eligibility under Article II which now requires that Obama be a "natural born Citizen." There is also no denying that being born in 1961, Obama was not a “citizen of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1787. Hence, to be eligible to be President, he must be a “natural born Citizen.” But if Obama was born in Hawaii which we know was to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, he would be a born "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment but not a "natural born Citizen" under Article II. So even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he would not be eligible to be President under Article II.

I have already reported that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia decided it did not need oral arguments on the Kerchner appeal to that Court and that the Court would receive the case on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 for decision on the briefs. I have also been informed that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman. See the latest 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Summary Docket for this case here.

Now we have to wait for the Court to render its decision. We do not know how long it will take to do so. We can only presume that the Court is aware of the critical importance of this issue and that my clients need to know as soon as possible where they stand. Hence, I believe that we can expect that the Court will provide us with its decision in the not too distant future.

If the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner case, the case will most likely return to that lower court for discovery and trial. On the other hand, if the Court affirms the lower court because of standing and/or political question, we will then file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will in any event provide the final judicial word on Obama’s eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 30, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
###

The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to Third Circuit 'Submitted for Decision' 29 June 2010 on the Written Briefs with No Oral Argument

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia PA decided to not allow any Oral Argument on the Kerchner v Obama & Congress appeal to that Court. The case was officially "submitted for decision" on the written briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence at the courthouse was not required.

The U.S. Third Circuit Panel of the Court that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.  See the latest Appeal Court Docket entry here.

As we know in the lower court, the Federal District Court, Judge Simandle granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs thus appealed that decision to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Legally, on a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown the facts that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual citizenship and conflicting allegiances if he was actually born in the U.S., or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown the facts that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court in Camden NJ or to the Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed in the written briefs presented to both courts. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court.

Of course, it is our hope that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court in Camden NJ for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, thus denying our appeal, we will then be filing a Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word on this matter in any event.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo will likely post a statement on this matter later.

Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
June 30, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
###

Two Questions to Ask Putative President Obama’s Enablers, aka Obots, Regarding Where Obama Was Born

We have seen the responses we get from Putative President Obama’s enablers, aka Obots, when we ask to see Obama's long-form birth certificate (not the Certification of Live Birth or COLB someone posted on the internet) and when we say that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. Here is a typical one:

"These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate. Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate." Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Apart from identifying and commenting on the many outright lies contained in this answer, we need to ask these enablers the following two questions and caution them that they are not to evade answering them as they have done so far. Here are the questions and accompanying instructions:

If what you say is all true, then please answer for me two questions:

1. Where specifically in Honolulu, Hawaii was Obama born? Do not just tell me in Honolulu. We are talking about the President of the United States. Hence, I want to know the exact address in Honolulu where he first saw the light of day. We are only dealing with 1961 and such information should be readily available, especially since Obama says he was born in a hospital. Also, do not simply say that he was born in some-named hospital, for you will have to provide me with credible and sufficient evidence from such an institution to support your answer. Also, some unconfirmed letter image posted on the internet that Obama allegedly wrote on January 24, 2009 to Kapi’olani Medical Center is not such evidence, for Obama never confirmed that he wrote it and the letter is not from the hospital.

