Saturday, January 24, 2009

COURT DOCUMENT: Kerchner et al v Obama et al Filed 20JAN09 about 3 a.m. As Amended 21JAN09.

For your convenience, here is the access link to the Amended Complaint to the original Complaint which I electronically filed on January 20, 2009, at about 3:00 a.m. Today, I uploaded the document to You can read, print, and download a personal copy of the complaint as amended from this site.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.


Anonymous said...

If you want to broaden your horizons,I suggest you check out the RBN archives of the pasr 6 weeks of Winterrowd's and Hinkley's shows.I came across this information over a decade ago with historian Epperson's work.But thee guys are really going in depth on the Administraive State.This whole "standing" issue is not the reason these cases are being tosssd out.Nor does this have to do with how perfect or imperfect they are crafted and drafted.I've gone into detail on key historical events that led to this in dozens of posts elsewhere to no avail.But you appear sincere in debate and intellectual discourse to seek justice for all Americans.This isn't theory.From 1830-1946 the Constitution was systematically dismantled,and there is a duality in our form of government which few people understand.That's not even factoring in rank corruption,graft,deception,or the push towards a NWO,which is openly discussed in the msm these days.Although it should be noted that it is impossible for our alphabet security and policing agencies not to have vetted Barry.But ,people have been conditioned to abhor the word "conspiracy",and see the whole system is rotten to the core,as others are around the globe,and revolting.Also,you should check out researcher Don Nicoloff's work on Barry.He's currently going over all the past photos,and they are all photoshopped,even childhood pics.This mystery man weas chosen to take down the USA.There is certainly enough evidence at hand to warrant any honest judge or elected official to act upon.And then comment upon,even if dismissing.Many people thought Ron Paul would stand up on this one.Nope.He's a one-trick pony on the Fed.Reserve,which was exposed long before he ever took office.And he bluntly stated that he would be laughed at if speaking up,and that nothing would be done about it anyway.He knows what is going on.But the fact is,he is paid to defend the Constitution,like the rest of the DC crowd.Hope your case goes well.I just haven't seen any case geared along the lines of battling the Adm.State.We went from common law to maritime/admiralty law long ago.SCOTUS is the last Con.Court in the land,and they are all corrupt.Some say even that court closed its doors in 1988.

Anonymous said...

Listen to the archives of today's Sting of Stang show.Alan spent time with Ron Paul last weekend.Ron said this: 1.he knows Barry is ineligible. 2.Nothing will be done about it. 3.he is sticking with his Fed Reserve battle. There you go.Everyone knows with an ounce of discernment knows Barry is a fraud.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I'm a President Obama supporter, just wanted you to know that you're wrong about his citizenship, but moreover, that I don't care where you are from as long as you care about things that matter, like the economy, health care and the environment

Bunker said...

Since obviously our elected officials and appointed justices no longer respond to We The People, what course of action remains?

At what point do Obamatrons find fault with their guy? I asked this of a Clintonista back early in his rise to prominence, specifically "..would you support him even if he raped?"

"Of course not!" was her response, but when rape allegations were made, support him yet she did.

With Barak Hussein Mohammed Obama II's supporters is about ideology not what's best for the federation, or their progeny. Ask them why they back Him, the first words are almost always, "I feel...." never "I think..."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To Anonymous 1-28-09 12:29pm

Thank you for your honest comment. I respect your position and I understand from a human stand point that you can feel the way that you do. The problem with your position is that the United States is a Constitutional Republic. That means that our people and their government and judicial institutions must adhere to a set of rules that are written in the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. The reason for that is so that the minorities, the people not in power, the people who do not agree with their government, the people who want change can be protected from and not abused by those that hold power. In other words, the majority, government, and courts cannot just simply impose their will upon a minority, an unpopular group, or an individual without having a legal basis to do so. We call this process the rule of law. This concept is the basis for the statement that we are a nation of laws and not of men. It is the belief in this truth that forms the foundation for our most cherished and vital constitutional principal that the government and the courts cannot deny a person life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

