tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post4039680668846636808..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46332213665661486832009-10-26T17:40:39.198-04:002009-10-26T17:40:39.198-04:00Ms. Cris Ericson,
"Natural born citizen&quo...Ms. Cris Ericson, <br /><br />"Natural born citizen" status is determined at birth. It does not matter what the person does later in life, provided that one does not renounce U.S. citizenship.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-49842589643424356182009-10-25T21:55:21.699-04:002009-10-25T21:55:21.699-04:00Hi! (SECONDLY) An additional cause of action missi...Hi! (SECONDLY) An additional cause of action missing is that allegedly Nancy Pelosi has no legal right to be Speaker of the House, Third in Line to the Presidency, because she is allegedly a dual citizen of the Jewish State of Israel and therefore has a conflict of interest so serious as to adversely affect national security;<br />likewise U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and others of the U.S. Congress, are all allegedly dual citizens of the Jewish State of Israel (some because the Jewish State of Israel gives citizenship to people whose mother and grandmother were Jewish under Jewish Law). Isn't it an illegal conflict of interest for members of U.S. Congress to be dual citizens? Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is allegedly seriously and willfully and intentionally concealing her own dual citizenship under alleged threat by Obama that he would expose her if she exposes him?<br /><br />Cris Ericson http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com<br />http://vermontnews.livejournal.comUSMJP.com United States Marijuana Partyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16482200763572291499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-39184029070124194782009-10-23T13:00:37.125-04:002009-10-23T13:00:37.125-04:00Hi all,
Ignore the biased political party shot he...Hi all,<br /><br />Ignore the biased political party shot headline but read the first paragraph of this latest poll and survey. 30% of all Americans polled believe that Obama was not born in the USA. That is hardly a fringe percentage. When is the Main Stream Media and so called free press and 4th estate of our government going to investigate this matter with the power of the press. And when are our federal judges and Congress going to live up to their oaths? Will they wait until 55% of the People don't believe the Usurper in Chief is not eligible and was not born in the USA and 5,000,000 people are marching in the streets of Washington demanding the Usurper's removal. What does it take to get our media and government to uphold Article II of the U.S. Constitution?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34338/obama_was_not_born_in_us_republicans_say" rel="nofollow">http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34338/obama_was_not_born_in_us_republicans_say</a><br /><br />Charles Kerchner<br />CDR USNR (Ret)<br />Lead Plaintiff<br />Kerchner v Obama & Congress<br />Help me get the word out. Visit this site and do what you can to help. And spread the word and link to other blogs. We need your support and help to get the message to the print media and its readers where it cannot be scrubbed by Obama's Blog Squad and helpmates at Google:<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-88262388997271794742009-10-23T11:31:30.263-04:002009-10-23T11:31:30.263-04:00Our Constitution setup a system that inherently ha...Our Constitution setup a system that inherently has checks and balances against the kind of usurpation that has taken place by Obama. Where the Legislative Branch of government may have abdicated its responsibility under the Constitution with respect to candidates for the Executive Branch, that is where the Judicial Branch of government provides the "check." <br /><br />The question before the court is not "who has suffered damage" by way of usurpation, but rather "by what authority" does Obama claim the seat - quo warranto. This is purely a LEGAL question that goes back directly to the Consitutional requirements of presidential candidates, which question can only be decided by the Judicial Branch. This is not a political question at all. It's as purely legal in nature as can be. <br /><br />Where courts abdicate their responsibility under the Constitution, they are violating their oath under the Constitution. Such is nothing more than treason against the way our Constitutional system is supposed to operate.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15067960061947346188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85832943930717544932009-10-23T09:39:01.035-04:002009-10-23T09:39:01.035-04:00Wake up, people! We must put more into this fight...Wake up, people! We must put more into this fight than just our words here and on other blogs as comments. Donations to further this lawsuit and the education of the public on this issue can be made at http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm . I contributed yesterday--I challenge all those here reading this blog to consider giving as well. This case is solid and Mr. Apuzzo is one of the most knowledgeable attorneys on this subject in the country. His writing style is eloquent, articulate and intelligent, his research is top-notch, and we are so fortunate to have his dedication and compassion on this issue—arguably the greatest and most symbolic Constitutional crisis of our lifetime! <br /><br />If you have been paying attention to this issue, as well current economic indicators, the value of our dollar is declining quickly. If Health Care Reform and Cap and Trade pass, we can expect further erosion and possible hyperinflation. Our dollars, in a few short months, may not be worth the paper they are printed on. Let's make them count today, while they still have value.