tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post3558675839700400952..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: How to Try An Eligibility Case Against the Putative President Barack ObamaMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74235806044583746542009-10-14T01:44:34.594-04:002009-10-14T01:44:34.594-04:00"Wong Kim Ark , while providing an expansive ..."Wong Kim Ark , while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a “natural born Citizen.”<br /><br />The Founders never put this in writing in the Constitution - nor have Congress ever put this in US Code.<br /><br />Vattal is not law. Nor is it the precedent you seek - Vattal does not form the Ratio of any like case to support your contention.<br /><br />But the real issue for you is your client doesn't have standing to sue Congress to do their jobs. <br /><br />Even if your client did have standing, it would be for your client to prove - not for the court to "investigate".<br /><br />You no doubt know better. I do not wish to speculate why a reputable attorney would nevertheless pursue such litigation.krishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01984620763250118501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85712487567418210762009-10-12T15:47:28.708-04:002009-10-12T15:47:28.708-04:00The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the C...The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html</a><br /><br />The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.<br /><br />It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):<br /><br /><i>"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."</i><br /><br />Link to the treason quote in case context:<br /><a href="http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg</a><br /><br /><br />Link to Case Summary:<br /><a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0" rel="nofollow">http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0</a><br /><br />Link to Full Case:<br /><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264</a><br /><br />The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.<br /><br />Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.<br />CDR USNR (Ret)<br />Lead Plaintiff<br />Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/</a><br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-52246158933990111172009-10-03T23:25:50.873-04:002009-10-03T23:25:50.873-04:00Mario, correct me if I am wrong but I don't ev...Mario, correct me if I am wrong but I don't ever recall a riotous mob starting any international conflicts or killing millions of innocents. On the contrary a rather quiet group of Germanic beer buddies did that by claiming none other than social equality as their political mantra.A penhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519441140048530323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11795434144434054422009-09-30T18:46:28.926-04:002009-09-30T18:46:28.926-04:00Very well said, Mr. Apuzzo. Yes, I too believe we...Very well said, Mr. Apuzzo. Yes, I too believe we should begin answering back. I have often heard it said that the reason the majority has been silent was because we were too busy working hard and raising our families. But meanwhile, the liberal far-left has been the voice most often heard in the media, whether the news or entertainment. And our children have been subjected to this vocal viewpoint for far too long. We must begin to speak up, not just in defense of our values, but at times we must go on the offense. And those times are now, before it's too late to undo the damage that's been done. We must make time, and it will be time well spent.Sallyvenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09907616488562792531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37597613764667904722009-09-30T18:43:46.112-04:002009-09-30T18:43:46.112-04:00I have seen through the years how many times the s...I have seen through the years how many times the silent majority has believed that the social, political, and cultural problems that went on about them were below them and not worthy of their time and attention to address. History has shown that it has often been the riotous and screaming minority that makes the silent majority irrelevant and that has transformed those societies for good or for bad. Like those who marched on Washington on 9/12, I believe that it is time well spent addressing the issues that shape public opinion and which will eventually determine the fate of our nation.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44673019400299437182009-09-30T16:06:58.334-04:002009-09-30T16:06:58.334-04:00Mario:
