Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.

The Hon. Jerome B. Simandle of the Federal District Court in the District of New Jersey at 10:39 a.m., on October 21, 2009, filed his long-awaited opinion dismissing the Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. complaint/petition. In the complaint/petition, we allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. We also allege that even if he was so born, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of which makes him ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We also allege that Congress violated it constitutional duty under the Twentieth Amendment to adequately investigate and confirm whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an “injury in fact.” It added that plaintiffs’ alleged injury is “only a generally available grievance about government” and “is one they share with all United States citizens.” Finally, it said that plaintiffs’ “motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. . .”

By way of footnote, the Court said that even if the plaintiffs could show that the Court had Article III standing, they would not be able to show that the court should exercise jurisdiction because prudential standing concerns would prevent it from doing so.

Finally, the Court again in a footnote said that it cannot take jurisdiction of the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Congress has acted constitutionally in its confirmation of Obama for President because the matter is a “political question” which needs to be resolved by Congress. The Court said that there simply is no room for judicial review of political choices made by the Electoral College and the Congress when voting for and confirming the President. The Court added that the plaintiffs’ remedy against Congress may be achieved by voting at the polls.

It is important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because of jurisdiction and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous. Given the nature of the Court's decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief.

As promised, plaintiffs will be filing an appeal of Judge Simandle’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
October 21, 2009

For an outline and summary of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al case see:


Sallyven said...

Just scanned through the Opinion, and my first reaction (I am not an attorney, obviously!), simply put, is that it seems that for any general provision in the Constitution, such as the natural born qualification (or even, for example, citizenship and age qualifications for members of Congress), is that if no specific injury can be proven, there is no standing. In other words, it appears that adherence to any provision in the Constitution of this nature can never be subjected to litigation, even if there is blatant non-adherence. So, it doesn't matter if a law or an appointment fails Constitutional muster, if no "harm" is done, no one can sue. And if Congress doesn't care, there is no recourse for the citizens. Therefore I wonder, what is the point of having a Constitution, or at least these provisions, if there is no intent by the Judiciary or Congress to enforce it, or an avenue for the citizens to demand it?

I am sure the answer to this would require a very complicated answer, and I am not expecting one. I simply felt the need to rant, as a citizen who once felt empowered by the Constitution, who now feels rather helpless and hopeless.

Unknown said...

We're behind you Mario and the plaintiffs!!

Ridiculous ruling after taking months for an answer - sounds like a stall tactic by our "juscice" system to me..

Unknown said...

Sallyvan, you are exactly correct. We might as well have a Constitution Burning Party - that's where our "Justice" system is leading us.

QueMan said...

The 'courts' excuses...I mean decisions are becoming more and more lame by the day!

Instead of the 3rd branch of OUR government standing behind WE THE PEOPLE who are questioning this usurpers eligibility and congresses failure to act according to the Constitution...they are hiding!

The day of reconning will come where We the People of the United States of America will once again be in charge of our country.

Webmaster said...

Anyone has Standing to remedy actions contrary to the actual text of the Constitution:

“Chief Justice Warren determined that the only critical one in this case was whether there was a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment” to the House to determine in its sole discretion the qualifications of members.563 In[p.695]order to determine whether there was a textual commitment, the Court reviewed the Constitution, the Convention proceedings, and English and United States legislative practice to ascertain what power had been conferred on the House to judge the qualifications of its members; finding that the Constitution vested the House with power only to look at the qualifications of age, residency, and citizenship, the Court thus decided that in passing on Powell’s conduct and character the House had exceeded the powers committed to it and thus judicial review was not barred by this factor of the political question doctrine.564”

Powell v. McCormack

4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ action. Pp. 395 U. S. 512-516.

(a) The case is one “arising under” the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III, since petitioners’ claims “will be sustained if the Constitution . . . [is] given one construction and will be defeated if it [is] given another.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. Pp. 395 U. S. 513-514.

(b) The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over “all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ,” and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516.

5. This litigation is justiciable because the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. Pp. 395 U. S. 516-518.

(a) Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined, since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517.

(b) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, regardless of the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue not here decided), declaratory relief is independently available. Pp. 395 U. S. 517-518.

6. The case does not involve a “political question,” which, under the separation of powers doctrine, would not be justiciable. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-549.

(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.

(b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a “potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches” of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.

7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.

Anonymous said...