2. Who was physically present when Obama was born? I doubt that in 1961 an 18-year-old girl could give birth to her first baby all alone. Hence, since as you claim Obama's birth has been confirmed by all these authorities, then you or at least one of these authorities should be able to tell me who was present to assist or witness baby Obama come out of his mother's womb. Also, we can assume that the person who was present would be the person who would have "officially" reported Obama's birth to the Hawaiian health department authorities, for surely neither Nancy Pelosi nor any past or present Hawaiian authority of whom you so glowingly speak claims to have been personally present during his alleged birth in Honolulu or to otherwise have personal knowledge of how, when, and where Obama was born. In your answer, please provide the name of the person that was present during and actually witnessed the alleged birth and his/her function at that time. Please do not whine that my question is burdensome or otherwise unreasonable given the time lapse. Again, we are only talking about 1961 and we are told that Obama's birth was in a modern hospital. Hence, the answer to my question should be rather easy to obtain from the medical file that is in the possession of the alleged birth hospital.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the burden of proof is on me and not Obama or that my questions are intrusive of Obama’s privacy. After all, we are talking about Obama wanting to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States of America and leader of the free world and our Constitution requires that in order to be eligible for those powerful and singular civilian and military offices he produce such information for the people he is supposed to serve and protect in that capacity.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the courts have already answered these questions, for we know that they dismissed eligibility cases because of standing, political question, or some other threshold ground, and have yet to rule on the question of where Obama was born.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that Obama has already released to the public his birth certificate (which is really a Certification of Live Birth or COLB and not a Certificate of Live Birth) by posting it on the internet and that the state of Hawaii has confirmed the existence of Obama’s birth certificate which is in the Hawaii Department of Health file, for the only birth certificate the public has seen so far is a questionable 2008 computer image of an alleged 2007 COLB which someone posted on the internet, we know that the state of Hawaii has yet to confirm that internet image, and the alleged COLB that appears on the internet does not in any event tell us where in Honolulu Obama was born or who was present when he was so born.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me about what we all learned in some high school government class or that the people already voted in the 2008 election, for you should know that what we learn in any such class or what occurs in the polling booth is neither sufficient nor indicated in our constitutional republic as a means to answer constitutional questions.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the people who want answers to my questions should not be taken to be rational people because they also believe the JFK assassination was a grand conspiracy, the earth is flat, the moon landing was made on some Hollywood stage, or the 9/11 attack was preplanned by our own government.

Please do not answer my questions by accusing me and the people who want answers to my questions of posting on the internet false Obama birth certificates or other fabricated Obama life stories, for we know that you yourself probably posted those things to make it look like we did.

Please do not answer my questions with a question, or with otherwise evasive answers, or with personal attacks on me, my motives, my politics, my patriotism, my religion, my views on race, my work, my ancestors, or my pets.

And finally, please do not answer my questions by telling me that the questions and answers have already been generously twittered by our smart populace.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 27, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S.  Also read this, A Catalog of Evidence - Why Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Obama was Born In Hawaii: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html
####

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Les Naiman Show, WGTK 970, Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, Sunday 27 June 2010 7 PM EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner featured guests on the Les Naiman radio show, WGTK 970 in Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, on Sunday, 27 June 2010, 7 PM EST.

Link to WGTK 970 in Louisville KY: http://www.970wgtk.com/

A podcast of the show is available at this link:
http://lesnaimanshow.podbean.com/2010/06/27/the-les-naiman-show-62710/


Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please if you can, visit this site and donate to help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org

####

Obama’s Long-Form Birth Certificate: A Quick $10,000.00 for Dr. Conspiracy

It appears that I gave Dr. Conspiracy a tough math problem to tackle. I have published a Catalog of Evidence that details evidence pro and con for a Hawaiian birth for putative President Obama. The catalog which is entitled, A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii, may be read at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html. Dr. Conspiracy tells us he has a masters in mathematics and that he has calculated using his vast knowledge of mathematical formulas that my Catalog of Evidence equals 0. He arrives at that by multiplying the 35 (the then-number of paragraphs in the Catalog) by 0 (Dr. Conspiracy’s assigned value to each one of my paragraphs) which he so artfully explains equals 0. Calling his complex calculation, “Multiplication by zero,” Dr. Conspiracy explains how he solved the problem: “This one may yet see the light of day. I was inspired by the posting of Mario Apuzzo’s 35th entry in his catalog of Obama smears. While I’m not a real doctor, I do have in [sic] Masters Degree in mathematics and one of the things you learn pretty early on is that any number multiplied by zero is still zero. The point of the article is that Mario may have 35 things in his catalog, but if they are all worthless, then the value of them all is 35 times 0.” Indeed, Archimedes would be pleased.