<br /><br />In addition to informing everyone we know of the true facts on this issue, when we have an opportunity like this to support this case, not just with encouraging words here or comments and thoughts—we must give our financial support. It is one thing that most of us can do, very easily, by going to http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm and clicking on "donate." This can be done so easily, without wasting the precious time he and Mr. Kerchner need to spend working on the Appeal, instead of answering all of our questions here. Imagine the impact if thousands of dollars, in addition to thousands of citizens, were dedicated to this cause!<br /><br />Let's show our support for Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner, two of the truly great patriots of our time!<br /><br />Don’t let this be our nation’s gravestone:<br /><br /> Journalism died in 2008.<br /><br /> The Constitution died on January 20, 2009.<br /><br /> The Mob Rules.Sallyvenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09907616488562792531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18224239927528542752009-10-22T18:42:42.465-04:002009-10-22T18:42:42.465-04:00I typed in Obama for District of Columbia on dunn ...I typed in Obama for District of Columbia on dunn & bradstreet.<br /><br />Here is what comes up:<br /><br />GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES <br />Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA<br />THE U S CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, DC<br /><br />EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT <br />Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA<br />1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW, WASHINGTON, DC<br /><br />EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT <br />Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA<br />1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW, WASHINGTON, DC<br /><br />OBAMA EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE <br />WASHINGTON, DC<br /><br />SENATE, UNITED STATES <br />Also Traded as BRACK OBAMA<br />HEART SENATE BLDG RM 713, WASHINGTON, DCFollowTheConstitutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12475108256714039565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-84783253329844174482009-10-22T17:18:15.363-04:002009-10-22T17:18:15.363-04:00"The DOJ should be working to protect the Con..."The DOJ should be working to protect the Constitution and We the People per their oath of office and not work to promote the status quo usurpation of the Constitution by Obama,..."<br /> <br />This is true, BUT, we no longer have a government so they have no constitution by the people to uphold for the people. The entire congress and usurped our government.<br /> <br />If the United States, Inc, the United States Congress, Inc., the United States Senate, Inc, The bar inc, every single court being a corporation, every local, county and State police being a corporation, every elected official being a corporation, every city, town, county and State being a corporation, and everyone of them all being a foreign corporation, then how can they being a foreign corporation possibly have any jurisdiction to hear any of these cases filed when we the people are considered as foreign to their corporations?<br /> <br />Go to dunn & brad street and look them up! Look up United States Corporation. Look up the United States Congress, the United States Senate, The IRS, The Supreme Court, the district courts, county courts, local police, county police, State police, your State offices, like your State government, senators, etc, etc, etc.<br /> <br />Every single one of them are all listed on dunn & brad street as private corporations doing business. <br /> <br />So if these are all corporations, then HOW could they possibly have jurisdiction over us as the people?<br /> <br />There is only ONE court that has jurisdiction and that is the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In order to file civil suit against a foreign corporation you must file the suit in their jurisdiction which is within the 10 mile square of the District of Columbia. In order to sue any of these officials you have to sue them in their corporate capacity. You can't sue them in their official capacity. <br /> <br />Look up Obama on Dunn and Brad Street. He is listed as a corporation. The President of the United States is listed as a corporation. They are ALL a foreign corporation in the District of Columbia. <br /> <br />They even have each of the citizens listed as a corporation! They issues bonds on each one of us and we are all traded on the stock market! <br /> <br />The entire thing is nothing but a big fraud against the people of this country.<br /> <br />There is a case pending right now in the Superior Court that exposes this fraud. They are suing the United States DBA Corporation. Suing elected officials in their corporate capacity. Served Eric Holder in his corporate capacity. Eric holder is now in default. He has failed to respond to the complaint. Why did he not respond and allow themselves to be in default? Because there is no possible way he can respond to this case! <br /> <br />We are waiting on the Judge to enter the motion of default that has been filed.<br /> <br />You can look the case up.<br /> <br />It is listed under, DALE, RODNEY PLAINTIFF vs. UNITED STATES CORPORATION DEFENDANT<br /> <br />2009 CA 005391 B DALE, RODNEY Vs. UNITED STATES<br /> <br />https://www.dccourts.gov/pa/FollowTheConstitutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12475108256714039565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31417308280430939092009-10-22T16:01:50.429-04:002009-10-22T16:01:50.429-04:00Surprise, surprise ... not!