How do these courts get a "political question" out of a plainly articulated Constitutional question? No one is questioning the man's foreign or domestic policies - just his Constitutional right to even legally make policy - and THIS by his own admittance of ineligible British citizenship. It looks more like an easy out for these judges. Either that or they just need real basic courses in the Constitution. And next we have Philadelphia to contend with? Any bravery in THAT enclave?

Pragmaticite said...

Onward, Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner! This is not the end.

I wonder if alleged Congressional hero of the Consitution, Ron Paul, is feeling any remorse these days for failing to defend the Constitution during the certification of the electoral votes? He was asked in Dec. 2008 about challenging BHO's eligibility as a NBC.

"If I did that, I'd be laughed out of Congress," said Paul.

How's crying compared with laughing, Congressman?

James said...

Eeryone should have standing. Actions taken by Obama that effects a single or group of individuals has standing. Why? Because Obama is ineligible. The acts that Obama does are not injury but they are injury because Obama is doing it but should be able to do it. In that instance, anyone is injured.

The same example can be applied to a situation where someone has done something that has affected an individual or group of individuals. The person doing the action isn't allowed to do such action but is doing it anyway. In that instance, everyone is being injured by the action that person is taking.

FollowTheConstitution said...

When did a constitutional issue become a political issue???

The corruption of the courts continue on!

I believe the reason these courts claim they have no jurisdiction is because of the fact these corrupt officials are hiding behind the foreign corporation. Since they are really non-us citizens upon taking oath to office they actually become foreign citizens under the foreign corporation of the United States, Inc.

The United States Corporation is a foreign corporation that operates within the 10 mile square of the district of Columbia. There is only ONE court that has jurisdiction to hear any case that involves the United States Corporation and that is the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

To get that court to hear the case you MUST file civil suit against the United States DBA CORPORATION and name these elected officials in their corporate capacity, NOT their official capacity. If you sue them in their official capacity they have immunity. Under their corporate capacity they do not have any immunity. Since the United States Corporation IS in fact a FOREIGN Corporation none of the federal courts outside the District of Columbia have jurisdiction.

Think about it! If you were to sue a foreign corporation in Europe, could you sue them in a federal court in the US? Of course not. You would have to go to Europe and sue them there. It is no different here. The United States Corporation is a FOREIGN Corporation based inside the District of Columbia and none of the federal courts outside the District of Columbia have jurisdiction to sue a foreign corporation.

I say forget all crap about trying to remove Obama in these lawsuits. Just sue the United States DBA Corporation, Congress DBA corporation, Senate DBA Corporation, etc....for FRAUD, R.I.C.O. Mail and Wire Fraud, etc.,!

There is plenty of evidence to show fraud here! This will force them to prove otherwise and expose the truth!

What they did they did through fraud, mail & wire fraud, R.I.C.O. and I'm sure numerous other charges we can bring up!

This is the only chance of ever getting justice through the legal system without the people being forced to rise up and march into DC and physically remove these crooks by force of we the people!

Time for the people to take their country back!

Webmaster said...

Or Judge Simandle could put it another way: The President and the Congress can disregard the Constitution, and as long as it affects everyone, the third branch in the "checks and balances", the Judiciary, won't lift a finger to prevent it.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


You are absolutely correct.

Can you imagine if the dispute was whether Obama was 35 years old and neither a majority of the voters, nor the Electoral College, nor Congress cared to enforce that simple requirement, believing that the youngster was the best person for the job. Following our Court's logic, a dispute surrounding that eligibility requirement would be a political question, too difficult for the Court to handle, something which the same Congress which refused to rectify the problem in the first place must resolve.

Also, a person whose unalienable right to liberty, safety, and tranquility is deprived from such ineligible candidate occupying the Office of President (assume the reckless conduct of youth) would not have any "injury in fact" and therefore no standing. But the Court offers that person a remedy. Of course, says the Court, that person can go to the polls and cast his lone vote to get Congress out of office which would depend on the vote of the same people who did not care about the candidate's youth in the first place.

Can you just imagine our Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. May they Rest in Peace.

I repeat, we are a Constitutional Republic, with a written Constitution. We are guided by the rule of law, not by the rule of the majority. Neither the voters, nor Congress, nor the President decides what the Constitution means. Rather, our Founding Fathers gave that critical task to our Judicial Branch of Government. When the Judiciary, the last guardian of the gates, as it admits because of a "political question" abdicates its constitutional responsibility to interpret the Constitution and make sure that all branches of government and its actors adhere to its dictates, we no longer have a Constitutional Republic but rather a mob-ruled democracy.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

giveusliberty1776 said...


When? Say the word.....

FĂ©licie said...