The NY poster misha is as you may or may n...Mario:<br /><br />The NY poster misha is as you may or may not know one of the couple of dozen or so "regulars" on the woeful Doctor Conspiracy blogfest which are mostly populated by hate-filled pro-Obama screamers that cannot abide criticism and who will never admit that Obama - should he be found guilty in a court of law - should remain as Resident Obama no matter the law; they all know the United States Constitution is just a bunch of racist, right wing, blather that means nothing and that THEY know much the preferable way to run this particular railroad.<br /><br />They seem to completely miss the fact that they are part of We the People, one of the parties to the contract which is the Constitution and that contract species how the other party (composed of the 3 branches of government) shall behave. Note the use of shall!<br /><br />So - you're merely wasting your time and electrons by responding to those of that ilk ... they are rightfully known as a bunch of Flying Monkeys. You should use your time more productively - say brushing your teeth or mowing the grass.jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-308590201837825182009-09-30T13:21:16.224-04:002009-09-30T13:21:16.224-04:00Today, September 30, 2009, A misha has published a...Today, September 30, 2009, A misha has published a letter entitled, <br />"An Open Letter to Mario Apuzzo," at her blog called, New York Leftist. The letter can be viewed at <br />http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Here is my response: <br /><br />"misha, <br /><br />I fail to see the point of your letter. I also note that your hate-filled letter has some underlying contradictions which expose the shallowness and insincerity of your position. <br /><br />You accuse those who now question Obama’s eligibility to be President to be white racists. Yet you state Obama is “someone who was elected fair and square, unlike the 2000 election.” Your reference to the 2000 election is to President Bush, who we know is white. So you are saying that Bush did not fairly win the election. It is clear that you are questioning Bush’s legitimacy to be the then-President just like those who are questioning Obama’s legitimacy to be President today. But does your questioning Bush’s eligibility make you a racist or some other loathsome thing like in your opinion those who are questioning Obama’s eligibility are? <br /><br />You then criticize Glen Beck for defending himself, saying that he was “lampooned and starts squealing like a stuck pig. Knowing full well that parody is protected by the same Constitution that he hides behind for his hatchet jobs, he has a hired gun send threatening letters to the satirists . . .”<br /><br />Did I not “lampoon” Obama for not releasing to the American public his real birth certificate and other historical documents that would have allowed the public, media, and political institutions to properly vet him for the Office of President? Have you and other Obama supporters not been “squealing like a stuck pig. Knowing full well that parody is protected by the same Constitution that you hide behind for your hatchet jobs?” Are you one of Obama’s “hired guns” who now has published your letter attacking me for doing nothing more than representing clients in a legal case that questions Obama’s eligibility to be President? <br /><br />So, like so much concerning those who pass judgment on Obama, you want a double standard. You are perfectly normal in questioning Bush’s presidential eligibility, but those who question Obama’s eligibility are white racists. It is perfectly acceptable for you to defend your constitutional right to complain about Glen Beck, but it is not acceptable for those who would use that same right to question Obama’s eligibility to be President. <br /><br />I recommend that you honestly re-examine your position in this whole matter and re-evaluate the sincerity of your expressed feelings which we all need to do from time to time in order to stay the proper course. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37240955752441989352009-09-28T12:22:22.548-04:002009-09-28T12:22:22.548-04:00Bob:
Guess you just don't have the correct lo...Bob:<br /><br />Guess you just don't have the correct looney lefty lib outlook on life ... only THEY are not "racist" (etc.).jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30480655656203269852009-09-27T20:15:31.928-04:002009-09-27T20:15:31.928-04:00Mario --
It has ALWAYS puzzled me that to ask Oba...Mario --<br /><br />It has ALWAYS puzzled me that to ask Obama to qualify his eligibility to the office of President of the United States is RACIST, if he produces the same paper birth certificate that the Senate required of John Sydney McCain III!<br /><br />(On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama wrote: “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” (late 1970s).<br /><br />And to support in general the efforts of Ambassador Alan Keyes in his claim that the nomination and election of Obama was won by misrepresentation, misdirection, and fraud, is also equally RACIST!<br /><br />I'm sorry, but I get dizzy just trying to keep up!Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12433349430390224035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47203939314495937312009-09-27T18:26:45.985-04:002009-09-27T18:26:45.985-04:00Hi Mario,