One day after Judge S...Surprise, surprise ... not!<br /><br />One day after Judge Simandle issued his lame and flawed dismissal decision in my case the DOJ has quickly filed a copy of it by way of a Judicial Notice to Judge Carter in the Barnett v Obama case in CA. If Judge Carter now quickly rules to dismiss the Barnett v Obama case, can anyone say "orchestrated set of court decision events by some unnamed grand conductor in the sky". Smells totally rotten to me. Cloward-Piven Strategy in the works for our Constitution and court system. This is a disgrace. The DOJ should be working to protect the Constitution and We the People per their oath of office and not work to promote the status quo usurpation of the Constitution by Obama, a complicit Congress controlled by the Marxist Progressive Caucus, and an enabling Main Stream Media and press. If Obama takes over as Dictator in the model of Castro and Chavez as President for Life, which I have no doubt is his goal, he will discard these enablers as his no longer needed useful idiots. The lessons of history and National Socialism have not been learned by these people who support the Usurper in Chief.<br /><br />A copy of the cover pages of that Judicial Notice filing in CA at this link:<br /><br /><a href="http://ia301520.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.87.0.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://ia301520.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.87.0.pdf</a><br /><br />We intend to appeal Judge Simandle's opinion within the next 30 days and pray and hope the higher courts have more courage and respect for the Constitution than the Federal Trial Court Judges to-date seem to do.<br /><br />Charles Kerchner<br />Lead Plaintiff<br />Kerchner v Obama & Congresscfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-19922681276686450342009-10-22T16:00:11.652-04:002009-10-22T16:00:11.652-04:00To summarise.
All the lack of standing Judges:
T...To summarise.<br /><br />All the lack of standing Judges:<br /><br />The Constitution affects everyone equally.<br />A Constitutional wrong affects everyone equally.<br />No-one has standing for a wrong which affects everyone equally.<br />No-one has standing at Law to redress a Constitional wrong.<br /><br />Secondly:<br /><br />A Constitutional wrong is a Political matter.<br />Courts cannot determine Political matters.Webmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05531100027334288058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83681914340801851332009-10-22T13:07:56.822-04:002009-10-22T13:07:56.822-04:00After reading what the Judge said I see a loophole...After reading what the Judge said I see a loophole he left open that should be able to be used to bring a related but entirely different case, one of a class action lawsuit representing all American's injury by allowing a individual who is legally not allowed to hold the office of president to continue in his position.<br /><br />Notice what the judge said: "Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction," he explained. "The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an 'injury in fact.' It added that plaintiffs' alleged injury is 'only a generally available grievance about government' and 'is one they share with all United States citizens.' Finally, it said that plaintiffs' 'motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged,"<br /><br />I read this to say that while individually these individuals may not have a case, a class action lawsuit representing all of Americans might have legal standing and allow the proper court to take action.<br /><br />Considering the nature of the individuals being accused that action will be limited unless the people of the country use the remedies available to them to enforce compliance after the courts have handed down their opinions on the rule of law.<br /><br />This is not a political issue, it is a civil issue that unless it is handled properly will eventually become a criminal negligence issue that if then continued to be ignored will become an issue of treason by the entire congress.<br /><br />I am not a lawyer nor would I want to be, but the court (pun intended) is wide open for an appeal and and expansion of the case into an class action suit: The American People vs. The House of Representatives, The Senate, and perhaps the Justice Department for criminal neglect.<br /><br />I do understand the confusion jurisdiction in this case and the judge as much as said so. Another comment mentioned the need to sue them in the federal court in the District of Columbia and this very well might be necessary. It is the role of the court to rule on law, not to tell you how to make your case.<br /><br />In this judge's ruling what he did say negatively toward the case says as much as what he said positively toward the case. Don't doubt that this judge probably thinks similar to the people who filed the suit, more so that he is not in the position to make a ruling on the suit.Survey Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00199457195447773799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-82892283075746198362009-10-22T13:00:43.379-04:002009-10-22T13:00:43.379-04:00Thank you all for your kind words and support. We ...Thank you all for your kind words and support. We have lost a battle but not the War. As per the words exchanged between the two sides in a famous struggle in our past for the protection of our Liberty and other inalienable rights, ""Has your ship struck?" To which Captain Jones answered, "I have not yet begun to fight!"