I just want to cry in frustration.

I am beginning not to be too dismissive of the Antichrist hypothesis. It is just NOT NORMAL that everything conspires against the cause of justice. But everything.

rxsid said...

Wasn't the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in PA where one of Attorney Berg's cases was tossed because (one of) the wise judge there had said that the issue of Barry's eligibility had been "blogged" and "twittered"?

I'm confidant justice will be served there.


Pragmaticite said...

What about picketing the White House? Could faithful followers of this blog be joined by others who prefer a nation of laws and muster 100 people with signs and megaphones in front of the White House sometime before the end of this year?

Maybe then FOX News would interview Mario...?

Have you sent FOX News a request for coverage today?:,,,,,,,

Sallyven said...

Mr. Apuzzo: I love your comment in response to Mark. This is a simple, yet critical point, that needs to be shouted from the mountaintops. Your example using age, as opposed to citizenship, is an excellent, easily understood way to explain both the "injury" and "political question" issues. I think it deserves, once the dust settles on today's news, another one of your superb essays as a separate post...

James said...

Mario and Charles,

Can interview on Mommae, Patriot Hearts, or Andrea Shea King?

We love to hear your thoughts

Justin W. Riggs said...

This is certainly a disappointing decision, although not altogether unexpected. While I encourage those who are able to continue pursuing justice through the court system, have the rest of you thought of using the legislative branch to attempt to solve this problem? There is still time to pass legislation in each of our states that will change how candidates can gain access to the general election ballot. Because there is no agreed upon definition of natural-born citizen, each state can define it for itself. I promise that will lead to a lawsuit, at which point the courts will *have* to rule on a legal definition of the term.

I know the system seems rigged, but we must not give up. Find a state representative who is willing to look at ballot access laws with you. Show him/her the loopholes in your state's laws. Convince him/her that it's a Constitutional issue, not a partisan issue, and then ask him/her to sponsor a bill. You CAN find someone - some already are. We have time - we have dedicated individuals. We CAN do this.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

In your efforts to educate the public about Judge Simandle's decision, emphasize that:

(1) He did not rule that Obama was born in Hawaii; and

(2) He did not rule that Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief.

Greg said...

Also, a person whose unalienable right to liberty, safety, and tranquility is deprived from such ineligible candidate occupying the Office of President...

The problem with the whole "everything that Obama does is unconstitutional because he's ineligible" is that it ignores the long standing de facto officer doctrine.

If an ineligible person is elected or appointed to an ACTUAL office, everything they do with the power of that office is valid.

By contrast, if anyone is elected or appointed to a NON-EXISTENT (improper) office, nothing they do with the power of that office is valid.

These qualifications clauses are, to a certain extent, self-enforcing. The electorate decides the meaning. If you convince 60 million voters, the electoral college, and Congress, that 30 is the new 35, or that natural born citizen means born anywhere in the world to at least one citizen parent, then that's what it means.

Scalia likes to point out in oral argument that not all injuries can be fixed in the courts. I couldn't sue Bush because I felt the Iraq war was unconstitutional, and you can't sue Obama.

Don't like Obama? Get out there and campaign. Picket. Demonstrate. Give money to the Republican candidate. And vote. Just stay out the courts. The courts are for people with real injuries.

Webmaster said...

judge Simandle: 5 Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an “injury in fact” sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction....
"The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over “all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ,” and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516."

judge Simandle: Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.

(a) "Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517."

"(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548."

If the courts can find that they can determine a US House member can be seated per Constitutional requirements, then the courts can determine the same for a probable de facto president if he fails or meets Constitutional requirements.
from Poster Red Steel at;page=101

Unknown said...


You should have pointed out ALL of the de facto officer doctrine. --If it is proven that Obama KNEW he was not a natural born citizen, or even that the DNC knew he was not a natural born citizen, that would indicate that Obama obtained his office by fraud. The de facto officer doctrine permits all laws created by one woh obtained the office fradulently would be void.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


You said:

"The problem with the whole "everything that Obama does is unconstitutional because he's ineligible" is that it ignores the long standing de facto officer doctrine."

Evidently you do not know what my case is about. I am not challenging Obama's actions but rather is eligibility to hold the office. Hence, the de facto officer doctrine does not apply in my case.

Your attempt to address my point regarding the 35-year-old age requirement is pathetic. You are basically saying that the Constitution means only what the people want it to mean. You have got to be kidding. Your ridiculous response shows me that I have struck a nerve with you and you have no real response so you come out with such absurd reasoning.