Well, now that I have found someone who is a world-renowned mathematician working on my Obama problems, I figured that I would give Dr. Conspiracy another math problem. Bill Keller, leader of LivePrayer.com, an internet ministry that has over 2.4 million subscribers worldwide and who is seen daily on Comcast's MyTV8, has issued a $10,000 reward to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow to produce Obama's Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. Late last year, Keller was hired to produce and host an infomercial that was seen in markets around the country. He asked the simple question, where was Obama really born? Maddow used her MSNBC program to mock and demean Keller and others who simply request that Obama produce his long-form birth certificate. Keller contacted Maddow's producers and offered to appear with her on her program, but she declined his offer. As a result, Keller has made his $10,000 offer to Maddow to produce Obama's Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. One would think that if Obama has released his birth certificate like his enablers tell the world, the $10,000.00 should be easy money for Maddow to earn. But let us see if she is able to produce the birth certificate and take her cash.

What I need to know from Dr. Conspiracy is not anything about who Keller is, who his great-grandfather was, whether he goes to church on Sundays, whether he practices a true religion, what version of the Bible he reads, how many dogs he has, and whether they are full bred. And I surely am not interested in hearing from Dr. Conspiracy how Keller can himself obtain the birth certificate or some other variant such as a Certification of Live Birth (COLB). Keller would not be making this offer if he could have done any of that himself. Rather, what I need to know from Dr. Conspiracy is how do we calculate the true value of $10,000.00? Does the number have a true value or is it just illusionary? I need to know this information so that I can determine whether Maddow will accept this $10,000.00 challenge. If Dr. Conspiracy determines, after applying his mathematical skills to solve this complex math problem that the $10,000.00 number does really offer true value, may I suggest to him that he investigate whether Maddow will be accepting this challenge. If she is not, may I then recommend to Dr. Conspiracy that he himself accept the challenge. I am sure that it will be an easy challenge for him to overcome since he has been for almost 2 years vociferously and zealously defending at his conspiracy blog Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii and ridiculing the efforts of anyone investigating Obama’s claim. He should therefore have the necessary long-form birth certificate and additional paperwork to easily overcome this challenge and collect the cash.

May we all wish Dr. Conspiracy great success on making this fast $10,000.00.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 25, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S.  Here's a report of an offer to pay $25,000,000 if Obama provides to them a copy of his "real" long-form Birth Certificate, if one exists, which would show the name of the doctor or mid-wife who delivered him and the name of the hospital.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/25000000-if-obama-will-produce-his-real.html

A One-on-One Personal Interview with Commander Kerchner Regarding his Eligibility Challenge and Lawsuit against Obama & Congress | @ The Post & Email

A One-on-One Personal Interview with Commander Kerchner Regarding his Eligibility Challenge and Lawsuit against Obama and Congress

"YOU HAVE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS BATTLE”

by Sharon Rondeau - The Post & Email

(Jun. 21, 2010) — Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), is the lead plaintiff in the case Kerchner v. Obama & Congress, which is scheduled for review by a three-judge panel on June 29, 2010. Commander Kerchner has given The Post & Email his first public individual interview, and we are very pleased to present it in its entirety here.

A resident of the State of Pennsylvania, Commander Kerchner served 33 years in the U.S. Naval Reserves as both a Commissioned Officer and an Enlisted person. He enlisted with the U.S. Naval Reserve in 1962 as an E-1. He served two years of active duty as an enlisted person, after which he returned to the U.S. Naval Reserves serving with various drilling select reserve units.

As a drilling member of the U.S. Naval Reserves, he was advanced at various times until reaching the rank of Chief Petty Officer (E-7) in 1970. In 1976 he was commissioned as a U.S. Naval Reserve Officer and was appointed as an Ensign (O-1), serving as a Commissioned Officer for 19 years. He was promoted to the rank of a full Commander (O-5) in 1992.