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/21219344/Chief-Justice-John-Marshall-Quote-20091019-Issue-Wash-Times-National-Weekly-page-15" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/21219344/Chief-Justice-John-Marshall-Quote-20091019-Issue-Wash-Times-National-Weekly-page-15</a><br /><br />Charles Kerchner<br />CDR USNR (Ret)cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-22210178504469675882009-10-22T11:30:27.314-04:002009-10-22T11:30:27.314-04:00Whatever happened to Constitutional Rights being a...Whatever happened to Constitutional Rights being a matter that<br />does not require "immediate harm" for standing???<br /> <br />Maybe a little harder examination of Ex Parte Young, only as applied to the Feds rather than the States is in order here ???<br /><br /> Remember thats the case where the law was considered unconstitutional by those subject to it, and the AG Young wanted to press the argument that the parties had no standing to bring any action unless and until they had actual damage of fine or imprisonment after testing it ???<br /><br />We need to use that case for the unique problem here...we have infront of us a factually correct violation of the Constitution in our face....and the Courts will do nothing...not even order Congress or someone else to "do the ministerial duty" using the Court's guidance as to the meaning of NBC...<br /><br />What kind of Treason does the COurt commit when it has a crime placed in its face...and it does nothing????<br /><br />What does a court do when during a civil federal suit...there is an admission against interests by one of the defendants that they committed "robbery, or perjury.." even if the plaintiffs were not directly harmed by the "unlawful act." ?????<br /><br />Do Court's just ignore these matters, or should the Curt refer the matter to the US Attorney of DC to Act on a Quo Warranto action....<br /><br />AWESOME...push the Appellate Court to refer the matter because otherwise they are committing treason, are they not ????<br /><br />BIg Problems require bold moves....and well<br /><br />What say you Mario ???Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171382418553106023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59522127396475388792009-10-22T11:14:56.984-04:002009-10-22T11:14:56.984-04:00Mario,
Take advantage of "Greg's" c...Mario,<br /><br />Take advantage of "Greg's" comment...he arms you <br />with a howitzer...<br /> The eligibility issues found in the Constitution<br />are "ministerial duties" and no one is "in fact" responsibile<br />for ensuring that these "requirements" are met."<br />In fact the Constitution does not impose a duty on any body<br />to insure compliance, and failure to comply would make as the <br />current decision does, that it is meaningless, and the <br />US Supreme COurt has said nothing about it can be claimed<br />to be meaningless.<br /> Hence I would pose in the appeal that a certified <br />question be presented to the US Supreme COurt<br />since Marbury vs. Madison claims it is up to the judiciary<br />to say "what the document means."<br /> The Court needs to say why it is not the Judiciary who<br />should say "who" is responsible for ensuring compliance.<br /><br />I more importantly believe that you need to attack this<br />ridiculous "standing issue" much like there was an attack <br />that led to Six Unknown Federal Agents, which put the feds<br />into a liable position for violating citizen's rights.<br /><br />Just as you make the argument RE: age, of 35 years, it is not <br />a secret, his B/C is irrelevant...but the COurts cannot turn a<br />ministerial task into a political question, because there is<br />no one charged with the duty to perform this task...contrary<br />to your complaint, nothing in the Constitution or Federal laws<br />assigns this duty to any one or any body, and the US Supreme<br />Court must "find who and assign who" this duty belongs to,<br />....the right to petition for redress of grievance...is being<br />violated, if the politicians refuse to comply with provisions<br />that the Supreme LAw commands....they have no discretion, and <br />by the same token...the Courts have no discretion to punt...<br />because black letter law is if it is a requirement, it must be <br />followed, and if he can state, he was born in direct conflict<br />with the eligibility requirements, make Greg's argument to <br />the Appellate Court that Greg must be right....if they are <br />going to refuse to certify the question to the US Supreme <br />Court.....Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171382418553106023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68194567831852355452009-10-22T10:59:23.749-04:002009-10-22T10:59:23.749-04:00"As the Supreme Court has explained, “Nothing..."As the Supreme Court has explained, “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals' communications on public issues.” Id. (citing Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463,"<br /><br />Public Issues??? What PUBLIC issues? When did a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE become merely a public issue? Did the court here not error in this assessment?