Also, your bombastic statement that "the courts are for people with real injuries" proves nothing. You try to show that you are the champion coming to the defense of the court by showing that the court is an institution that gives aid and comfort to the people who have real injuries. Your rhetoric could work among your own kind and with the unknowing but not with anyone who is well informed on this issue.

FollowTheConstitution said...

""What about picketing the White House?""

If at least 500k people would picket and refuse to leave while all going on a hunger strike until they address the issue, that might do it.

Erica said...


How closely have you been following the legal research and FOIA attempts made by NJ attorney Leo Donofrio?

I would probably misstate or leave details out if I attempted to synthesize what he's been doing with regard to Hawaii's UIPA laws, so instead I will link you to pertinent details. If you aren't familiar with this particular angle of his research, then please, please read these links and tell us what you think.

Can you pick up this trail of evidence and run with it?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Thank you for the information. You can imagine how busy I will be working on the appeal. It would be nice if Leo can help us out on this by filing the Hawaii action. That way we can cover more ground.

James said...

I am disappointed by decision but not suprised by it. If one reads the decision it is truly a frightening, disturbing, and troubling decision that borders on complete utter nonstop insanity. I will explain why:

The Judge makes a Key Point the everyone must understand: “Where, as here, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is facial, the Court must, for the
purposes of this motion, take all the allegations in the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs.”

If means for purposes of the case the court is assumming Obama is inelgible and Congress completely failed in its duty and assumes all other allegations to be true.

For the court to state they have no juristication, that citizens have no power to affect an ineligible POTUS and that Congress is the only one that can act, and if they won’t do it your only remedy is to go to polls….

This reasoning is complete UTTER NONSENSE.

It implies that we live a Mob Rule democracy and that citizens have no rights under the constitution to do anything.

The constitution is truly dead!

Unknown said...

The "Obama eligibility problem" will soon dwarf "The Watergate conspiracy". It took over two years to uncover the dirt on Richard Nixon and force him from office, be patient - we must endure in order to conquer. OUR tax dollars are paying for the alleged "Obama grassroots support" bloggers :

Anonymous said...

Mario et al,

In all of the court cases that have gone the furthest it always seems that there is soooo much and so many angles presented to these judges. They seem to be swimming in information that appears to mean nothing to them. So they look for the easiest way out, not wanting to be the one who would order discovery from this first black president.

What I've never understood is why there has never been a case that simply presents what has ALREADY been DISCOVERED and focuses seriously and ONLY on that. And that is what has already been admitted to by Obama himself - his British citizenship. It's the one thing he's not hiding and in need of discovery to find out! Present that one thing before a judge and then present alongside it ALL the precedent cases that have shown that this one fact is a disqualifier. Show that the fact is that all previous presidents demonstrate that that definition was acceptably known by all. The one ineligible one himself showed that even he was aware of that disqualifier by his own actions of hiding the true facts of his birth. Force them to rule on this main known fact which Obama has presented as even an "in your face" challenge.

We've already seen that pages and pages of all of the other reasoning mean nothing to these judges (which they see as mere speculation) - and some of their comments show they have blinders on for focusing only on place of birth RATHER than the British citizenship NO MATTER WHERE the man was born.

jayjay said...


Your comments are completely irrational and incorrect as well.

What you are saying is that Congress can override any part of the Constitution it chooses

That, my friend, is a gross absurdity!!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


The court will not rule on the merits of the argument that Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" because of his father being a British subject/citizen and Obama himself being the same when he was born. The court simply and conveniently dismisses the case on standing or because of the political question doctrine and sends you packing without ever telling you what it thought about the real issue. I know this sounds unbelievable but this is exactly what is happening in the courts of the United States of America.

Unknown said...

Mario / James - I've followed this issue since before the election from the UK - yes I am English, but don't worry I am not the enemy and I agree Obama is ineligible.

In my opinion though, poster "Follow the Constitution" has highlighted something that I have been exploring myself and think you should be considering. I note thus far you have responded to the other questions within the responses to this article, but you have not responded to his comments. Is there any reason for this?

I appreciate discussing this in terms of corporations is a sensitive subject but surely you need to explore all avenues? Donofrio wrote numerous pieces on the need to action a Quo Warranto suit in DC yet I still don't see any of the "leaders" of this movement going in that direction. Why not? I mean no disrespect, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this.

