Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were on the Peter Boyle Radio Show on KHOW 630 in Denver CO - Monday 28 March 2011 @ 8 a.m. EST.The topic will be the lack of constitutional eligibility of the putative president Obama and Obama's unwillingness to provide any hard evidence and documents to controlling legal authorities to back up his claim of a Hawaiian birth. Also, Donald Trump's recent statement calling on Obama to release his alleged long form birth certificate, if Obama has one.
Factual and legal issues will be discussed. Obama was born to a British Subject foreign national father and Obama himself was thus a British Subject at birth. Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" as is required by the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1 for that reason since his father was not a U.S. Citizen, not even an immigrant to the USA, nor even a permanent resident. Obama's birth may have been registered in Hawaii but with the contrary statements coming out of Kenya, and in past years before he ran for President such as these, it is likely that he was not physically born in Hawaii but only falsely registered there as being born in Hawaii by his maternal grandmother after the fact to get her new foreign born grandson U.S. Citizenship using a simple mail-in form available back in Hawaii in 1961. The false registration of his birth would account for the short-form certification of live birth record and the 1961 newspaper accounts of the birth being registered with the Hawaiian Health Department which placed those public service announcements in the weekly papers for all birth registered, real or falsified. See Atty Mario Apuzzo's "Catalog of Evidence" for and against Obama's claimed Hawaiian birth nativity story.
Listen to this show on Podcast at this link:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/03282011PETE6A.mp3
For information on the Peter Boyle Radio Show see:
http://www.khow.com/pages/boyles.html
Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Congrats!
ReplyDeleteMario,
ReplyDeleteI listened to your interview. You were cut off at the end about Lucas Daniel Smith. I didn't the big anwer to the nagging question on alot of people's minds including mind - Can Lucas Smith show documentation he was actually in Kenya at the time he supposely obtained the Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate. Because Lucas has a very shady past, this question must be resolved if we are to move forward with validity of the Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate.
Missed the interview (dang) but listened to KHOW for the next hour. Trump is all over, I guess - has he talked with you, Mario and Charles?
ReplyDeleteAlso - the story of Leeland Davidson, the WWII vet who apparently isn't a US citizen (so says the state of Washington):
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/25/95-year-old-wwii-vet-leeland-davidson-finds-out-hes-not-a-us-ci/
He certainly strikes me as being born to two citizen parents, even if he was born in Canada. He seems to have more claim to the citizen title than Obama has. If his proof is GREATER than Obama and he is stil is denied citizenship doesn't that strengthen your claim? How many other "denied" claims could there be? My mother was from Germany, came here in 1959, married a US citizen in 1960 and I was born in 1963 (and yes - I have my actual hospital BC AND the official long-form state copy!)
God bless you, Mario and Charles, and please don't give up!
Mario,
ReplyDeleteIs there any chance you and Charles can hook up with Donald Trump and brief him on the issue? Perhaps you know someone who knows someone who knows Donald Trump. You need to track down your contacts and see where it leads. Good Luck!
Given the possibility of new Presidential Eligibility legislation in states, is there a possibility Mr. Trump file a federal declaratory judgment action? Wouldn't the new legislation and the numerous suits filed against Obama create the required case or controversy?
ReplyDeletezachjonesishome,
ReplyDeleteWhat is great is that, for example, Arizona H.B. 2177 and S.B. 1157 both have standing clauses. These clauses state: "A member of the House of Representatives, a member of the Senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section."
The Founders and Framers included the "natural born Citizen" clause in the Constitution so that each and every citizen would be protected by having a person assume the great and singular civil and military powers of the President and Commander in Chief who has their and the nation's values and safety at heart.
As we see, unlike our judicial branch of government, Arizona legislators have rightfully recognized the right of a citizen to protect his or her life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property from a potentially illegal president sitting in the Office of President and Commander in Chief where he or she could wield enormous power over that individual which without a doubt causes that person an injury in fact on a daily basis.
If one of these laws passes, such a citizen will have standing to file a legal action in which he or she will be able to enforce the "natural born Citizen" clause by enforcing the state eligibility statute.
