Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Filed

Filing Announcement 20 Jul 2009: Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed his opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint/Petition Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and Alternatively to Strike the Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition.

The Defendents' motion to dismiss decision date is now scheduled for on or about 3 August 2009.
The Plaintiffs' cross-motion decision date is now scheduled for on or about 17 Aug 2009.
For more information and details contact Mario Apuzzo, Esq., at:

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired, Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al

Update 30 Aug 2009: There are currently two motions before Judge Simandle and he is now late in ruling on both. The Defendents' Motion to Dismiss had a return date of 3 Aug 2009 and thus the Judge is 4 weeks late in that ruling. The Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to grant leave retroactively to the Plaintiffs and allow the 2nd Amended Complaint to stand in the case and not be stricken had a return date of 17 Aug 2009 and thus the Judge is 2 weeks late in that ruling. And according to the federal rule on amending cases the regs say that the Judge should be very liberal in granting such leave. Thus making a decision on the second motion aforementioned should be rather easy for the Judge. But it appears that he is choosing to address them both together and is taking his time in doing it. There is nothing we can do to speed up a Federal Judge. Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff.
Update 23 Sep 2009: The two motions before Judge Simandle are now very late in his ruling on both. The Defendents' Motion to Dismiss had a return date of 3 Aug 2009, set by the Judge himself, and thus the Judge is 7 weeks late in that ruling as to meeting his own set date to make the ruling. The Judge had all the required information from the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in July. The Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to grant leave retroactively to the Plaintiffs and allow the 2nd Amended Complaint to stand in the case and not be stricken had a return date of 17 Aug 2009 and thus the Judge is 5 weeks late in that simple procedural ruling on granting leave. Making a ruling on that point could have been done by the Magistrate Judge Schneider as it is a minor procedural issue. And according to the federal rule on amending cases, the Fed Regs say that the Judge should be very liberal in granting such leave. And that 2nd Amended Complaint was the only one served on the Defendants so it is hardly new to them. They had it for over 4 months before they even replied and addressed it. Thus making a decision on the second motion aforementioned should be rather easy for the Judge. But it appears that he is choosing to address them both together for his own reason known only to him and is taking his time in doing it. There is nothing we can do to speed up a Federal Judge if he chooses to delay as it appears he is to me. Very frustrating to say the least. Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff.


Teo Bear said...

On behalf of the what I say is well done and well said.

The Constitution which millions of men and women have fought and died protecting is the only noble truth. Without our Constitution to constrain the natural inclinations of those weak men and women who enter politics this nation runs the risk of falling into despotism and tyranny.

Both you and the brave men who lent their names to this action are not summer soldiers but true patriots.

God bless and God speed.

Teo Bear

cfkerchner said...

Mario's opposition filing is well written, factually and legally sound, and outstanding in his arguments. The truth and the Constitution will prevail. The Plaintiffs in this case will be granted standing and we will win this case.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

shakes said...

This is an awesome brief Mr. I gave me a sense of pride that we have such a great Patriot fighting for the Constitution and all of our rights as Americans!! Kudos to you and Mr. Kerchner for standing tall!!! God Bless you both!:)

sjc said...

Give Thanks and the Glory to God who has granted such wisdom to you.

If God be for us,who can be against us.


Sturgis said...

I read the motion this morning, nice piece of work.

What does NUNC PRO TUNC mean?

Best wishes,

Ken Sturgis
VA Beach, VA

Anonymous said...

Good job Mario...

Chief said...

I just finished reading your motion; I like it, it is excellent and on point. I think you hit the points that will really matter at this point in the evolution of this case. I cannot see the court ruling otherwise, in your favor.

jayjay said...


I let my colleague and good friend Tony The Tiger read the MTD response and he said:


(but he is a genius of understatement).

I'd say - MASTERFUL!!!!!!

The Aug 3 proceedings should tell us a good bit about our country I'd think.

jayjay said...


The phrase you inquired about (NUNC PRO TUNC) means something like "now for then" and is a request for something to be allowed to be done after the original time expired.

Incredulous said...

Mr. Apuzzo do you have a index card sized summary we can print up and leave about in public places, "leaflet" as it were?

cfkerchner said...

Hello Cajapie,

You can print out the latest advertorial running in the Washington Times National Weekly edition this week and the summary of the case that we ran three insertions ago. They make good one page fliers and handouts. Here are the links:

Obama the Usurper:

Summary of the Case:

You can find printable copies of the other insertions in the Washington Times at the links from the contributor's page at:

And you can get a very good tri-fold handout and flier at The Birthers site at:

Circulate these links. Print out the pages as fliers. Help pay for more advertorials by helping spread the word and getting more donations to help the cause to educate the public on the issues and this lawsuit.

Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Anonymous said...


Every Patriotic American should read it several times. It should be included in every school course on the Constitution.

Mario is the best.

Anonymous said...

I look forward to listening to both of you on Blog Talk Radio. Please let us know when you are scheduled for your next radio discussion. I always listen several times to all your programs so I can absorbe it all.

The two of you together are the best program. Mario sometimes gets a little passionate. I am kind of a passionate guy also.

