Sunday, June 7, 2009

Update on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

There are many who want an update on what is going on with the court in the Kerchner case. The court listed the defendants’ (Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) motion for a second extension of time to answer or otherwise move as to the amended complaint for June 1, 2009. Not receiving any decision from the court as of June 5, 2009, I contacted Judge Schneider’s law clerk on June 5, 2009. She advised me that the June 1, 2009 date was a tentative date, with the court being able to decide the motion either before or after the date. She told me that the defendants’ motion was still pending and that “they” were working on it. She was not able to give me any more specific information as to when we can expect a decision.

I know that many of you are frustrated and have lost faith in the integrity of our legal system. I know that many of you do not believe that, given that we are so far post election and the lack of any support from our political leaders, institutions, and mainstream media, a court will have the moral and legal courage to do what you believe to be justice. But at this point, we can only believe and hope in a court honoring the Constitution and the rule of law by upholding the original intent of the Founding Fathers on the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Our Constitution at Article II says, in pertinent part, that only a "natural born Citizen" can be President. At the time of the Founding, the Framers relied upon the law of nations which was based on natural law for, among many things, the definition of what a "natural born Citizen" was. They did not rely on English common law for the definition. The latter law was not accepted by most civilized nations of the world but the former was. Before the Constitution was adopted, the colonies and eventually the states decided on their own the definitions of citizenship and naturalization. The result was that there was no uniformity among the colonies and States on these important matters which affected not only relations between the states themselves but also America’s relations with foreign nations. Indeed, and unlike the English common law, the law of nations provided for the Founding Fathers a uniform definition of what a "natural born Citizen" was, a definition that could and would be accepted by every State in the new Republic and by most every other civilized nation. It was the law of nations that provided the definition for the new national citizenship in the new Republic. The Founders relied heavily upon Emmerich de Vattel and his The Law of Nations, as the source for what the law of nations said on the many topics that were incorporated into the Constitution, and in constituting the new nation. Under the law of nations as explained by Vattel, a "natural born Citizen" (he called them “naturels” or “indige’nes” in French) was a child born in the country to a mother and father who were also citizens of the country (“parents who are citizens”). These were the “true citizens” who would preserve and perpetuate the society and all its values. Id. Sec. 212, Book 1, The Law of Nations, 1758, Vattel. It was Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” was that was incorporated into American common law. Vattel was correct in his analysis, for these “true citizens,” having a unity of citizenship at the time of their birth (jus soli and jus sanguinis united in them at the time of their birth) were born with a sole allegiance and loyalty to the society into which they were born.

Vattel had a profound and lasting impact in the formation of the new Republic, not only in defining national citizenship but also in many other areas of nationality and immigration law. He also wrote on (1) naturalized citizens, (2) legal residents (he called them perpetual inhabitants), (3) legal visitors (he called them just inhabitants), (4) travelers, (5) emigrants, (6) expatriates, (7) asylum seekers (he calls them supplicants), (8) those who are involuntarily exiled from a country (forced to leave it “without a mark of infamy”), (9) those who voluntarily exile themselves from a country, and (10) those who are banished from a country (those who are forced to leave a country “with a mark of infamy annexed”). Id. Sec. 213-29. He also states that a nation, having the right to protect its safety and “natural liberty,” has the right to decide who it will admit into its territory. (11) Id. Sec. 230. All these concepts as expressed by Vattel are part and parcel of our immigration law today which expresses these concepts as follows: (1) naturalized citizens, (2) legal permanent residents, (3) visitors, (4) visitors, (5) emigrants and immigrants, (6) expatriates, (7) refugees/asylees (8) those who are given the privilege of “voluntary departure” rather then removed or deported under our immigration laws, (9) refugees/asylees, (10) those who are “removed” (formerly called “deported”) from the U.S. under our immigration laws. We characterize in our immigration laws the right and power of the U.S. under No. 11 as the U.S. being able to decide who is or is not admissible into the country. These are not the only subjects which the Founders and later Congresses incorporated into our Constitution and naturalization laws. There are many more but I will not go into those areas at this time.

Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British subject when he was born in Kenya. When Obama Jr. was born in 1961, his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father a British subject. At the time of his birth, his father, being in the U.S. only on a temporary basis to study, was not even a permanent resident or immigrant. When Obama was born, under the same British Nationality Act of 1948, he automatically became a British subject by descent from his father. Obama Jr., having a British father and being born a British subject himself, along with presumably being a United States citizen under a liberal and probably erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment (if he was born in the U.S.), was born with multiple allegiances and therefore fails the law of nations test and is not eligible under Article II to be President.

Moreover, given how Obama has so far comported himself and poorly represented the interests of the United States internationally, I doubt that he knows and appreciates that he “ought therefore to love [America] . . .” and “express a just gratitude to it, and requite its service as far as possible by serving it in turn.” Vattel.

Only our courts and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court are able to tell America what a "natural born Citizen” is, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The fate and future of and what type of nation America is going to be is all in their hands. In our Constitutional Republic, we have to allow due process to take its course and wait for their decision.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT]
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].


Teo Bear said...


I know like many people I too become frustrated. There are times I feel like saying "go ahead and toss out the Constitution, and while your at it toss out the Federal Government because without a Constitution it has no legitimate place in our society.