If we let our putative President hold office simply because he is perceived by a majority, however big, to be likeable by Americans and other countries, capable of doing a good job, "cool," young, popular, worthy of a free pass because he is the first African American President, and not also because he is Constitutionally qualified for that Office, then we as a nation, including the people and all government and judicial institutions, have abdicated our duty to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, the foundation of our constitutional republic. Under such a scenario, we will have allowed our nation to be driven by men/women and not by law. Once we make an exception to a cardinal rule, we start the slow process of the exceptions swallowing the rule. It then only becomes a matter of time before the national culture no longer adheres to the rule of law. At that point, we will have power taken by the few at the expense of the many. There will be no control of that small group. There will be no more true freedom for the masses. There will only be a small group dictating to the populace what to do and what not to do. Once such power is in the hands of a small group, they will not let it go and it will corrupt them, for it has been said in time that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen countless examples of this phenomenon in history. This is another reason why we need term limits for all our elected representatives. We cannot and must not allow our political leaders to lay claim to power for an unlimited time, regardless of how popular and good they may want the people to perceive them.

Our Constitution has created in our national psyche a culture of respect for the rule of law. It is this culture that has allowed our nation to flourish, not only for those in power but also for all those who have the drive, ambition, and dream to make something of themselves in life, including but not limited to aspiring for public office. It is this culture that has allowed the "little guy," no matter what his or her station may be in life or into what family he or she may have been born, to dream of someday realizing a position of self worth. It is this same culture that has allowed Obama himself to dream realistically of someday being President of the United States. Our Constitution has given us the gift of life. We have, to the best of our ability, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" for the sake of our freedom and survival.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Anonymous said...

Our Constitution has created in our national psyche a culture of respect for the rule of law.

Funny, every time a court correctly applies the rule of law and dismisses another one of these nonsense lawsuits, inevitably there is the cry to impeach or prosecute the judges, or the Jefferson "blood of tyrants" quote and a vague threat about "asserting Second Amendment rights."

Is that the kind of respect for the rule of law to which you refer?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Good thing there have been no uprisings to the court's decisions. I guess the people have respected the rule of law. While I have heard about the massive riots and destruction that is threatened should SCOTUS declare Obama ineligible to be President, I hope that the Obama supporters like yourself will also respect the rule of law should the Court so find

Anonymous said...

Amen Mario to your last comment!
As for the economy, Barry is not trying to help the economy with only 3% of his bailout plan going into the system in 2009. His plan is only pay backs and his supporters left wing agendas. The left wnats to scream that the last 8 years of Bush is the reason for the downturn but The mess was caused by banks being bullyed into giving loans do people that should have never received them in the first place.The vote records of all the democrats are all available to prove it. The lawsuits brought on by ACORN and the like. The mortgage writers took advantage of the situation and the banking industry has been thrown under the bus by all.
We not only have this lawsuit but a few others and we where also provided by our founders the rights to the 5th branch of government IE the Grand Jury, which will be our next step, and we will not stop with Barry on that one!

Anonymous said...

Good thing there have been no uprisings to the court's decisions.

The threats of violence and refusal to follow federal law indicate a lack of respect for the rule of law.

While I have heard about the massive riots and destruction that is threatened should SCOTUS declare Obama ineligible to be President

Meh. Just speculation [Who said there would be massive riots? Disgruntled Obama haters?] about highly improbable events.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To Anonymous 1-28-09 10:34pm

The point about adhering to the rule of law pertains to Obama, not anyone else. Please keep the issue focused on Obama and not anyone else. Obama wants to be President. He has to satisfy the Constitutional requirements. Other's conduct is simply not relevant to this analysis.

Anonymous said...

The point about adhering to the rule of law pertains to Obama, not anyone else.

Au contraire. If those wishing to depose Obama are claiming to do so under the guise of following the rule of law, the least they can do is follow it themselves.

Anonymous said...

To find the proof obama is a usurper people are going to have to think outside the box.Remember Obama had planned this for a long time.However even the best laid out plans leave room for error.If you wanted to hide your past like obama think of all the steps you would have to take.He did just that.The powers that be had to select obama in order for him to succeed.The question is why out of all the true black politicians that the powers that be could have chosen why did they pick a illegal immigrant?

Bunker said...

", the least they can do is follow it themselves."

Pointing to bad behavior to justify bad behavior is one of those things "I learned in first grade" not to do.

Riots may be likely based on historical unpopular court decisions, i.e. Rodney King. But the foundational governance contained in the USC must be respected or we risk anarchy.