<br /><br />"Defendants argue in the alternative that the United States, the United States Congress, and former Vice-President Cheney and Speaker Pelosi in their official capacities, are entitled to sovereign immunity. Defendants Cheney and Pelosi are also entitled, Defendants argue, to legislative immunity, and Defendants Obama, Cheney, and Pelosi are entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims."<br /><br />So if acting in their official capacty they are placed above the law and have full immunity against any laws they violate? <br /><br />As for Pelosi, she signed the certifications from the DNC that was issued to every State certifying Obama was elegible. When someone tried to claim FOIA to obtain documentation the DNC used to determine Obama was elegible the DNC claimed they are NOT a public office and are in fact a PRIVATE organization and as such they are not subject to FOIA. Pelosi sat as the chair of the DNC who certified Obama being elegible and when doing so she was acting in her PRIVATE CAPACITY and NOT her official capacity. So her actions taken while acting as chair of the DNC in her PRIVATE CAPACITY would not entitle her to any immunity as a public official! Yes?<br /><br /><br /><br />"These alleged harms apply equally to all United States residents. In fact, Plaintiffs’ complaint repeatedly acknowledges that the injuries they allege are generally applicable to “the people.”4 As explained above, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this generalized harm is not sufficient to establish standing under Article III. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.<br /><br /><br />So what the Judge is really saying here, is, the constitution itself has no standing because the constitution applies to all the people equally! <br /><br />"Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote."<br /><br />So the code below has no meaning nor effect and merely exists for show?<br /><br />District of Columbia Official Code<br />Title 16, Chapter 35, Subchapter I <br />§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action. <br /><br />A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.FollowTheConstitutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12475108256714039565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-35053574603568195162009-10-22T09:24:29.569-04:002009-10-22T09:24:29.569-04:00Mario / James - I've followed this issue since...Mario / James - I've followed this issue since before the election from the UK - yes I am English, but don't worry I am not the enemy and I agree Obama is ineligible.<br /><br />In my opinion though, poster "Follow the Constitution" has highlighted something that I have been exploring myself and think you should be considering. I note thus far you have responded to the other questions within the responses to this article, but you have not responded to his comments. Is there any reason for this?<br /><br />I appreciate discussing this in terms of corporations is a sensitive subject but surely you need to explore all avenues? Donofrio wrote numerous pieces on the need to action a Quo Warranto suit in DC yet I still don't see any of the "leaders" of this movement going in that direction. Why not? I mean no disrespect, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this.<br /><br />Regarding the argument you are putting forward in respect of everyone must have standing, I see this as flawed because of the corporation aspect. It seems to me that the court is not viewing the plaintiffs as human beings at all but is treating them as legal fictions (which is what citizenship really is no? it effectively means employee of the state). Therefore no standing is granted due to corporate status because as citizens you're corporate entity is registered to the US corporation and whilst you are free beings your name (your corporate identity for use within commerce) belongs to them. As such any cases of precident that you can show are irrelevant because the US corporation can overrule at any time it chooses due to property rights because it not the plaintiff actually controls the rights of the name and therefore decides if it has been injured.<br /><br />I appreciate this may be concerning because it means that the Constitution does not offer the protection that people think it did. People signing up to social security are treated as having waived their natural rights unless they claim them whether they realise it or not. Is that not the reality of the matter?<br /><br />A candid answer would be appreciated however I'm not sure if you're permitted to do so as a member of the law society. However I am sure this is a piece of the puzzle.