Anonymous said...

this is posted on the berg site.

[quote="rxsid"]A sort of, clearinghouse of info, contacts and historical reference to the term NBC (among other things): [size=85][i](yes...these folks are for the truth. they've simply 'embraced' the so call slander from the obots)[/i][/size]

I just learned something new today from that site, after seeing the French version of Vattel's Law of Nations (I've never seen the French version before):
[quote]"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “[b]Of the citizens and [color=#FF0000][u]naturals[/u][/color][/b]”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. [b]He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were [color=#FF0000]born in the country of two citizens of the country[/color].[/b] Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212[/quote]

Anonymous said...

One can also see that the term "parents" is in fact...plural!
And to reiterate what so many of us have known....
[quote]For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”[/quote]

What's important to note here is that Vattel's original work: Le Droit des Gens (The Law of Nations) (1758) was written in French. It's this very same French version (reprinted) that many of the founders had in their own possession and were familiar with. This is, unquestionably, where they based their knowledge and understanding of the term "Natural Born Citizen" from. [color=#FF0000][b]Born in country to two (2) citizen parents.[/b][/color] a usurper, and he knows it.[/quote]

Anonymous said...

great job sir, but can you enlight me for after I had read your work on this matter I a little bit confuse. with all due respect, if you aimed to Kenyan or British citizenship mostly he shall concealed this one, but if you aimed to his Indonesian citizenship also; he cannot run for it's written on his own book of his adoption by Lolo Soetoro and on how he moved and went to school in Indonesia on 1967 to 1971. The law in which had be given to thee about Indonesian immigration law uu no.62 tahun 1958, the Indonesian marriage law of uu no.1 tahun 1974 and the dutch law before that that said the child must be on the father side behalf of either his citizenship, or all law that matter to him/her in or outside of the court of law; and the Indonesian law that had principle that once you're on Indonesian soil then the law of Indonesian were supreme above other nation law. So tell me sir is there's a loop hole even the smallest one on this forum that can connect the Indonesian law that also allowed the parents to renounced the child nationality can be applied to your law. Sincerely yours Zhou tay.

kingskid said...

Great job, Mario; thank you! I do not see how the federal court could fail to rule in favor of the Constitution. We will soon see what that court is made of. Sooner or later, this case will, and must, be adjudicated on its merits. I believe you are the best person for the job and am standing with you. May God bless, strengthen, and encourage you through to the end.

God, give us victory that truth may prevail and the whole world will be put on notice that America has not been abandoned by her Creator. Vindicate the blood that was shed for this Constitutional Republic, and may You, God, bless America once again! Amen.

Joe said...

Great job Mario and Charles. I enjoyed listening to you on the radio tonight. I always hate waiting for the next deadline.

This is my concern. The Supreme Ct won't hear it. I am concerned about this because I have doubts about the justice system and the integrity of anyone in DC.

If for example I knew that the Justices picked the cases, I would feel better but i think that would be naive.

You confirmed my thoughts on the Citizens Grand Jury. Perhaps you could offer a way to change the FRCP on a future show. Lets face it, the gov. isn't going to allow citizens to police them. All they have to do is ignore us. They are real good at that. We are just pea ons.

If my boss told me she had a problem with one of my procedures, I would make it right immediately.

Let us move forward said...


Were you born and raised in Indonesia or do you know people that were? If so you may be able to clarify a possibly important question about Barack Obama's citizenship status when he was living in Indonesia.

During the 1960s, Indonesia was under the control of Suharto, a brutal dictator who ordered so many Indonesians killed that the river ran red with their blood. In the late 1960s, what papers, like passports or other identification papers, were Indonesians required to carry?

In 1971, would an American woman married to an Indonesia man have been allowed to keep her US passport legally while living in Indonesia? Would she have been required to show an Indonesian passport to exit Indonesia to visit America and to reenter Indonesia when returning home?

Anonymous said...

Very nice motion Mario.
Godspeed gentlemen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To capedeh,

Regarding your question of Obama's Indonesian connection, there are many questions regarding this issue. We do not know whether Obama's step-father, Soetoro, legally adopted him or just acknowledged him in some way under Indonesian law. We do not know whether Obama being listed as an Indonesian citizen in the school there was done for convenience or whether he was truly an Indonesian citizen.

Once, the Indonesian facts are learned, we then have to find the applicable law (U.S. law, Indonesian law, and international law like treaties). We then apply the found facts to that law to determine if and how those facts impact Obama's Article II "natural born Citizen" status.

Local Court rules provide that any motion opposition brief must be no more than 40 pages. The same rules say that I can ask the Court for special permission to exceed that page limit. Given the nature and number of parties involved and the national importance, unprecedented nature, and complexity of the issues at hand, I did write to the Court for that permission. The Court denied my request and held me to the exact 40-page limit, leading me to wonder under what circumstances the Court would give the permission provided for in the rule. The defendants also thereafter filed their opposition to my request. With the limited space that I had to cover all the parties and so many complex issues, I did raise the issue of the Indonesian connection and advised the Court that the issue exists but needs to be fully explored through discovery.