Just about everyone is aware of the fracas that The Donald has kicked off over Zero's eligiility (aka BC to some) but it seems that the Flying Monkeys are in an advanced state of panic (wonder why???) and are counter attacking.
ReplyDeleteThe latest sleaze attack can be seen here along with the requisite unflattering picture-to-demean:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/possible-proof-trump-us-birth-found-348017
By clicking the link in this article entitled "the document Trump proffered" you can view a copy of the NY hospital-issued BC which as the article correctly notes is not the NY Dept. of Health BC (which was never claimed TW) but the article does show the NYDOH birth index entry for Donald on his birth date and the serial number of, presumaly, his NY BC.
The article - being a hit piece by nature - of course fails to observe that those things are far more definitive than anything we have from their hero.
One of my messages to The Donald today ....
ReplyDelete--------------------------
The far left OBOT backing Obama catering media and press are attacking your mother's Scottish home country birth. That is not a valid issue -- she was a naturalized citizen when you were born. They are once again lying and putting out disinformation and half truths to the American electorate. All that is required per the founders and framers intent with the legal term of art "natural born Citizen" in the presidential eligibility clause in our Constitution is that the parents of the child be U.S. Citizens when born AND born in the USA. About 95% of American citizens meet that so it is not a restrictive small class. It is the group who make up the overwhelming vast majority of U.S. Citizens and it is from that group we are supposed to choose our Presidents. The parents can be foreign born as long as the parents were naturalized Citizens when the child is born in the USA. Since your foreign born Scottish mother married a U.S. Citizen in the USA she was automatically naturalized under U.S. law in the 1930s under the legal concept of Citizenship fusion by marriage. The wife automatically by marital fusion law gains the Citizenship of her husband. Thus when you were born in 1946 your were born to two Citizen parents in the USA and you are thus a fully qualified constitutional Article II, Section 1, "natural born Citizen" of the United States.
Now with Obama, Obama has a real problem in that area of the law. Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen, was not even an immigrant to this country, and was not even a permanent resident. Obama's father was a foreign national (British Subject from the colony of Kenya) sojourning in the USA to attend college in Hawaii and impregnated Obama's mother as a teenager. They never lived together after the pregnancy occurred as man and wife. There was some pseudo marriage declared in his nativity story for which no marriage license has ever been found, and then Obama Sr. abandoned the teenage mother and went off to Harvard and then a few years late back to Kenya with a 2nd American wife in tow as well as rejoining another Kenya wife he left behind in Kenya.
Obama is not eligible to be President and Command of our military no matter where Obama was born since his father was not a U.S. Citizen but was a foreign national who gave Obama British Citizenship and Obama became a British Subject by birth, recognized under U.S., British law (British Nationality Act of 1948), natural law, and international law.
Obama's father was never a U.S. Citizen nor did he ever want to be one. Obama is not eligible for that reason alone although the press will not discuss this constitutional eligibility point either. They hide this point about Obama just like they hide the truth about the Obama birth certificate issue.
See my essays and articles and ads on this subject at:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
and the articles at my lawyers blog:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
So Mr. Trump ... counter attack the far left press on their false accusations saying you are not eligible to be President since your mother was foreign born. That is B.S. just like the racism charges as to why people are questioning Obama's eligibility ... and the far left media knows it and our playing every question about Obama down and dirty to scare away criticizers. It is the citizenship of the parents that counts when their children are born in the USA, not where the parents themselves were born.
Respectfully,
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
P.S. Send your messages to The Donald at:
http://shouldtrumprun.com/contact-us/
Also suggest that The Donald meet with Attorney Mario Apuzzo and I.
puzo1moderator:
ReplyDeleteMy "message to Garcia" (Trump) done - and then some.
Another message from me to Mr. Trump sent earlier today ....
ReplyDeletePart 1 of a 2 part comment here.
Dear Mr. Trump:
Your staffers need to be careful in the words and terminology they use. For example the following statement by your staffer is not completely accurate ...