It is virtually impossible to engage in...Hi Mario,<br /><br />It is virtually impossible to engage in serious, honest intellectual debate with hard-core leftists such as Dr. Conspiracy without at some point them throwing out the racist charge. This is a taught debating tactic on their side learned by their studying Alinsky's Rules for Radical and the various very nasty rules they practice outlined in that manual. Their tactic is not to win the debate on the point at hand but instead is to provoke a dramatic reaction and then watch and learn from the reaction of the "enemy", something about the psychic of their enemy. Or to get a reaction that goes beyond the pale and thus can be used to publicly embarrass their enemy. To Dr. Conspiracy you are the enemy. Thus he is deliberately prodding and poking at you to get an emotional reaction and then study it. He hopes at some point he can get a dramatic emotional reaction which he can then use in some way to defeat you, if not in this online venue then somewhere else in the future. Debating him is a waste of time, imo. He is studying your reactions to learn about you. These hard-core leftist look at all this like a psychological lab experiment. They are studying the enemy by poking, prodding and watching the reactions. Then they feed it up to their masters who will put together a "war book" on the key members of "enemy" for use in another forum. Just like the enemies in war study the generals, these far-lefties look at this as a war and they are organized to win it at any cost. Thus the best reaction to this is to give the no reaction. In fact don't even bother debating them, imo. They are psychological deviants and have no morals or respect for the law and will stoop to any level to win to long-term battle, the overthrow of our system of government. To them, the ends justify the means. The end they want is national socialism and any means to get it is OK with them. The Constitution means nothing to them. It's just another annoying law in their way. They only use the Constitution and the law when it helps them via Rule #4, make the enemy dot every i and cross every t when battling them. The end justifies the means to them. That is a quote right out of Alinsky's manual. If you have not read their debating tactics and actions manual already, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, you should at some point. It is not a long book but very eye opening as to what these far lefties are trained to do. You will recognize immediately everything going on with Obama, Axelrod, Ayers, Klonsky, and Dr. Conspiracy. It's straight out of that book. Alinsky and the teachings of Professors Cloward and Piven's Strategies are their stock in trade. Write these far-left wing-nuts and hard-core Alinsky-ites off, ignore them, and move on. After awhile you'll see they only go around in circles with their arguments anyway. Their only goals are to provoke you to study you and your reactions and/or to waste your time. JMHO.<br /><br />Charlescfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30467482412288923332009-09-27T16:20:48.895-04:002009-09-27T16:20:48.895-04:00Mario:
Doc Conspiro is merely a non-vulgar putz t...Mario:<br /><br />Doc Conspiro is merely a non-vulgar putz trying to make a "name" for himself by attacking others.<br /><br />It is apparent that HE is the guy who is racist since he's overly-concerned about it ... typical looney lefty!! Anything to cast aspersions on others.jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74266960855434911222009-09-27T11:19:09.333-04:002009-09-27T11:19:09.333-04:00At Dr. Conspiracy's blog, he accuses me of bei...At Dr. Conspiracy's blog, he accuses me of being a racist because I am questioning Obama's constitutional eligibiity to be President. He states: <br /><br />Dr. Conspiracy: "How is it not racist to require black presidents to “show” that they are eligible, and not to require white presidents to “show” that they are eligible? How is it not racist to say that the black presidents “trample the Constitution” while white presidents do not trample the constitution, when both are doing the same thing?I am deeply offended by this “showing us that he is eligible” language because I know it’s disingenuous. You know perfectly well that you are using the phrase to create animosity towards Obama, and not because you believe any such requirement exists.Which is worse: to be a racist or to cynically use racism as a tool? I think the second." <br /><br />I responded: "The Founding Fathers wanted to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Based on their study of the law of nature, the law of nations, and the English common law, the Founders understood that the natural act of a child being born on a nation’s soil and being born to a nation’s citizens produces for that growing child allegiance and attachment to those respective nations. Also based on their study of natural law and the law of nations, the Founders understood that the natives or natural born citizens were those born in the country of parents who are its citizens. They understood that one who is born in the United States under such circumstances will have from birth sole and absolute allegiance to the United States. The Founders wanted to preserve the new nation for Posterity and they saw that by requiring future Presidents to be “natural born Citizen” was the best way to accomplish that. They therefore included in Article II, among other things, that one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. <br /><br />Obama does not meet this presidential eligibility requirement because