I also advised the Court that Obama's travels to Pakistan also raise questions regarding whether he is a "natural born Citizen." We know that he did travel there in 1981 but we do not know with what passport.

These are issues that need to be fully investigated through discovery. Up to now, with Obama refusing to release any of his documents that would shed clear light on these obscure matters(refusing to release to the general public, the media, or any authoritative public body his birth, education, employment, and travel documents), the People just do not know what the truth is. That has been the problem all along with Obama, causing so many different theories to be espoused about his origins and life activites and giving the Obama supporters the grounds to call the "Birthers" delusional. Obama himself has created the currently existing informational void that the People would like to fill. Obama's supporters then unjustly place blame on the People who just want to know the truth whether he is an Article II "natural born Citizen." Obama wants to be the President of the United States and we surely cannot criticize concerned Americans for wanting to know who Obama really is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

KitKat said...

Mr. Apuzzo, with respect to your "third party standing" argument from NAACP v. Alabama 357 U.S. 449 (1958) we have passed from a theoretical/hypothetical argument into reality.

You probably already know this, but just in case: Army Reserve Major Cook volunteered to come onto active duty and deploy to Afganistan. After he received his orders, he challenged Obama's eligibility in federal court in Georgia. The Department of Defense revoked his orders, revoked his security clearance, and was also directly responsible for the loss of Major Cook's civilian job, because his employer works as a contractor for the Department of Defense and all of the jobs require security clearances. The retribution was swift.

Again, you probably already know about Cook's case, and the opposition will likely argue that Cook's lawsuit was planned and had political motives, but I believe that our servicemen and servicewomen have the right to know that their Commander-in-Chief is constitutionally eligible to hold the office.

Good luck to you, sir, and thank you for standing up for our Constitution!

Unknown said...


Our US Supreme Court has already said that a parent CANNOT renounce the citizenship of their child...In Fact even if I renounce my US citizenship to another country, because the other country requires it, I can still come back to the US as a US Citizen, unless I renounce my citizenship myself to the US thats the only way I lose my US citizenship, and would have to re-earn it!

Anonymous said...

It was good to show that the courts have cited Vattel's definition in the past (pg. 1-2); that's a key point. And then the fact that Obama admits his birth was governed by British law (pg. 3-5) is also essential; Leo Donofrio made that point at

I wouldn't have referred to the presidency as being "all-powerful;" (pg. 11) after all, in theory the presidency is limited by the enumerated powers of the Constitution (even though in practice presidents have often stepped far beyond their legal powers).

Showing that the Constitutional oath gives someone standing to enforce the Constitution (pg. 13-16) was an excellent move; if nothing else (though indeed, there are other valid avenues of argument on standing), that alone should give Kerchner the standing he needs.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just read at Daily Kos an article written by Walt Starr, dated July 22, 2009. In his article in defense of Obama, he states the following:

"I've not seen the birth certificates of the 42 men who preceded Barack Obama to the presidency. I know that one president, Chester Alan Arthur, had similar issues about his birth place brought on by his opponenets, only in reverse.

Arthur was first claimed not to be a natural born citizen because his father was not an American citizen when he was born, he was Irish. When that failed to take off, his opponents concocted the story he was actually born in Canada. With Obama, the Birthers started by claiming he was born in Kenya and when that was debunked, started claiming he's not a natural born citizen because his father was not an American citizen when Obama was born."

How convenient for the Obama camp to make this argument now, given that I have raised this issue in my opposition brief that I filed on July 20, 2009.

I believe that Mr. Starr has twisted the facts of history and the Birther's approach to the Obama eligibility issue. Mr. Starr cites no evidence to support his bald assertions. On the contrary, I am not aware of any evidence that the public knew that at the time Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. I am aware that Arthur took extraordinary measures to hide his past and personal papers, even burning them at the end. See Attorney Leo Donofrio's writings on this issue at

I have stated in my opposition brief that it appears that given the pre-14th Amendment law, at best even though born on U.S. soil, Arthur would have been a naturalized citizen when he become both Vice President and President. His father naturalized when Arthur was a youngester and under the then-existing naturalization laws, his father's naturalization would have automatically naturalized his son.

I will appreciate from all of you who are concerned about the Obama eligibility issue to advise whether you are able to find any evidence from any source that shows that the public knew of Arthur's father not being a U.S. citizen when Arthur was born. On the other hand, please advise whether your findings show that Arthur was successful in hiding those details from the public.

It is interesting to note that Arthur did not run for re-election. He was Vice President from March 4, 1881 to Septemer 19, 1881 and President from September 19, 1881 to March 4, 1885.