""A 'birth certificate' and a 'certificate of live birth' are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words," wrote Trump staffer Thuy Colayco in a message to ABC News. "One officially confirms and records a newborn child’s identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a 'certificate of live birth' is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a 'birth certificate' is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt. If you had only a certificate of live birth, you would not be able to get a proper passport from the Post Office or a driver’s license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, there is very significant difference between a 'certificate of live birth' and a 'birth certificate' and one should never be confused with the other.""
Mr. Trump, in some states a "Certificate of Live Birth" is the name for the long form birth certificate of the official type you just received. The name of the document which is not acceptable is the short-form "CERTIFICATION of Live Birth" type document. That is the type document of which an image of same Obama has shown on the internet, but never let any controlling legal authority see the actual paper document used to make that image to have it verified for legitimacy.
And Hawaii has never confirmed that online image of that Certification of Live Birth was ever issued to Obama. Some image experts say the image shown online by Obama and his allies is a forgery and that the paper printouts of it waved on TV and pictured on the net and folded up version of the image were created after words from the forged image, not vice versa.
Have your staff carefully research the terminology "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth" vs "CERTIFICATION of Live Birth" in various states and you will see examples of what I mean. For example, in the state of Hawaii in 1961 and up until 2001 the official birth certificate document which is very similar to the photostat version of what you released today from official sources was named a "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth". And that long-form from issued 1961, if Obama indeed has one which at this point is highly doubtful, is what Obama is not releasing ... but instead is showing an image on the net of an alleged "CERTIFICATION of Live Birth".
... continued in part 2 ...
Part 2 of two parts
ReplyDeleteMessage to Mr. Trump continued.
Also more recently to make matters worse and even more confusing in Hawaii and to cover up and help protect Obama, effective in 2009 the state of Hawaii renamed their short-form CERTIFICATION form to the former long-form name of "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth". This newly named form is still nothing more than a secondary source document and a computer generated document just like the former named short-form "CERTIFICATION of Live Birth" was. Neither is a contemporaneously original and primary source document from 1961 with real peoples signatures on the front. What you people should be asking for from Obama is a certified true and correct copy of the contemporaneously generated and the originally recorded birth registration form from the state of Hawaii, whatever name the state calls it. And get it directly released from Hawaii with Obama signing a release, not from Obama, whatever its form name was back in 1961. It could even be a simple sworn affidavit attesting to an at home birth with no witnesses since it is alleged that Obama's grandma in HI lied and falsely registered him as born in HI simply to get her foreign born grandson U.S. Citizenship. See the copies of the birth certificates of Mrs Nordykes twins who were born in Hawaii at the same time period that Obama says he was born there. You can find them on the internet. But for your convenience, here is a link:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=105347
With the Obama spin masters and the liberal press word weasels you need to be very precise in the terms one uses as they use similar sounding words to confuse people ... CERTIFICATE vs CERTIFICATION forms and "native born" vs "natural born", etc. These terms are not legally interchangeable legal terms of art ... as the Obots, Obama, and major media try to continually mislead into believing.
Sincerely,
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
An interesting read about the early American history of women's naturalization through marriage:
ReplyDeleteWomen and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940" by Marian L. Smith.
Hi Bd,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting that link to that very interesting and informative article. That clarifies a lot. What I have since learned about Mr. Trump is that his mother did formally naturalize as a U.S. Citizen in 1942, four years before Mr. Trump was born. Thus, Mr. Trump was born in the USA to two U.S. Citizen parents and is a fully eligible Article II, Section 1, natural born Citizen of the United States.
http://birthers.org/misc/trumped.html
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
Hi CDR Kerchner,
ReplyDeleteThe laws discussed in that book, such as the Expatriation Act of 1907, are what gave Marie Elizabeth Elg (of Perkins v. Elg fame) Natural Born Citizenship status. Before Ms. Elg was born, her father naturalized and her mother was automatically naturalized through their marriage. Thus, both her parents were US citizens when Ms. Elg was born, giving her jus sanguinis as well as jus soli status at birth.
A little off topic, but the most interesting thing in that book, at least to me, was the fact that when a husband came to the United States and took an oath of naturalization, his wife who had stayed behind in the old country, would become a US citizen without ever stepping foot on US soil, according to the laws at that time.