He served annually on active duty for training and drilled with various reserve units until he retired in 1995. During his career, he served on numerous types of ships such as aircraft carriers, destroyers, repair ships, salvage ships, and patrol craft. In addition to his military service, Commander Kerchner holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and a B.A. in Economics from Lafayette College.

Commander Kerchner took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and feels it is his duty to support and defend the United States Constitution pursuant to that oath. Commander Kerchner and the other plaintiffs on his case maintain in the Twelve Counts in their lawsuit that the putative president, Barack Hussein Obama, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution and that no one in the election process, including the U.S. Congress which had a duty to investigate the charges against Obama’s eligibility (as they did for similar charges against McCain) has fully investigated Obama’s hidden and sealed original records as to his early life and have not vetted Obama’s Article II eligibility to constitutional standards.

Read the full in-depth interview here ...

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/21/a-one-on-one-personal-interview-with-commander-kerchner-regarding-his-eligibility-challenge-and-lawsuit-against-obama-and-congress/


Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

New Ad - Hawaii 2008 Senior Elections Clerk, Tim Adams, Supervisors' Investigations in 2008 - Obama Not Born in any Hawaii Hospital

New Ad - Hawaii 2008 Senior Elections Clerk, Tim Adams, Says He & His Supervisors' Investigations in 2008 Showed Obama Not Born in any Hawaii Hospital and He Would So Testify in Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 21 June 2010 - page 5

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33344155/Hawaii-Sr-Election-Clerk-Obama-Not-Born-in-any-Hawaii-Hospital-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-20100621-Pg-5

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

When will the major and national Main Stream Media interview Tim Adams? It is disgraceful that no major national media has even reported this story or investigated and discussed it in their writings and speaking on radio or TV in their roles as national reporters as to its veracity. Nor have they even interviewed Tim Adams and/or his former supervisors for more details about their in depth investigation into Obama's claimed hospital birth in Hawaii which was done by the Hawaiian Election's Office supervisory staff. That office has confirmed that Tim Adams did work there in 2008. Our Main Stream Media is deliberately, without conscience, disgracefully, and now criminally in my opinion ignoring this story and everything else about the Obama eligibility issue for two years now. The Main Stream Media is failing totally in their duty to insure the legality of elections in our Constitutional Republic by exposing frauds and con-men trying to fool the people and defraud the election process. What good is a free press if they don't do their job and instead act as shills and cover up agents for the Obama lies about his early life and allow him to continue to hide and seal his records from the American people? Our major media in the USA has become akin to the news media in the old former Soviet Union. Nobody in Russia trusted them. And now nobody in the USA trusts are major media. And the people are getting very angry about the media feeding us all red herring stories of the daily crisis with Obama's policies instead of talking about the elephant in the room in Washington DC circles and with the majority of the American people, the Obama's constitutional eligibility issue. The major media in this country is now a complete national disgrace, along with Obama and a corrupt Congress lead by two parties complicit in the eligibility issue cover up. A day of reckoning is coming. A lot of rhetorical heads are going to roll in Obama's team, the Congress, the press, and both political parties. We the People are angry and totally fed up with the Congress and the Press and the Political Parties. It is only a matter of time now. Let it come sooner rather than later. And let the chips and heads fall where there may in both political parties in the elections, if not sooner, for what they have done in creating the worst Constitutional Crisis since the Civil War. The truth and the Constitution will win in the end. And the deceivers will be punished by We the People.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html

Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

The Kerchner v. Obama/Congress Case Is Not the Same as the Berg v. Obama Case Despite the OBOT Minions' Talking Points Blogging/Claiming That It Is