Arthur also in 1882 appointed Justice Horace Gray to the U.S. Supreme Court. He wrote Wong Kim Ark, the case that interpreted the 14th Amendment to mean that a child born on U.S. soil to alien parents who are permanent residence of the U.S. is a "citizen" of the United States (not to be confused with an Article II "natural born Citizen"). Hence, while Justice Gray, Arthur's appointee, would have made Arthur at least a 14th Amendment "citizen," and doing so by completely ignoring well-established historical precedent (see Justice Fuller and Harlan's well-reasoned dissent and all their citations including "partus sequitur patrem"), his ruling would not have made him an Article II "natural born Citizen." Just think what would have happened if Justice Gray ruled that Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen, which is what the U.S. Government argued and supported with legal precedents. What would have happened to the Chester Arthur presidential legacy? What would have happened to Arthur's very appointment of Justice Grey?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

kingskid said...


After reading your brief opposing the MTD, it brought to the surface something that has been bothering me for several months. It's this: VP Cheney is no dummy, and he is very politically savvy, from all I have seen of him. So, why would he NOT ask for any objections from Congress at Obama's electoral count? I find it hard to believe that he didn't do that because he didn't know he was supposed to. Could he have omitted the objection question on purpose? After all, he had to have known that Obama really is a radical (if we have known it all along, surely the VP would!), and that Congress was so cowed by him that even if they did have objections, no one would have the guts to say so. And Cheney also may have known that if he took the vote and there were no objections, it would be a strike against plaintiffs arguing against Obama's eligibility sometime down the road. As it stands now, the requirement to have asked for objections at the electoral count in Jan. 2009 and it not having been done, is a strike against the defendants. I'm just wondering if it is possible that Dick Cheney gave us a gift on that day? Has anyone else thought of this possibility?

Let us move forward said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

No references? KOS is blowing smoke.

I previously emailed you a summary of my Arthur research on Monday, July 6, 2009 6:01 AM. I will resend with an update. Please review same. As I stated before, I have only found two references to patrem associated with the election of Arthur in all the publications that I have reviewed: one direct in a newspaper during the 1880 campaign, and one in a very generalized answer to some unknown question published in Hinman's book, which was published before the Republican National Convention of 1884.

Arthur was a Republican of Irish descent and Republicans were not very concerned about patrem. However, Democrats held patrem necessary for citizenship. The Irish were very sensitive about the British attitude "once a subject always a subject" (even after naturalization). The Irish vote had previously gone Democratic, but now had a Republican Irishman to vote for and any hint of patrem would have been very destructive to the Democratic effort to have their Presidential Candidate (Tilden?) elected. Certainly the Republicans weren't going to admit anything.

I have been in contact with Michelle, Mike and company and Mike provided an article from a newspaper perhaps not available to me. Same sidestepping of citizenship issues, and very similar "play to the local crowd" BS that we see from Mr. O.

I am reading Reeves' autobiography. Nothing in there addresses patrem, but Reeves infers from one of Arthur's speeches that his loyalty was solely to the Conkling machine. This is supported by his actions. Apparently anything else that got in the way was just to be parried. Arthur managed to escape exposure of the highly partisan corruption in the Custom house without being exposed. He continued playing a similar partisan game as VP before Garfield was shot.

The primary reason that Arthur did not run for reelection was because he knew that he was fatally ill during his term. He died from the illness not long after he left office.

If you need anything else from me, let me know.

Anonymous said...


You missed this important point. This will definitely blow up the case in our favor.

At first I tended to dismiss this until I read further. I have also read that in 1959 the vote was totally fraudulent also.

jayjay said...

Mario & Let Us Move Forward:

Re: Chester Arthur - I think that Leo's site is mostly correct and that despite the beliefs of some that Arthur was not "eligible" no one ever proved it with any sort of definitive information ... not even the author Hinman at the time.

Some of the pro-Obama sites such as the one run by Dr. Conspiracy make great pretence about the people (somehow) had to know about Arthur but despite Hinman's best efforts at the time there was never any knowledge that pointed either way - just conjecture. THe website mentioned pretends that "everyone knew" and tries to mis-present and spin information to support that - but falls well short of being at all credible; even pointing to a NY court case (supposedly) defining the situation that Arthur would be a NBC. Again, he's off the mark.

I think the pre-Presidential corruption is most likely the reason Arthur destroyed almost all his records with, perhaps, the "eligibility issue" being a secondary reason.

We'll probably never know for sure - and certainly cannot depend upon these pro-Obama websites as they will make almost any outrageous argument.

In the end, though, whatever the case may have been with Arthur which I think of as fraud is no justification nor precedent for letting it happen again when millions are aware of the issue.

jayjay said...


Can you give a more explicit link to the subject you're mentioning? I can't find it from the link given.

Joe said...

The Federal Reserve was voted in illegally also, there is nothing us pea ons can do about it.