Another interesting fact is that a woman who was a natural born citizen would actually lose her US citizenship if she married a foreigner and would have to naturalize to get her US citizenship back.
bdwilcox,
ReplyDeleteChester Arthur was born on October 5, 1829, in Vermont. His father, William Arthur, was born in Ireland and his mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, was born in Vermont.
When Arthur’s father and mother married, his father was a “natural born subject” of the United Kingdom. Hence, upon her marriage to William Arthur, Malvina Stone Arthur lost her U.S. citizenship and became an alien like her husband under the then-naturalization laws.
So, when Arthur was born, his father was a “natural born subject” of the United Kingdom and his mother was also a subject of the United Kingdom through her marriage to her husband.
Arthur’s father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States” in 1843, when Arthur was 14 years old. Upon his naturalization, both his wife and son, Arthur, became “citizens of the United States.”
All this shows that when Chester Arthur was born in 1829, he was born to an alien father and mother. He was therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Mario,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Charles kerchner's State Rep is proceeding forward with introducing birther legislation in PA
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/CSM/2011/0/7858.pdf
Hi Mario & Charles!!
ReplyDeleteYou guys must be in your glory!! Congrats to you both. Without you two, this would have NEVER happened. You may have saved our country. Take some time to be proud and happy with yourselves. A little reveling never hurt anyone.
I listened to hour 2 of Peter Boyles show a little while ago. Peter Boyles cut off Mario. In reference to your conversation with Lucas Smith and if he has collaberating evidence of being in Africa, you said I spoke to him yesterday and he does have...
I am listening going what!! He has what?? Peter cut you off.
So if you don't mind, could you please finish your sentence.
I am dying over here!
I agree Joe. Lucas has a very shady past. He is a convicted forger. Unfortunately, that is an undisputed fact. However, Lucas's willingness to testify in court and before Congress suggests he's telling the truth. Still, Lucas needs to provide affirmative evidence that he was in fact in Kenya at the time in question if we are to give any credibility to Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate. If Lucas can do that, he will have just raised his stock by 10 points.
ReplyDeleteMario,
ReplyDeleteHave you and Charles thought about going to New York City to try to meet Donald Trump in person? NY isn't too far from PA and NJ. You can try but I think Trump security would stop you at the door. Neverthless, you can try to send urgent and impassionate plea to the people at the Trump Corporation that you seek to have an audience with Donald Trump. It's worth a shot.
Yes James I have been in communication with Metcalfe and another PA State Rep (name omitted for now) for a couple of months. Can't share all that is going on. But things will start popping up around the country on these state presidential constitutional eligibility vetting laws like dandelions in the spring. The best targets are states that have Repubs in all three bodies ... assembly, senate, and gov and which Obama won the electoral vote in the 2008 election fraud by Obama.
ReplyDeleteBusy as a beaver here. Silence is golden sometimes. Loose lips sink ships ... :-)
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
From a poll on....
ReplyDeletehttp://shouldtrumprun.com/category/latest-news/
Trump Vs. Obama
"Who would you favor in the 2012 Presidential Election?"
*Donald J. Trump(93%, 50,298 Votes)
*Barack Obama (7%, 3,701 Votes)
Total Voters: 54,001
I have sent an email to PA rep Metcalf thanking him for his work and encouraging him to continue in his efforts to properly vet pres and vp candidates.
ReplyDeleteMore news from the states. Looks like Oklahoma is trying to get back in the fight to get laws on the books to vet the constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates.
ReplyDelete------
House bill on the move again in OK would require proof of candidate's birth | @ Tulsa World
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20110330_16_A11_Abillp315758
A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii | by Atty Mario Apuzzo
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
###
puzo1moderator:
ReplyDeleteYour emails to The Donald and staffers is very good.
Let's hope it strikes fertile ground with The Donald and/or Staff since it is correct and will help Trump's appearances be even more accurate and drag the whole eligibility issue to the fore.
Good work!!!