when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen, making him subject to a foreign power and thereby lacking the birth status of sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States. <br /><br />Help me understand something, Dr. Conspiracy, where is the color or race in that argument? Now please, do not go off on some tangent or make some argument how you disagree with my definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is so that you can avoid answering this most simple question. You and your partners in demagoguery have accused me of being a racist which, for your information, is the first time in my life that anyone has ever said that about me. Having so accused me, you must now show me how I am a racist for arguing as stated above that Obama does not and cannot meet the Article II “natural born Citizen” eligibility test. Better yet, I challenge you to do a full-blown blog post so that the whole world can see how I am supposed to be a racist for making my argument.<br /><br />I have not yet received his response. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34628439823995171782009-09-27T04:03:20.587-04:002009-09-27T04:03:20.587-04:00In Utah 87% of civil cases are disposed of within ...In Utah 87% of civil cases are disposed of within a year. Of Open cases 24% are older than two years. Given the political component of judicial appointments, assuming a federal judge will touch a volatile issue is wishful thinking. That may explain the confidence Obama's backers had in supporting an ineligible candidate. Our judicial system appears to have delay as a defense. The carefully constructed arguments of Mr. Apuzzo may someday be heard, in five years, after which there will be no remedy, either because we will have a new form of government, or because Obama will no longer be commander in chief. We no longer have an independent judiciary.<br /><br />Like Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Paraguay, other oligarchies and dictatorships, and probably like Honduras after our Marxists are finished with it, changes in government will only come via the military, which probably accounts for Obama's plans for a domestic police force. I hope not, but with every single legislator lying about our Constitution, claiming not to know what a natural-born citizen is, and the judiciary, puppets of the executive, the evidence is here. Patriots witnessing the peaceful attempt at legal remedies must lose faith in reason, which can mean nothing if no one listens, and there are no rules. Dictators encourage reason among their adversaries while they dominate them with force.Spauldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138311172146675300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-86429996916802913742009-09-24T10:52:30.263-04:002009-09-24T10:52:30.263-04:00Someone commented on Dr. Conspiracy's blog by ...Someone commented on Dr. Conspiracy's blog by posting a reference to Act 96 of 1911 which provides in summary: <br /><br />Section 96.<br /><br />"An Act<br /><br />To provide for the issuance of Certificates of Hawaiian Birth.<br /><br />Be it enacted by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii that:<br /><br />Section 1. The Secretary of Hawaii may, when satisfied that any such person born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to such person a certificate showing such fact. The Secretary may, with the approval of the Governor, make such regulations respecting the form of application and certificates, the method of proof, kind of evidence, and time, and place, and manner of hearing, and all other matters and circumstances connected with such application …"<br /><br />Dr. Conspiracy responded: <br /><br />"Well, as we know in the case of Sun Yat-Sen, all you had to do is get a couple of people to swear under penalty of perjury for you, and you could get a birth certificate. But this was for a Certificate of Hawaiian birth, one issued to an adult years after the fact. Obama’s birth was registered just 4 days after his birth, not a delayed birth (where most birth certificate fraud occurs). There’s no way a birth could have been registered that fast outside of a hospital setting.<br /><br />If there were any reason under the sun to think the President wasn’t born in Hawaii, then perhaps one might be tempted to ask questions, but there is not."<br /><br />Apuzzo's Response: <br /><br />You state: <br /><br />“'There’s no way a birth could have been registered that fast outside of a hospital setting.'” <br /><br />You are assuming facts not in evidence. Where is the independent, sufficient, and credible evidence as to the date, time, and place of birth? And please, do not tell me it is in the on-line COLB, or in the Hawaii Health officials oral statements, or in the two newspaper announcements. <br /><br />Help me understand this issue. I will appreciate a comprehensive response from you since you are well-versed on this subject and if any such evidence existed, you would have it." <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-15051954331522194802009-09-24T04:51:11.231-04:002009-09-24T04:51:11.231-04:00Cmdr Kerchner or Mr. Apuzzo, what legal guidlines ...Cmdr Kerchner or Mr. Apuzzo, what