Anonymous said...

to let's move forward and mr appuzo
I'm borne in Indonesia in 1976 and lived in Indonesia. When an Indonesian father adopted foreign child during those year, then the law that applied is UU no.62 tahun 1958 (bill no.62 year 1958), I cannot translate all due to my security on the line here, so you got to translate this one by using Indonesian to english dictionary. Indonesian/ bahasa were had no tenses like in english so you can learn them very quickly. But they had so many idioms so watch out for that. Check on that bill especially on article 1.b; and add with marriage law of Indonesian uu no.1 tahun 1974 (bill no1. year 1974 especially article 47 uu no1 tahun 1974:
1. Child under 18 years old and un married under their parents rule as long as they not renounced their power of the child.
2. The parents represents the child under law matter in and out the court.
This and married on mixed married before this law is passed (1974) were bases on
and on the dutch law;Indonesian were under dutch occupation until 1942 but many of their law were applied especially about mixed married (written way below that law of uu no1 tahun 1974) especially article 47 uu no1 tahun 1974:
1. Child under 18 years old and unmarried under their parents rule as long as they not renounced their power of the child.
2. The parents represent the child under law matter in and out the court.
This and married on mixed married before this law is passed (1974) were bases on
(K. B. v. 29 Dec. 1896 No. 23.) S. 98—158. and still do until uu no 12 tahun 2006(bill no.12 year 2006) were written that the child on legal married should follow the father nationality. Lets focus on the child for about his mother I don’t know either she still hold US password or not but the child’s always followed the father behalf/ means side on legal marriage according to that Dutch law before Indonesian marriage law officially applied in 1974. And to you mr appuzo; if the child and his/ her family were moved to Indonesia then he is in fact were under the indonesian law for quite sometimes and the school certificate were not for merely convenience for the fact that mr Tatan Sulvyana (AP reporter) had shoot the picture of his school certificate. As an Indonesian I could tell especially about those time in Indonesia where Soeharto and Soekarno locked themselves on power struggle as no1 man in Indonesia we must carried out KTP (Indonesian ID to show that we were not communist party member/my old man told me this stories especially if you either Chinese, foreigner should carried their passport; etc); all you got to do to my personal advice is hunt his sister Maya Soetoro documents, Obama’s mother divorce paper especially to Lolo Soetoro and his occidental college. I know this going to be a very long shot but this is worth a lot. By the time his occidental college record is spread out then you can aim at him on this matter. On African sadly I got to tell you had nothing but his auntie word but on Indonesian side you shall get plenty; of course your stone wall is the Indonesian government shall guarded him so well. If you do exactly on my ramification told you to do or at least all good men do it then my effort shall be useful.

roderick said...

If someone wants to enlist in the military he has to provide documentation showing who he or she is and provide a full background check of that person's past. To be Commander-In-Chief of that military you have to be Constitutionally eligible to hold said office. "bama probably would not pass the qualifications of even enlisting in the military much less being an officer since he refuses to dispense with proper documentation showing his citizenship, his identity, etc. How can someone give orders to an enlisted man or even an officer to go put his life on the line if that person himself would not be allowed to join the military? There is only one person here who does not have standing and that is 'bama. This will follow the imposter everywhere he goes even after he is removed from the oval office. It is getting bigger and stronger. You'll keep up the good work and I will return with more insight into this little problem we are having.

sjc said...

The Red Herring known as Chester Arthur.

The Daubert Standard

Stare Decisis-a precedent established by a higher court which guides the lower courts

The red herring " two WRONGS equals ONE RIGHT" trying to link
Obama to Arthur is a classic example of a logical fallicy. Arthur represents an obscure footnote to history, an oddity not STARE DECISIS. There is no legal brief, no court decision of that day which in any way links Kerchner v Obama to Chester Arthur.

At the appropriate time a pre- hearing Daubert Motion of IN LIMINE should be made to exclude hearsay and irrelevant evidence. I think it should be strongly considered. (Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael)

The Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy refers to the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which held that Rule 702 did not incorporate the Frye "general acceptance" test as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony;
General Electric Co. v. Joiner,[1], which held that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review was the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether expert testimony should be admitted;

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael[2], which held that the judge’s gatekeeping function identified in Daubert applies to all expert testimony, including that which is non-scientific.

Two of the most important appellate level opinions that clarify the standard include Judge Kozinski's opinion in Daubert on remand (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)), and Judge Becker's opinion in In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994).

Two wrongs make a right
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. Like many fallacies, it typically appears as the hidden major premise in an enthymeme—an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. This is an example of an informal fallacy.

It is often used as a red herring, or an attempt to change or distract from the issue. For example:

Speaker A: President Williams lied in his testimony to Congress. He should not do that.
Speaker B: But you are ignoring the fact that President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony!
If President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony, that does not make it acceptable for President Williams to do so as well. (At best, it means Williams is no worse than Roberts.)

The tu quoque fallacy is a specific type of "two wrongs make a right". Accusing another person of not practicing what they preach, while appropriate in some situations, does not in itself invalidate an action or statement that is perceived as contradictory

Let us move forward said...


Is this correct?

Anyone who did not appear to be Indonesian would have needed to carry their passport with them while inside Indonesia in the 1960's. A "white" woman like Stanley Anne Dunham Soetero with a mixed race son would not appear to be native Indonesians.

Could an American married to an Indonesian man carry an American passport while inside Indonesia? Would the police have accepted her US passport as valid? Would the police have arrested her? Would she have been required to obtain an Indonesian ID card and/or an Indonesian passport?

If not required to carry Indonesian passport/ID what kind of visa or residence card would Mrs. Soetoro need to present to the police and other authorities?