"If signed into law, Senate Bill 91 would require presidential primary candidates one of the following forms of proof of natural-born citizenship:
ReplyDelete1. An original birth document, issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia or a certified copy
2. An original birth certificate issued by the federal government or a certified copy
3. An original U.S. Certificate of Birth abroad
4. An original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States"
This redefines NBC. It appears to allow the COLB as evidence and includes births outside the U.S. as evidence of NBC status.
Amazing. Beyond those that incorrectly believe that NBC is only birth in the U.S. (do I hear anchor baby?) this is the first I've heard that NBC includes those born on foreign soil.
My last post is the proposed Oklahoma language. Sorry, I did not make that clear.
ReplyDeleteOklahoma SB 91 requires that candidates for POTUS submit proof of their eligibility -
ReplyDeleteA. Each candidate required to file a Declaration of Candidacy for any federal, state, county, municipal or judicial office, or for the nomination of a recognized political party, in any general, primary, or special election shall, at the time of filing the Declaration of Candidacy, provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold the office sought to the election board at which the Declaration was filed.
B. The Secretary of the State Election Board shall promulgate rules to specify the documentation required to provide proof of eligibility to hold the office sought.
The documents specifically mentioned in SB 91 are to prove identity and citizenship, but they are not part of proving eligibility. A Certification of Birth Abroad actually proves that the candidate is not eligible.
A clause providing for the state citizens to have standing to challenge any of the documents and affidavits is needed, like they have written into the Arizona bill.
ReplyDeleteAssuming the language published in the Tulsa paper is correct - "..the following forms of proof of natural-born citizenship:".
ReplyDeleteSeems pretty straightforward that they are listing what is acceptable to prove NBC status. I can't see any other way to read it.
The language for OK SB91 that was published in the Tulsa World is verbatim what's in the Senate engrossed bill. The bill can be viewed at
ReplyDeletehttp://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12%20ENGR/SB/SB91%20ENGR.DOC
Identity is to be proven by a government issued photo ID.
Verbatim from the bill - "one of the following documents to provide proof of United States natural born citizenship" is very clearly the list that I posted above. This redefines NBC.
MichaelN,
ReplyDeleteWe are thinking the same. See my new post on standing and the proposed state legislation.
Quoting Orly Taitz:
ReplyDelete"I can’t believe it, but after 2 years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of Appeals scheduled oral argument in Obama case. May 2, 9am, 9th circuit court of Appeals, Pasadena division, courtroom 1. This is Judge Carter case, where I represent Ambassador Alan Keyes, 10 state representatives and 30 members of U.S. military"
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=20210
I agree that SB 91 is trying to re-define "natural born citizen." I wonder who is behind this.
ReplyDelete... proof of United States natural-born citizenship: ...
1. An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or a certified copy thereof;
2. An original birth certificate issued by the federal government, or a certified copy thereof;
3. An original United States Certificate of Birth Abroad; or
4. An original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States.
Some of these documents actually prove that the candidate is not a natural born citizen.
Hi Donald! I'm so HAPPY that God has brought you to us! Thank you for being our "Braveheart"! Please contact attorney Mario Apuzzo (Mario Apuzzo, Esq., 185 Gatzmer Ave, Jamesburg NJ 08831, Email: apuzzo[AT]erols.com, TEL: 732-521-1900 • FAX: 732-521-3906, BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com) who can school you and your staff on "natural born Citizen" as stated in Article 2 of the Constitution as a requirement to be President of the United States (you are a NBC, just lie myself! Also, please contact attorney Leo Donofrio (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/) for more information. Also, please contact attorney Orly Taitz (Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
ReplyDeleteDefend Our Freedoms Foundation – 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, ste 100, Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688 – www.OrlyTaitzEsq.com, email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Urgent? Call: 949-683-5411). Another contact for you, Commander Charles Kerchener: (Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
www.protectourliberty.org, also via his attorney, Mario Apuzzo).
Donald, GOD BLESS YOU, please help us save the "Good ol' USofA" NOW, before it's too late!! Please keep the pressure up on the ILLEGAL ALIEN, TRAITOR, and SS # FORGER in the White House!! YOU ARE A HERO!! You DEFINITELY have my vote, and I will be proud to do everything in my power to help you get elected President of the United States of America!