legal guidlines are there for the timeliness of a response by the district court? Would our system not require that the law respond to a case properly presented? There is some quote about justice in time. If a lower court simply fails to respond, justice has clearly been denied.Spauldinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138311172146675300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18108084377073906742009-09-23T00:57:14.851-04:002009-09-23T00:57:14.851-04:00Dr. Conspiracy insists that the definition of &quo...Dr. Conspiracy insists that the definition of "natural born Citizen" is found in the English common law and that Vattel was really a nobody during the Founding. <br /><br />Here is my response to his positon which I also posted on his web site: <br /><br />The English common law did not provide the definition of "natural born Citizen." The English common law had during the colonial period and continued to have after the Founding a useful purpose in the several States (defining rights concerning inheritance, contracts, torts, property, and more) but a very limited role in constituting the new nation and its national government and no role in defining national citizenship for the generations to be born after the Constitution was adopted. Given the revolution, the needs of the new representative Republic, and historical developments, the Founders simply did not use English common law to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. That law, born of feudalism and tied to a hereditary monarchy, simply did not provide the Founders with the formula that they needed for defining the eligibility requirements for the popularly elected President and Commander in Chief of the new nation. <br /><br />The 18th century meaning of “natural born Citizen” consisted of jus sanguinis and jus soli joined together in the child at the time of birth or what I call Unity of Citizenship, this being the Vattelian definition contained in The Law of Nations, which the Founding generation widely read and accepted. This treatise covered a wide range of subjects involving relations among nations and citizenship. It described citizens as starting as members of society (citizens) and then evolving into future generations (the children of the citizens or the “natives or indigenes) who were given the duty to perpetuate and protect the new society. Since the Founders found themselves in the exact situation described by Vattel concerning the formation of a new society (needing new members of that society or citizens) and the need for future generations (the natives or indigenes or what they called the “natural born Citizens”) to perpetuate and protect that society, and since the Founders would have viewed citizenship has having a great impact between nations, the Founders would also have relied on this treatise for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” With the new and young nation just starting to make its way in the international arena and the Founders wanting to avoid war and desiring neutrality among nations, this definition of a “natural born Citizen” would have served them best for their purposes and not the English common law definition of a “natural born subject” which made English perpetual subjects out of persons born citizens of other nations without the consent of either that foreign nation or that nation’s citizens. <br /><br />Wong Kim Ark , while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59895114320810481922009-09-22T15:08:10.225-04:002009-09-22T15:08:10.225-04:00Part II of II
Also, there is currently a U.S. Sta...Part II of II<br /><br />Also, there is currently a U.S. State Department travel warning for Americans wanting to travel to Pakistan. “The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against non-essential travel to Pakistan in light of the threat of terrorist activity. This replaces the Travel Warning dated February 25, 2009, updates information on security incidents and reminds U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns in Pakistan.” http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_930.html. Hence, while there might not have been a de jure “ban" on travel by Americans to Pakistan in 1981, there surely was a de facto one. <br /> <br />Furthermore, if there was no problem traveling to Pakistan in 1981 as you suggest, tell me the following: <br /><br />1. How many Americans with U.S. passports went there in 1981. <br /><br />2. What function (job category) did these Americans have before entering the country. <br /><br />3. What was the purpose of their trip there. <br /><br />4. How long did they stay there. <br /><br />5. How many Americans were refused visas to enter the country. <br /><br />6. Why were they refused those visas. <br /><br />7. What passport did Obama use to travel into Pakistan. <br /><br />8. How did the young Obama finance his trip to Indonesia, India, and Pakistan. <br /><br />9. Why has Obama since mentioning his Pakistani trip just once never spoken about it again even though there have been so many public inquiries about it. <br /><br />10. Why did the Obama campaign not respond to an invitation to comment on some of the speculation surrounding the visit to Pakistan or to provide further details about the trip.