What official documents would she have needed to exit Indonesia in 1971?

If you don't know all the answers, I will understand. You or your father probably know more than we do stateside about how things were and what rules Ms. Soetero would have been required to follow.

William said...


Excellent job on your motion, well written and researched! In your footnote, you mention Chester Arthur. Leo Donofrio and his sister are in the process of writing a book on Chester Arthur and have conducted extensive research on the matter.

When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur's) birth. If "natural born citizen" means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble to convince the public that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born? It is inconceivable that Chester Arthur would have taken such extraordinary measures, unless he believed that his birth to non-citizen parents made him ineligible to serve as VP or President (Historical Breakthrough -- Chester Arthur)

In addition to your note of Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Howard, I researched a little more over these comments and found that During the debates over the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, both of its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that the word "jurisdiction", as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any other jurisdiction or allegiance.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Jacob Howard: [I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. (What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means)
Many Obama Apologists have argued that simply after he turned 18 years of age, he was no longer under the jurisdiction of British law, and therefore he is a NBC (Statutory at best). However, I would like to point out how this is indeed false. In 1884, the Supreme Court said:
…..The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized... (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)


jayjay said...


Thank you for the additional information. I'm sure that will help Mario once the case gets into discovery.

A couple of the items already formed into the proceeding are the possible Indonesian citizenship and the Occidental College records as you've suggested.

There were reports during the time of the election last year that one of the members of Congress (if I recall) a representative from one of the "non-states" (the Virgin Islands perhaps) had gone to Indonesia to meet with some of the political leaders to arrange a payoff (e.g., some grant of US funds for "education" or other bogus purpose) to keep any Obama records out of sight.

Perhaps someone else has information about that - I'll try digging it out later if time permits.

But man thanks for the extra information. I imaging that identifying the actual laws of Indonesia will be helpful as well as the passport carrying requirement.

Let us move forward said...

On any Chester Arthur legal angle coming from the opposition, I agree with the poster who suggested that the best policy is the Daubert Motion of IN LIMINE. If that could be established in the course of this challenge, perhaps it could be used in any later case of possible ineligibility even if Mr. Obama is allowed to serve out his one term.

sjc said...

A question: If Chester Arthur signed into law the 14th amendment, is the 14th amendment valid if Chester Arthur is at sometime ruled ineligble and all court cases,naturalized citizenship conferments,subsequent elections etc. based upon 14th amendment powers null and void?

This definitely is a situation where the courts would have to leave the water that has escaped over the dam,alone. Just endeavor to not let it happen AGAIN.

roderick said...

OK Mario this is very simple. Walt Starr says and I quote "I have not seen the birth certificate of the 42 man who preceded Barack Obama to the presidency...".
No problem George Bush is still alive let's track him down and ask him to verify that he was born in the good 'ole USA. He being of the "non-scandulous" sort will be more than happy to provide all pertinent information, birth certificates, background checks, etc. as is required to do so in the prerequisites of said job. Now let's move on to Mr. Clinton. Mr. Clinton may I stop you for a moment and ask you to present your birth certificate and all other pertinent documentation necessary to hold the office of the highest position in the land as you are a former Commander-In-Chief and just for the record we want to demonstrate to all of those nay-sayers that you are Constitutionally eligible and qualified to be in the white house? And the reply would come back "No problem here it is because you my friend are a fellow citizen of this great land and they take taxes out of your paycheck over there at Delta Air Lines to assure that the government is being run correctly". I think at this point everybody gets the point. These poeple were not asked for any of this documentation from the general public because all of these people were patently obviously eligible to hold the office of presidency. And anytime Walt Starr wants to see George Bush's records it is not too late to ask. It will be an embarrassment for Walt Starr but it is not too late to ask. The man squatting in the white house is a criminal and has known criminal ties.

Anonymous said...

Could an American married to an Indonesian man carry an American passport while inside Indonesia?she shall need permission by the authority if she do that, if she decided not
Would the police have accepted her US passport as valid? if she an american then yes otherwise she shall be treated like aliens
Would the police have arrested her?if the considered he as an alien then yes
Would she have been required to obtain an Indonesian ID card and/or an Indonesian passport?if she become an Indonesian then yes only Indonesian ID but in order to enlist her son to become students she could use either her husband indonesian id or herself.

If not required to carry Indonesian passport/ID what kind of visa or residence card would Mrs. Soetoro need to present to the police and other authorities?us visa and foreign residence card if she had none of them then she is 100% Indonesian.

What official documents would she have needed to exit Indonesia in 1971?her passport indeed, if she retain us citizen the she is us us passport otherwise indonesian.