Regarding the argument you are putting forward in respect of everyone must have standing, I see this as flawed because of the corporation aspect. It seems to me that the court is not viewing the plaintiffs as human beings at all but is treating them as legal fictions (which is what citizenship really is no? it effectively means employee of the state). Therefore no standing is granted due to corporate status because as citizens you're corporate entity is registered to the US corporation and whilst you are free beings your name (your corporate identity for use within commerce) belongs to them. As such any cases of precident that you can show are irrelevant because the US corporation can overrule at any time it chooses due to property rights because it not the plaintiff actually controls the rights of the name and therefore decides if it has been injured.

I appreciate this may be concerning because it means that the Constitution does not offer the protection that people think it did. People signing up to social security are treated as having waived their natural rights unless they claim them whether they realise it or not. Is that not the reality of the matter?

A candid answer would be appreciated however I'm not sure if you're permitted to do so as a member of the law society. However I am sure this is a piece of the puzzle.

If it is all based on contracts, and because you're plaintiffs are not being put forth as human beings rather than corporate entities, for any plaintiff to have standing in the way you describe and for the US corporation not to have the power to overrule, your plaintiffs need to show that they are owners of their commerical corporate entity (name) ? What you think are your unalienable rights were lost when you became a citizen I believe unless plaintiffs have specifically claimed their rights by noticing the corporation? The constitution protects the people, but the court is not recognising plaintiffs as people only as sub corporations of the US corporation.

Of course for this to be so there must always be a remedy in law, - quo warranto in dc appears to be it - because it basically relies on a contract between US corporation and the sub-corporations (your names)(statutes are contracts) and gives the sub-corporations an avenue of seeking recourse. I feel you will never be successful with any other process unless US corporation DECIDES to let you win (or you can prove sovereign status of the plaintiff).

Of course the court will never come out and say any of this EVER because it will shatter a lot of beliefs. The excuse of it being a political issue is to prevent from exposing the truth of how government claims its authority and why there is no standing, in my honest opinion.

Any comments?

Just my 2 cents anyway - food for thought perhaps.

FollowTheConstitution said...

"As the Supreme Court has explained, “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals' communications on public issues.” Id. (citing Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463,"

Public Issues??? What PUBLIC issues? When did a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE become merely a public issue? Did the court here not error in this assessment?

"Defendants argue in the alternative that the United States, the United States Congress, and former Vice-President Cheney and Speaker Pelosi in their official capacities, are entitled to sovereign immunity. Defendants Cheney and Pelosi are also entitled, Defendants argue, to legislative immunity, and Defendants Obama, Cheney, and Pelosi are entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims."

So if acting in their official capacty they are placed above the law and have full immunity against any laws they violate?

As for Pelosi, she signed the certifications from the DNC that was issued to every State certifying Obama was elegible. When someone tried to claim FOIA to obtain documentation the DNC used to determine Obama was elegible the DNC claimed they are NOT a public office and are in fact a PRIVATE organization and as such they are not subject to FOIA. Pelosi sat as the chair of the DNC who certified Obama being elegible and when doing so she was acting in her PRIVATE CAPACITY and NOT her official capacity. So her actions taken while acting as chair of the DNC in her PRIVATE CAPACITY would not entitle her to any immunity as a public official! Yes?

"These alleged harms apply equally to all United States residents. In fact, Plaintiffs’ complaint repeatedly acknowledges that the injuries they allege are generally applicable to “the people.”4 As explained above, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this generalized harm is not sufficient to establish standing under Article III. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.

So what the Judge is really saying here, is, the constitution itself has no standing because the constitution applies to all the people equally!

"Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote."

So the code below has no meaning nor effect and merely exists for show?

District of Columbia Official Code
Title 16, Chapter 35, Subchapter I
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

Unknown said...


Take advantage of "Greg's" comment...he arms you
with a howitzer...
The eligibility issues found in the Constitution
are "ministerial duties" and no one is "in fact" responsibile
for ensuring that these "requirements" are met."
In fact the Constitution does not impose a duty on any body
to insure compliance, and failure to comply would make as the
current decision does, that it is meaningless, and the
US Supreme COurt has said nothing about it can be claimed
to be meaningless.
Hence I would pose in the appeal that a certified
question be presented to the US Supreme COurt
since Marbury vs. Madison claims it is up to the judiciary
to say "what the document means."
The Court needs to say why it is not the Judiciary who
should say "who" is responsible for ensuring compliance.

I more importantly believe that you need to attack this
ridiculous "standing issue" much like there was an attack
that led to Six Unknown Federal Agents, which put the feds
into a liable position for violating citizen's rights.