Hundreds of thousands have sacrificed their lives in defense of this document. To disregard the rights of the people and restrictions placed on government by it, is an affront to those thousands and all patriots.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To Anonymous 1-29-09 6:00am

When Obama is proven to be an usurper, the question will be did he pick himself or did someone else pick him? If the former, I will blame it on Obama's twisted vision of grandeur. If the latter, much thought will have to be given to discovering the reason why.

Anonymous said...

A Certificate of Hawaiian Birth says “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” on it, not “Certificate of Live Birth”.

mtngoat61 said...

To Anonymous January 29, 2009 6:27 PM:

Once again, you as an Anonymous poster, are planting false information and misleading statements to obfuscate the facts, and cause people to run around needlessly to check out the false information you are seeding in this forum, ... when you posted:

"A Certificate of Hawaiian Birth says “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” on it, not “Certificate of Live Birth”.

That title you stated is not on a Birth Certificate for Hawaii in circa 1961.

See this website for an image of a circa 1961 "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth":

It does NOT have the word Hawaiian across the top as the title of the document. I believe you knew that when you purposely posted your erroneous statement. The image of a 1961 era "Certificate of Live Birth" has been posted on the internet many, many times and it has also been linked to previously in this forum.

Again, you O-Bots are here on a mission posting Anonymously, and are here trying to do what you O-Bots have done all through the campaign and unconstitutionally done confirmation of Obama, i.e., posting phony, duplicitous, misleading information disguised as facts on the internet and now here to obfuscate the truth. Why not demand the real facts and truth and real evidence, the original document sealed by Obama in the vault in Hawaii? Why is Obama sealing his life's orgingal records? What has been proffered is alleged to be forged or altered.

Tell your ACORN or legal office boss to tell Obama to simply release the original, long-form, Certificate of Live Birth in the vaults in Hawaii and we will see what it says. That would resolve one of many issues with Obama and the Citizenship status issue. Then after that, ask Obama to conduct a press conference and explain to the U.S. citizens how he can be considered an Article II Natural Born Citizen when his father was never a citizen of the USA. His father was never even a permanent resident, let alone a never being a citizen. Obama is a lawyer, he should be able to hold a press conference and answer questions about this. Why hasn't he?

As I said, Obama's lack of producing an original long form "Birth CERTIFICATE" is only one part of this new case, Kerchner et al v Obama et al.

Please address that Congress and others are being sued too for violations at the Joint Session of Congress, the result being the confirming of an Article II unqualified President Elect to be President and for violation of the rights granted to the Plaintiffs and all citizens under the Constitution. Read the Complaint for the details on that:

Thus, instead of the continued posting of false and misleading statements on the document issue and Obama hiding the original, I suggest you address the other major part of this lawsuit, suing Congress for not doing their duty under the Constitution and not following the Constitution in dealing with "We the People" and the qualification processs of a President Elect and also breaking USC Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15 in the Joint Session of Congress ... when they unconstitutionally confirmed an unqualified President Elect to be President. Thus Obama is not the legal President, he is a usurper and will ultimately be removed via Quo Warranto and all his acts and orders will be reversed as null and void since they were not lawfully issued since Obama as President Elect was not lawfully confirmed.

M Publius Goat

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Hi all on this Court Document for Kerchner v. Obama post and thread:

This Kerchner et al v. Obama et al Court Document thread is now closed. Discussions of the case should be in a discussion thread. I have started a new post and thread dated January 30, 2009, to continue the discussions. Please post your comments and questions about this case and continuation of these discussions at the new post. I will post replies to any unanswered questions and comments you posted in this thread in that new thread. But please do not post anymore new comments or questions here. Click below to go directly to the new discussion thread for the Kerchner v. Obama case.

Thank you,

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. United States Marijuana Party said...

Hi! When I click on your link to your documents it complains that my computer does not have flash. Flash hurts my eyes. Any chance you can mail me copies of all documents? I would love to read them and give you any ideas I might have.
Then, your next big case, will be a multi district litigation class action lawsuit representing citizens who hate flash because it either hurts their eyes or gives them a head ache or causes nerve or nervous problems, etc. (people like me, over age 55 HATE FLASH!!!!!!).
Cris Ericson
879 Church Street
Chester, Vermont 05143