Anonymous said...

here's how to check iether mr o or barry soetoro is/ was an indonesian or not; look at his biography dreams from my father that told us that he was adopted by lolo soetoro and after the adoption process is complete then he moved to jakarta. the adoption process it self in Indonesian soil must be under the immigration law uu.no52 tahun 1958 (translate your self using Indonesian to English language)even if he was over 5 years old; the article 1.b shall approved that he can be adopted by lolo soetoro as long as he used his father nationality other wise no where in hell that he can be legally adopted. Below I had written the law that strengthening my opinion about this.
Check on that bill especially on article 1.b; and add with marriage law of Indonesian uu no.1 tahun 1974 (bill no1. year 1974 especially article 47 uu no1 tahun 1974:
1. Child under 18 years old and un married under their parents rule as long as they not renounced their power of the child.
2. The parents represents the child under law matter in and out the court.
This and married on mixed married before this law is passed (1974) were bases on
and on the dutch law;Indonesian were under dutch occupation until 1942 but many of their law were applied especially about mixed married (written way below that law of uu no1 tahun 1974) especially article 47 uu no1 tahun 1974:
1. Child under 18 years old and unmarried under their parents rule as long as they not renounced their power of the child.
2. The parents represent the child under law matter in and out the court.
This and married on mixed married before this law is passed (1974) were bases on
(K. B. v. 29 Dec. 1896 No. 23.) S. 98—158. and still do until uu no 12 tahun 2006(bill no.12 year 2006) were written that the child on legal married should follow the father nationality.
Although now the moved to allowed the child still retain his/her dual nationality exist (UU no.12 tahun 2005? bill no.2 year 2006)however under the latest Indonesian constitution of 1945 amendment (amandemen undang-undang dasar Indonesia tahun 1945) article 28.i section 1:said in english: the right to live,not being tourchered,freedom of speech, to choose religions, the right not to be enslave, the rights to be recognize as person in front of law and the right not to be sued retroactively were human rights that cannot be reduce by any circumstances in short Indonesian law now officially not recognize retroactive principle therefore even if uu no.12 tahun 2006 exist to replace uu no.62 tahun 1958 on mr o/barry soetor case cannot being used to protect him

Anonymous said...

Last but not the least since this shall be my last letter on this subject, all my reason why I do this were exactly as to the author on Israel Insider title Obama lies and hidden truth by Zhou Tay. Should if this prevail to prove that he is/ was in fact an Indonesian and if should any of Indonesian said you owed them big; then let me tell you now that you owed them nothing but if a friend can asked to his friend help my people (chinese in Indonesia) seek justice on the human right violations which contains organized gang raped, killings, arson against the Chinese in May riots 1998 that involve high ranking and powerful men in Indonesia or if not for the sake of your country do remember me at any time you deal with Indonesia for I'm the only one that told you all the truth nothing else but the truth so help me God.
PS:just translate all the law that I had given to thee and I almost forgot check the comparation of Indonesian constitution before and after amendment on this site:
and again translate your self again. Sincerely yours Zhou Tay

Anonymous said...

should Indonesian denies these fact then bring along their own law (not translate one) on the court that shall hold their tongue down. Not single one should be missed.

Let us move forward said...


Thank you for all of your research into the Indonesian laws and the insight into the Identification documents that Stanley Ann Dunham Soetero and Barry would have required to avoid arrest while living in Indonesia.

From what you write, Stanley Ann could have retained her US citizenship with official permission, but if the Soetero marriage was legal and Barack Obama was adopted, he would have become an Indonesian citizen.

If Barack Obama had not used his father's nationality, he could not have been adopted on Indonesian soil, but Lolo Soetero could have adopted him in Hawaii before the move to Indonesia.

I don't have any idea if what you write will be used by Mario Apuzzo, but it definitely has cleared up some rumors that we had heard about Indonesian Law, an American's marriage to an Indonesian and adoption of the American women's child.

Thank you very much.


jayjay said...


Thank you for those 4 posts in a row. They ARE helpful. And I will try to keep your remarks about helping others in mind also.

sjc said...


From: Klein, Jon (CNN)

Sent: Thu Jul 23 19:00:44 2009

Subject: Important re birth certificate

I asked the political researchers to dig into the question "why couldn't Obama produce the ORIGINAL birth certificate?"

This is what they forwarded. It seems to definitively answer the question. Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite [sic]. And then it seems this story is dead – because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef.



*In 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless. *Paper documents were discarded* The official record of Obama's birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, "At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.

Klein's e-mail is posted on Media Bistro.

Jon Klein's statement gave the false impression that Obama could not gain access to or ask for the release of the original "Certificate of Live Birth," and that (to use the words of an investigator into this issue) "it was the Hawaiian Dept of Health's policy rather than Obama's own reluctance that was responsible for the holding back of this certificate."

In addition to being a nasty piece of career blackmail against Lou Dobbs' staffers, this e-mail is either a deliberate deception or an embarrassing example of bad judgment and the total incompetence of "the political researchers" at CNN.

If "the political researchers" at CNN had made more extensive inquiries than just repeating a public statement made on June 7, 2009, by the Department of Health spokesman to a local newspaper, they would have discovered that up until sometime between June 10 and June 18, 2009, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands required applicants for special privileges to present copies of their original birth certificates. The DHHL regarded the shorter "Certification of Live Birth" as insufficient. Therefore the DHHL instructed all applicants to this program in the accepted procedure for obtaining copies of their original birth certificate from the Department of Health.