<br /><br />If it is all based on contracts, and because you're plaintiffs are not being put forth as human beings rather than corporate entities, for any plaintiff to have standing in the way you describe and for the US corporation not to have the power to overrule, your plaintiffs need to show that they are owners of their commerical corporate entity (name) ? What you think are your unalienable rights were lost when you became a citizen I believe unless plaintiffs have specifically claimed their rights by noticing the corporation? The constitution protects the people, but the court is not recognising plaintiffs as people only as sub corporations of the US corporation. <br /><br />Of course for this to be so there must always be a remedy in law, - quo warranto in dc appears to be it - because it basically relies on a contract between US corporation and the sub-corporations (your names)(statutes are contracts) and gives the sub-corporations an avenue of seeking recourse. I feel you will never be successful with any other process unless US corporation DECIDES to let you win (or you can prove sovereign status of the plaintiff).<br /><br />Of course the court will never come out and say any of this EVER because it will shatter a lot of beliefs. The excuse of it being a political issue is to prevent from exposing the truth of how government claims its authority and why there is no standing, in my honest opinion.<br /><br />Any comments?<br /><br />Just my 2 cents anyway - food for thought perhaps.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233858460962831724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75183386218412989362009-10-21T22:46:19.328-04:002009-10-21T22:46:19.328-04:00Kris,
The court will not rule on the merits of t...Kris, <br /><br />The court will not rule on the merits of the argument that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" because of his father being a British subject/citizen and Obama himself being the same when he was born. The court simply and conveniently dismisses the case on standing or because of the political question doctrine and sends you packing without ever telling you what it thought about the real issue. I know this sounds unbelievable but this is exactly what is happening in the courts of the United States of America.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64810646831472156302009-10-21T21:32:39.240-04:002009-10-21T21:32:39.240-04:00Greg:
Your comments are completely irrational and...Greg:<br /><br />Your comments are completely irrational and incorrect as well.<br /><br />What you are saying is that Congress can override any part of the Constitution it chooses<br /><br />That, my friend, is a gross absurdity!!jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-66290124617087266182009-10-21T21:28:50.209-04:002009-10-21T21:28:50.209-04:00Mario et al,
In all of the court cases that have ...Mario et al,<br /><br />In all of the court cases that have gone the furthest it always seems that there is soooo much and so many angles presented to these judges. They seem to be swimming in information that appears to mean nothing to them. So they look for the easiest way out, not wanting to be the one who would order discovery from this first black president.<br /><br />What I've never understood is why there has never been a case that simply presents what has ALREADY been DISCOVERED and focuses seriously and ONLY on that. And that is what has already been admitted to by Obama himself - his British citizenship. It's the one thing he's not hiding and in need of discovery to find out! Present that one thing before a judge and then present alongside it ALL the precedent cases that have shown that this one fact is a disqualifier. Show that the fact is that all previous presidents demonstrate that that definition was acceptably known by all. The one ineligible one himself showed that even he was aware of that disqualifier by his own actions of hiding the true facts of his birth. Force them to rule on this main known fact which Obama has presented as even an "in your face" challenge.<br /><br />We've already seen that pages and pages of all of the other reasoning mean nothing to these judges (which they see as mere speculation) - and some of their comments show they have blinders on for focusing only on place of birth RATHER than the British citizenship NO MATTER WHERE the man was born.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-7277415496974497202009-10-21T20:22:45.610-04:002009-10-21T20:22:45.610-04:00The "Obama eligibility problem" will soo...The "Obama eligibility problem" will soon dwarf "The Watergate conspiracy". It took over two years to uncover the dirt on Richard Nixon and force him from office, be patient - we must endure in order to conquer. OUR tax dollars are paying for the alleged "Obama grassroots support" bloggers : http://www.publiusforum.com/2009/10/07/the-obama-justice-departments-secret-blogging-team-is-it-illegal/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08866086537549017383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-26908431672534779502009-10-21T20:18:27.246-04:002009-10-21T20:18:27.246-04:00I am disappointed by decision but not suprised by ...I am disappointed by decision but not suprised by it. If one reads the decision it is truly a frightening, disturbing, and troubling decision that borders on complete utter nonstop insanity. I will explain why:<br /><br />The Judge makes a Key Point the everyone must understand: “Where, as here, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is facial, the Court must, for the<br />purposes of this motion, take all the allegations in the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most<br />favorable to the Plaintiffs.”