You heard the expression, throwing the baby out with the bath water? The federal government is the baby of a constitutional republic.

Unfortunately too many people do not realize that until the Constitution of the United States was ratified, there was no federal government. Today people think that it is the federal government that gives purpose to the Constitution, but it is the other way around. No Constitution, no federal government.

Obama is not qualified to be President, because of his father. Why are naturalized citizens prohibited from being President? Because they were born with loyalties to another nation. At least these people swore off their old loyalties under oath, while Obama would like us to beleive he just let them lapse. The fact is given his own words he was at the age of majority and had both Kenyan and American citizenships. If the Kenyan citizenship did lapse at age 23, he held it as an adult never renouncing it between ages of 18 and 21. And it is that makes him ineligible, even considering all the lame brain excuses I have heard from the left.

The left likes to point out Artur, Chester Arthur purposefully hid the fact that his father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth from the American people. The think two wrongs make a right, but I tell you the only thing I seen besides a right make a right is 3 left turns, so I guess that explains why we are going around in circles.

Sorry, just venting.


mtngoat61 said...

Hi Mario,

Thank you for the update. As you point out, the delays by the court in addressing this case, and the underlying merits of the entire issue of Obama's Article II eligibility, ... as well as the continued burying of this issue by the Main Stream Media ... are very frustrating to all of us.

M Publius Goat

James said...

You have to stay on top of courts. Form what I have seen, many times a court won't dismiss nor rule on a case but will shelve the case for a really long time. This is extremely frustrating for parties who want a resolution in the case. You must stay on top of the case and prevent the courts from shelving your case for the next 4 years.

It appears this is what has happen in Berg's case.

His case was set to be heard on at end of May or the beginning of June. Instead the courts have shelved the case until October or November of this year. I would not be suprising if the courts continue to shelve the case when that time is reached by continuingly postponing any hearings.

I certainly hope that the court neither shelves your case or Berg's and then decides 4 years from now to make some ruling on it.

James said...


If you don't hear a decision from the court within the next couple of weeks, can you post all contact for the court. Perhaps this all be put into a WND article and then thousands of people can begin calling the court telling it to make and release their decision. Hoepfully, this will prevent the case from being shelved.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Maario, I'm beyond frustrated. This man is bankrupting the country and ruining our lives.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Todd Family comment cross posted from another thread.

Now the Sotomayer appointment makes sense. If the Supreme Court will be making decision on what a natural born citizen is, wouldn't you want someone who would be very liberal with the term? Like an immigrants child...
June 7, 2009 9:51 PM

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Comment from MtnGoat1961 cross posted from another thread.

To Todd Family:
It is even worse than that. You see Obama is NOT the son of an immigrant as the press lets people think and as some of his media people and supporters have mislead people to think. Obama's father was NEVER an immigrant to the USA. Obama's father was never even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama's father was merely sojourning here a few years on a student visa studying and then returned to Kenya and his socialist ways there. Thus Obama is NOT the son of an immigrant! And instead of writing of dreams of his American line via his mother he wrote of Dreams From His Father. Obama has deep psychological conflicted loyalties. That is what the founding fathers wanted to avoid when they specified that only a Natural Born Citizen could serve as the President. Obama will the help of an enabling and deceiving press and main stream media has trashed our Constitution to gain access to the Oval Office. He is a usurper. The two political parties made a disgrace of the 2008 election in the violations of our Constitution and laws. Party power and politics now trump even the Constitution unless this wrong is undone.

M Publius Goat

Spaulding said...

Is there no legal mechanism compelling a defendent, the government or individuals, to respond? If there were not such a mechanism defendents could simply ignore legal action. If our government is no longer responsive, it would be good to make that clear. The Kirchner/Apuzzo case seems such a test. We can have meeitns and, at least for the moment, voice our concerns, but we now have czars rather than a legislature, and a justice department which explicitly forbids the validation of voter rolls. Elections have been been unverifiable for several decades, but when the justice department is corrupt, there are few institutional mechanisms remaining to constitutional rights. A few agencies remain, but we have no way to appeal to them. If we now live in a polite police state, it would be best to find out. Judges resign because their authority has no meaning. There are still leaders in states, such as Texas, but it will take more than one. Better that we learn the truth before we are all waiting in lines to keep our families fed. Without the rule of law we may have to learn again how many on our soil want a government based upon the original constitution.

Joe said...

I guess when the Court tells you when to file an appeal, it's just a tentative date, yeah right, sarcasm off.

Well maybe he will make the decision on June 21 and his decision will be moot.

Courts do whatever they want to period.

And who is "they" are working on it?
Is they the Court or is they the defendents. And if they is the defendents, sounds like exparte communications to me. Of course it would only be exparte if the Court allows it to be.

Mario, you have the patience of a saint.

KitKat said...

RE: The Sotomayor comments: Perhaps it also explains why he seems to be in such a big hurry to get her confirmed. It would make a good argument for Sotomayor's recusal, though, because Obama was the one who nominated her to the court.

James said...


The courts appear to be trying to shelve your case.

Not let them!

You and all persons interested demand a decision and this case to pushed foward with expediance.