<br /><br />11. Was Obama one of the many included in the stream of Afro-Americans who--in the words of veteran security analyst, Bahukutumbi Raman, a former Indian counterterrorism chief--visited Pakistan to feel the greatness of the Afghani jihad against communism and their fascination for Abdullah Azzam. <br /><br />12. For how long did Obama stay in Pakistan. <br /><br />13. With whom did Obama visit while he was in Pakistan. If he visited politicians while there, how was he able to make such political connections. <br /><br />14. Why did Obama not mention his Pakistani trip and the in-depth religious knowledge that he gained from it in his autobiographies. <br /><br />So as you see, playing word games--“travel ban” vs. “travel advisory” really does not get you very far when we consider the realty that existed in Pakistan in 1981 and all the unanswered questions that Obama’s visit there raises. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14181362924453135782009-09-22T15:06:14.283-04:002009-09-22T15:06:14.283-04:00Part I of II
Dr. Conspiracy and his support group...Part I of II<br /><br />Dr. Conspiracy and his support group are obsessed with my using the term “travel ban” to Pakistan in my second amended complaint/petition. They insist that the Court will dismiss the Kerchner complaint and sanction me for using the term. Here is my response to them which I have posted on Dr. Conspiracy’s web site: <br /><br />I guess you guys and gals are all working from the same playbook. Do you guys and gals get together over coffee? Do you really think that I am going to lose the case and get sanctioned by the Court because I said there was a travel “ban” for Americans wanting to travel to Pakistan in 1981? Let us take a look at the facts and consider some questions that are raised by Obama’s travel to Pakistan. <br /><br />Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981after visiting his mother and half-sister in Indonesia. In his April 6, 2008 speech in San Francisco, Obama said: “I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college -- I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." I guess we can surmise from his having such in depth knowledge about the difference between Sunni and Shia (an understanding that according to him not even Hillary Clinton or McCain had) that he spent a lot of his time while in Pakistan studying the subject. <br /><br />In 1981, Pakistan was on the State Department list for “travel advisory.” \\Secretary\legalfiles\Political\Obama\Pakistan\Travel Advisory Sheets Archive.mht; http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf. "The advisory is vital to ensure travelers are well-prepared," insist the State Department travel advisory. " "We provide advice to citizens so they will be well-prepared," added the State Department advisory. http://www.eturbonews.com/7010/us-state-department-travel-advisory-london-dangerous-place-travel. “Travel warnings, which the State Department has been making public to American travelers since 1978 and which cover everything from civil unrest to health concerns, originate with the U.S. embassy or consulates of a specific country. Then the Bureau of Consular Affairs—and, occasionally, other agencies—weighs in, with the final decision coming from the office of the Undersecretary of State. The State Department subsequently revisits the warnings, usually every six months.” http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/state-department-travel-warnings-explained/1. That the State Department did not technically put a “ban” on travel to Pakistan does not mean that it was not recommended for Americans to go there in 1981. <br /><br />When Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, the country was going through a civil war and was under martial law. It was experiencing serious social, political, and religious upheaval. A few years earlier, General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq had overthrown the government of Bhutto by way of coup. Zia-ul-Haq even created a separate electoral system for non-Muslims. Courts were created to make sure the country’s laws were not repugnant to Islam. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan and the Afghan Mujahedeen operated in Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. Government-issued visas to foreign visitors were good only for 30 days. The Government had in place Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, which allowed the Government to prevent any person who was in Pakistan from leaving the country even though they had valid travel documents without, in the name of "public interest," even giving a reason for the action. Any person violating that ordinance faced 5 years of imprisonment. Because of these conditions, travel by an American using an U.S. passport was very risky to say the least. <br /><br />continued . . . <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47415887935661265662009-09-22T14:01:40.397-04:002009-09-22T14:01:40.397-04:00Why call this Communist "President" ? If...Why call this Communist "President" ? If he is ineligible, then he is just a criminal.Vincent Jappihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01459192493036795125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58927860712059337562009-09-22T01:28:08.171-04:002009-09-22T01:28:08.171-04:00Patlin,