On June 29, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals will receive for decision the Kerchner et al. v. Obama/Congress et al. appeal to that Court of the Federal District Court's dismissal of the case for what it said was lack of standing and political question.  Putative President Obama's supporters are out and about arguing that the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case and therefore the Third Circuit Court of Appeals should affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case for lack of standing. This is not only an incredible statement but an outright lie. First, while Berg focused only on the place of birth issue, Kerchner argues that Obama is not and cannot be President no matter where he was born because not being born to a citizen father which made him born a subject of a foreign power, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Second, Berg sued candidate Obama before the general election but the Kerchner plaintiffs sued both President Elect Obama (after Congress confirmed him but before Chief Justice Roberts swore him in) and putative President Obama (after the Chief Justice swore him in). Third, Berg did not sue Congress but Kerchner did. Fourth, Berg did not argue like Kerchner does that based on the plaintiffs' individual Fifth Amendment right to protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, which protection they do not receive from a person who is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore is an illegal and illegitimate President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This lack of protection from their President and Commander in Chief to which each particular plaintiff is entitled under our Constitutional covenant between the People and the Government as conceived by the Founders and Framers is more than sufficient to show the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing. Fifth, there is also so much more to the Kerchner case. If one were to fully read both the Berg case and the Kerchner case, there is no way that one could honestly say that the cases are the same and that the Kerchner plaintiffs therefore do not have standing. Rather, such a reading will clearly show that Obama’s supporters are fully engaged in not only wishful thinking but also outright deceit. Only one driven by animosity or the deceit of party spirit which rears its head in various explicit and hidden forms rather than by the desire to protect the Constitution and the Constitutional Republic can come to the incredible conclusion that the Kerchner and Berg cases are the same.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 19, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today electronically by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court. The case will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence is therefore not required.

The Court also informed me that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.

The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.

Of course, it is our hope that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 15, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
###

The Post & Email’s Exclusive Interview with Eligibility Attorney Mario Apuzzo

The Post & Email’s Exclusive Interview with Eligibility Attorney Mario Apuzzo

“THE FOUNDERS GAVE US A DEFINITION THAT WE COULD ALL AGREE ON”

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/09/the-post-emails-exclusive-interview-with-eligibility-attorney-mario-apuzzo/

(Jun. 9, 2010) — Mario Apuzzo was born on June 30, 1956. He graduated from Jamesburg High School in New Jersey in 1975. He obtained his undergraduate degree in Political Science from Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, PA. He then attended Temple University School of Law in Philadelphia, from which he graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree in 1982. He then continued his post-graduate legal studies at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento, CA, at its McGeorge School of Law and in Salzburg, Austria, which also included coursework in Milan, Italy, receiving a Diploma in Advanced International Legal Studies in 1983. He has also studied comparative international law at Temple University, in Rome, and has pursued a second law degree in the European civil law system at the University of Naples.

Mr. Apuzzo founded his law firm in 1983, at which time he went into private practice in New Jersey. He currently has his law offices at 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831. He is engaged in the general practice of law which includes trials and appellate work in both the state and federal courts.

Regarding the Obama eligibility controversy, Attorney Apuzzo published his first blog entry on December 20, 2008 after having followed and contributed to the postings on the websites of Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz.  Commander Charles Kerchner was put in touch with Attorney Apuzzo by an acquaintance who had known he had been seeking an attorney to challenge Congress and Obama regarding Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

Read more of the interview here ...

Posted by: Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see this site and help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate - Wed, 02 Jun 2010, 9:10 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner will be guests on Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate on Wednesday, 2 June 2010, at 9:10 p.m. EST. Direct link to the show at BlogTalkRadio.com:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/06/03/revolution-radio-obamas-constititional-disability

Also stop by and read Dr. Kate's blog at:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see this site and help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

On Obama’s Eligibility to be President, Who Is Protecting the Constitution and the Nation, the “Birthers” or Obama and His Enablers?

First, some of our founding principles:

“A Constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and government without a constitution is power without a right.” Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, Part the Second, Chapter IV, Of Constitutions (1792).

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." John Adams.

"If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great Security." Samuel Adams

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln.

With these time-honored principles in mind, let us now examine who is protecting the Constitution and the Nation, the “birthers” or Obama and his enablers. Let us review why the "birthers" maintain that Obama is ineligible to be President and by usurping that office is subverting the Constitution and presents a grave and present danger to our Nation. They make a two-part argument.