Here, from a Hawaii state document that was posted on June 10, 2009, is a description of how to apply for the original "Certificate of Live Birth" (the original birth certificate) as opposed to the "Certification of Live Birth":

In order to process your application [to prove native Hawaiian ancestry], DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

sjc said...



Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.

This post on the DHHL website was taken down sometime between June 10 and June 18, 2009 and replaced with "The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth [original birth certificates] and Certifications of Live Birth [the abbreviated computer printouts] ... Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth."

So, up until June 10, 2009, a procedure was in place at the Dept of Health for application for copies of the original "Certificate of Live Birth."

So it didn't matter if Hawaii actually did destroy its paper birth certificates in 2001. Up until between June 10, 2009, and June 18, 2009, there was an established way for Barack Obama, or anyone else who wanted to, to get copies of their own original birth certificates (produced from the scanned digital images of the original hard-copy certificates or from microfilm).

And therefore Klein's message to Dobbs' staffers is deceptive or mistaken. Up until the middle of June 2009, Obama could "produce the original birth certificate." And the Hawaiian Department of Health could produce it now if he authorized it to do so. The story is not "dead," even though Klein has just tried to kill it. So Klein either lied to or misled Dobbs' staffers or was lied to or misled by the Hawaiian Department of Health.

If this way to access copies of the original birth certificate no longer exists (i.e. if the scanned digital images or microform copies of the original birth certificates have been destroyed or altered) the Hawaiian Department of Health has, sometime in the last month and a half, committed a crime of the destruction of evidence of historic significance. It's hard to believe it would do this. But the Hawaiian Department of Health has been so slippery on this issue that, at this point, nothing would surprise us.

The evidence of gross negligence or outright deception on the part of CNN President Jon Klein is clear.

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown are columnists and best-selling authors. Floyd is president of the Western Center for Journalism. An archive of their writings is available at

sjc said...

MARIO etal I came across this cite on the internet, if this usefull, it needs to be verifid.

Legal definition of a Natural Born Citizen from the …
FIRST CONGRESS. Sess. II CH 4. 1790 (approved March 26, 1790)
…cee dings thereon; and there upon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. AND THE CHILDREN OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, that may be BORN beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS; PROVIDED THAT THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP SHALL NOT DESCEND TO PERSONS WHOSE FATHERS HAVE NEVER BEEN RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES: …

sjc said...

Again from the internet.

Our Founders recorded statues in the volumes of the 1st and 3rd Congress which touch on Natural Born Citizen. The originals of course reside in the National Archives in D.C. If they are in print,these books should be reviewed and used as a basis for refuting the pending battle over NBC defined. Clearly I would wager some of the writers of the Constitution were also members of the 1st and/or 3rd Congresses. They have left us this record for consultation. As to the 14th amendment I've learned it dealt with post-civil war status of confering "naturalize citizenship" status to slaves. No mention of NBC status was inferred by the

In addition, in the official copies of the THIRD U.S. Congress (1795) margin notes state "Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3." referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, "...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: "How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents" Document margin note: "Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.") See Attachment A.

Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
"...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: "Their children residing here, deemed citizens." Document margin note: "Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.") See Attachment B.

Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the Constitution of the United States of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
"No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…" See Attachment C.

Sheikh yer Bu'Tay said...

The Brief is beautifully written. It made me proud just to be an American living in the liberty we have!

All of you probably already know this, but I thought I would mention it anyway. About Stanley Anne Dunham and Barry in Indonesia... I read her divorce papers from Soetoro. In it, Dunham states she and her child, Obama, retained US citizenship. I read the divorce papers at Orly Taitz' blog site. Now, at the time of Dunham filing her divorce papers state-side, I doubt there was any legal authority actually investigating citizenship issues for an abandoned mother with child returning from Suharto's Indonesia.

If, however, Obama stated in his book he was adopted by Soetoro... well, nothing works better than a defendant's own admission!

To support Capedeh's information...Here is an English translation of Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia:,,, LEGISLATION,IDN,4562d8cf2,3ae6b4ec8,0.html

(I could not fit the entire address onto the blog size, so you will need to eliminate the spacing between the three commas and the word Legislation.)

I hope it helps. I have tried to get more info on Indo. law without much success. Capedeh's information is terrific!!!


Sheikh yer Bu'Tay said...

Another address for Law No. 62, Law of the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, 1 August 1958, is available at:

cfkerchner said...

Hi all,

It's Friday, 21 August 2009, about 4:55 EDT. I just checked the Pacer federal court docket system. And as of about 4:40 p.m. there was no decision by the Judge posted in the docket for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case regarding the Defendant's Motion To Dismiss or the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion regarding the 2nd Amended Complaint procedural issue. Both are past their return due dates of 3 Aug 09 and 17 Aug 09, respectively. But you cannot rush a Federal Judge. Thus, unless we hear something later tonight, because maybe they are working late in Camden NJ, it is likely that we will not hear anything on this case until next week.

Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Unknown said...

Is it time?

cfkerchner said...

The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.

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.

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):

"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."

Link to the treason quote in case context:

Link to Case Summary:

Link to Full Case:

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.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al