Mr. Kreep did not say that he was workin...Patlin, <br /><br />Mr. Kreep did not say that he was working with me. Rather, he said that he contacted me. There is nothing said by him which substantiates your statement that he said he was helping me. Where did you get that from?<br /><br />In any event, I wish Mr. Kreep and Orly Taitz success with their action in California. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-9254595450503712702009-09-21T21:25:30.914-04:002009-09-21T21:25:30.914-04:00Puzo said:
I am not aware of Gary Kreep in any wa...Puzo said:<br /><br />I am not aware of Gary Kreep in any way helping me on the Kerchner case. I have never spoken to him or otherwise communicated with him. <br /><br />Mario, I went back and listened to last nights Chalice show at patriots heart network and Kreep, himself, said he was working with you.<br /><br />You may want to contact Chalice and correst the mis-information she allowed to be aired. I was also pretty upset when she cut a caller off for calling Kreep out on his standing as to the definition of NBC.Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09930759217453160396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-2761776161042117092009-09-21T20:36:32.619-04:002009-09-21T20:36:32.619-04:00Patlin,
I am not aware of Gary Kreep in any way ...Patlin, <br /><br />I am not aware of Gary Kreep in any way helping me on the Kerchner case. I have never spoken to him or otherwise communicated with him. <br /><br />I do not agree with Mr. Kreep that the sufficient formula for "natural born Citizen" status is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The formula is missing a necessary condition which is that the child be also born to a mother and father who are U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-60968882353352383402009-09-21T20:32:15.595-04:002009-09-21T20:32:15.595-04:00Mario,
Leo Donofrio upon a recent NEW discovery b...Mario,<br /><br />Leo Donofrio upon a recent NEW discovery believes that he has the State of Hawaii by the short and curlyies.....his headline is below:<br /><br />Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.<br />Posted in Uncategorized on September 21, 2009 by naturalborncitizen<br /><br />It appears that Hawaii has been violating its own laws, and there is no standing issue....and Hawaii even has a statute that provides for a suit to get at the INFORMATION that Ms. Fukino used to determine that Barrack Obama is "a natural born citizen" information that is by hawaii law supposed to be made available to the public when ever the State make a claim about anything th people are entitled to SEE THE DOCUMENTS from which this statement comes from....HOLY COWUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171382418553106023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68647122381843339432009-09-21T18:48:09.594-04:002009-09-21T18:48:09.594-04:00I have a quick question for Charles or Mario,
I h...I have a quick question for Charles or Mario,<br /><br />I have heard rumors the past couple of days that Gary Kreep, the lawyer from Ca is helping in your case as well as Berg's case.<br /><br />Now since Mr Kreep, to this day, still claims that the fact that Obama's father was a foreigner does not in any way hinder Obama's eligibility as long as Obama was born on US soil; how can Mr Kreep possibly be of help?Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09930759217453160396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-1191342819217139452009-09-21T15:43:15.916-04:002009-09-21T15:43:15.916-04:00Hi all,
My hope is that the words of Chief Justic...Hi all,<br /><br />My hope is that the words of Chief Justice Marshall are still alive in our federal courts and mean something. All arguments, laws, and precedence against granting of standing and the court taking jurisdiction in this case should fall aside in the face of constitutional violations and usurpations as grave as are presented in this matter.<br /><br />"... it is worth keeping in mind the words of Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):<br /><br />"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one." "<br /><br />We should not let use of Alinsky's Rules for Radical #4 ... make them live up to every single "dot every i and cross the t" minuscule procedural rule in such away as to preclude justice in such a serious matter as guarding the Article II eligibility clause for the Presidency and CINC of our Constitution via getting a full hearing and court investigation on the merits of the charges in the various cases.<br /><br />And in closing, a few other words from our founders that are slowly being squeezed out of our nation by the far left, "in God we trust." Let us pray the spirit and mindset of Chief Justice Marshall still lives in enough of our Judges for the Constitution and thus our nation to survive.<br /><br />Charles<br /><br />P.S. Please help the cause to educate the public via the print media:<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.com