First, the "birthers" argue that Obama does not meet the original and only doubt-free, definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" which, apart that it is the only definition that best serves the national security interests of the United States, has been confirmed by religious and secular history, founding era evidence, U.S. Supreme Court cases, Congressional Acts, and many notable international and constitutional law scholars. That definition is that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born in the country (or its equivalent) to U.S. citizen parents (mother and father). Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 first edition which was written in French; 1759 first edition written in English). They argue that this, and not the English common law definition of a “natural born subject,” is the only definition of a “natural born Citizen” which, like the 35-years of age and 14-years of residency requirements, creates no doubts as to its meaning, and therefore would have been the only definition the Framers would have adopted when establishing the presidential eligibility standards in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. They argue that under the British Nationality Act 1948, when Obama was born in 1961, Obama’s father, who was born in the then-British colony of Kenya, was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was also born a British subject/citizen by inheriting that allegiance by descent from his father. Hence, because he is missing one of two U.S. citizen parents at birth, through his father, who never became a U.S. citizen or even a U.S. legal permanent resident, and through himself, Obama was born with as much natural allegiance to Great Britain which at age 2 converted to Kenyan as he was born with to the United States (if he was born in Hawaii). Hence, being born without unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States and rather with conflicting natural allegiance to Great Britain and then to Kenya, there is no way that Obama can be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and the President and Commander in Chief of its military.

Second, the “birthers” argue that Obama, who unjustifiably refuses to satisfy his burden of proof and present to the public his readily available 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate and his education, work, and travel documents, has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. Hence, presumably not being born in the United States and not being able to resort to any Congressional Act to make him a “citizen of the United States” let alone a “natural born Citizen,” Obama cannot be President.

How do Obama's enablers respond? Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 itself distinguishes between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and commands that today only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. But Obama’s enablers just forget about all that and argue that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” was finally clarified in 1898 (only 120 years after the Constitution was adopted) by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, despite previous Supreme Court cases defining it as Vattel did in 1758 and despite that the Wong Court was only asked the question of whether Wong was a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. They say, although without providing sufficient evidence thereof, that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is therefore a Wong Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." Then they take the Obama Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” and, with a quantum leap in logic and without any support from anything stated in the Wong majority decision, and despite the Wong majority confirming the same Vattelian original and only definition of a “natural born Citizen” which it recognized to be a different class of citizen from a “citizen of the United States,” equate him to an Article II "natural born Citizen." They justify their twisted reading of the Wong decision and the Fourteenth Amendment by arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment amended Article II's "natural born Citizen" clause which in effect would mean that it amended the Presidential eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution to say that anyone who is a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is also an Article II “natural born Citizen.” They do all this by arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment amended Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause even though the Constitution tells us in Article V how to amend it which does not include amending it by stealth, implication, and without notice to and vote by the People via ratification by 3/4th of the several states. 

On Obama's place of birth, despite that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Twentieth Amendment provide that a would-be President before qualifying for the Office of President must, among other things, show that he or she is a "natural born Citizen," they argue that it is up to those who question his place of birth to prove he was not born in Hawaii rather than up to Obama to prove that he was in fact born there. They have the face to make this argument even though they enable Obama to refuse to release to the public his 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate and education, work, and travel documents, they let him get away with not being otherwise transparent with the public, and they confuse the American people by telling them Obama has released his original birth certificate when in fact the only thing he did was release an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth, aka COLB, (which does not provide the name of the birth hospital, the delivering doctor, and other corroborating information) by posting a questionable image of it on the internet in 2008. Finally, on the question of whether their definition of a “natural born Citizen” provides the same national security for the American people and the Nation as does the birthers’ definition of the clause, Obama’s enablers will hear none of that and simply pooh-pooh the "birthers'" concern for the safety of America.

Now let us be honest. Who is protecting the Constitution and the Nation, the “birthers” or Obama and his enablers?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 31, 2010
Updated June 1, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####