<br /><br />If means for purposes of the case the court is assumming Obama is inelgible and Congress completely failed in its duty and assumes all other allegations to be true.<br /><br />For the court to state they have no juristication, that citizens have no power to affect an ineligible POTUS and that Congress is the only one that can act, and if they won’t do it your only remedy is to go to polls….<br /><br />This reasoning is complete UTTER NONSENSE.<br /><br />It implies that we live a Mob Rule democracy and that citizens have no rights under the constitution to do anything.<br /><br />The constitution is truly dead!Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-13751470323919857452009-10-21T20:10:33.838-04:002009-10-21T20:10:33.838-04:00KeyboardExpress,
Thank you for the information. ...KeyboardExpress,<br /><br />Thank you for the information. You can imagine how busy I will be working on the appeal. It would be nice if Leo can help us out on this by filing the Hawaii action. That way we can cover more ground.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59646303525432598582009-10-21T19:59:09.015-04:002009-10-21T19:59:09.015-04:00Mario,
How closely have you been following the le...Mario,<br /><br />How closely have you been following the legal research and FOIA attempts made by NJ attorney Leo Donofrio? <br /><br />I would probably misstate or leave details out if I attempted to synthesize what he's been doing with regard to Hawaii's UIPA laws, so instead I will link you to pertinent details. If you aren't familiar with this particular angle of his research, then please, please read these links and tell us what you think. <br /><br />Can you pick up this trail of evidence and run with it? <br /><br />http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/moving-forward/<br /><br />http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/uipa-request-5-from-leo-c-donofrio/<br /><br />http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/hawaii-attorney-general-invokes-attorney-client-privilege-concerning-doh-natural-born-citizen-press-release-of-july-27-2009/<br /><br />http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/quo-warranto-for-interested-persons/<br /><br />http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/scotus-no-private-right-to-quo-warranto/<br /><br />http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/judge-carter-does-not-have-subject-matter-jurisdiction-for-quo-warranto-in-barnett-v-obama/Ericahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17519630584677986406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90370777292409948832009-10-21T19:35:17.741-04:002009-10-21T19:35:17.741-04:00""What about picketing the White House?&...""What about picketing the White House?""<br /><br />If at least 500k people would picket and refuse to leave while all going on a hunger strike until they address the issue, that might do it.FollowTheConstitutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12475108256714039565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14503661035659747122009-10-21T19:26:09.658-04:002009-10-21T19:26:09.658-04:00Greg,
You said:
"The problem with the wh...Greg, <br /><br />You said: <br /><br />"The problem with the whole "everything that Obama does is unconstitutional because he's ineligible" is that it ignores the long standing de facto officer doctrine." <br /><br />Evidently you do not know what my case is about. I am not challenging Obama's actions but rather is eligibility to hold the office. Hence, the de facto officer doctrine does not apply in my case. <br /><br />Your attempt to address my point regarding the 35-year-old age requirement is pathetic. You are basically saying that the Constitution means only what the people want it to mean. You have got to be kidding. Your ridiculous response shows me that I have struck a nerve with you and you have no real response so you come out with such absurd reasoning. <br /><br />Also, your bombastic statement that "the courts are for people with real injuries" proves nothing. You try to show that you are the champion coming to the defense of the court by showing that the court is an institution that gives aid and comfort to the people who have real injuries. Your rhetoric could work among your own kind and with the unknowing but not with anyone who is well informed on this issue.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77077014707973836542009-10-21T19:18:27.709-04:002009-10-21T19:18:27.709-04:00Greg,
You should have pointed out ALL of the de f...Greg,<br /><br />You should have pointed out ALL of the <i>de facto</i> officer doctrine. --If it is proven that Obama KNEW he was not a natural born citizen, or even that the DNC knew he was not a natural born citizen, that would indicate that Obama obtained his office by fraud. The de facto officer doctrine permits all laws created by one woh obtained the office fradulently would be void.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00506399247726601194noreply@blogger.com