Just as you make the argument RE: age, of 35 years, it is not
a secret, his B/C is irrelevant...but the COurts cannot turn a
ministerial task into a political question, because there is
no one charged with the duty to perform this task...contrary
to your complaint, nothing in the Constitution or Federal laws
assigns this duty to any one or any body, and the US Supreme
Court must "find who and assign who" this duty belongs to,
....the right to petition for redress of being
violated, if the politicians refuse to comply with provisions
that the Supreme LAw commands....they have no discretion, and
by the same token...the Courts have no discretion to punt...
because black letter law is if it is a requirement, it must be
followed, and if he can state, he was born in direct conflict
with the eligibility requirements, make Greg's argument to
the Appellate Court that Greg must be right....if they are
going to refuse to certify the question to the US Supreme

Unknown said...

Whatever happened to Constitutional Rights being a matter that
does not require "immediate harm" for standing???

Maybe a little harder examination of Ex Parte Young, only as applied to the Feds rather than the States is in order here ???

Remember thats the case where the law was considered unconstitutional by those subject to it, and the AG Young wanted to press the argument that the parties had no standing to bring any action unless and until they had actual damage of fine or imprisonment after testing it ???

We need to use that case for the unique problem here...we have infront of us a factually correct violation of the Constitution in our face....and the Courts will do nothing...not even order Congress or someone else to "do the ministerial duty" using the Court's guidance as to the meaning of NBC...

What kind of Treason does the COurt commit when it has a crime placed in its face...and it does nothing????

What does a court do when during a civil federal suit...there is an admission against interests by one of the defendants that they committed "robbery, or perjury.." even if the plaintiffs were not directly harmed by the "unlawful act." ?????

Do Court's just ignore these matters, or should the Curt refer the matter to the US Attorney of DC to Act on a Quo Warranto action....

AWESOME...push the Appellate Court to refer the matter because otherwise they are committing treason, are they not ????

BIg Problems require bold moves....and well

What say you Mario ???

cfkerchner said...

Thank you all for your kind words and support. We have lost a battle but not the War. As per the words exchanged between the two sides in a famous struggle in our past for the protection of our Liberty and other inalienable rights, ""Has your ship struck?" To which Captain Jones answered, "I have not yet begun to fight!"

Charles Kerchner

Survey Seeker said...

After reading what the Judge said I see a loophole he left open that should be able to be used to bring a related but entirely different case, one of a class action lawsuit representing all American's injury by allowing a individual who is legally not allowed to hold the office of president to continue in his position.

Notice what the judge said: "Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction," he explained. "The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an 'injury in fact.' It added that plaintiffs' alleged injury is 'only a generally available grievance about government' and 'is one they share with all United States citizens.' Finally, it said that plaintiffs' 'motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged,"

I read this to say that while individually these individuals may not have a case, a class action lawsuit representing all of Americans might have legal standing and allow the proper court to take action.

Considering the nature of the individuals being accused that action will be limited unless the people of the country use the remedies available to them to enforce compliance after the courts have handed down their opinions on the rule of law.

This is not a political issue, it is a civil issue that unless it is handled properly will eventually become a criminal negligence issue that if then continued to be ignored will become an issue of treason by the entire congress.

I am not a lawyer nor would I want to be, but the court (pun intended) is wide open for an appeal and and expansion of the case into an class action suit: The American People vs. The House of Representatives, The Senate, and perhaps the Justice Department for criminal neglect.

I do understand the confusion jurisdiction in this case and the judge as much as said so. Another comment mentioned the need to sue them in the federal court in the District of Columbia and this very well might be necessary. It is the role of the court to rule on law, not to tell you how to make your case.

In this judge's ruling what he did say negatively toward the case says as much as what he said positively toward the case. Don't doubt that this judge probably thinks similar to the people who filed the suit, more so that he is not in the position to make a ruling on the suit.

Webmaster said...

To summarise.

All the lack of standing Judges:

The Constitution affects everyone equally.
A Constitutional wrong affects everyone equally.
No-one has standing for a wrong which affects everyone equally.
No-one has standing at Law to redress a Constitional wrong.


A Constitutional wrong is a Political matter.
Courts cannot determine Political matters.

cfkerchner said...

Surprise, surprise ... not!

One day after Judge Simandle issued his lame and flawed dismissal decision in my case the DOJ has quickly filed a copy of it by way of a Judicial Notice to Judge Carter in the Barnett v Obama case in CA. If Judge Carter now quickly rules to dismiss the Barnett v Obama case, can anyone say "orchestrated set of court decision events by some unnamed grand conductor in the sky". Smells totally rotten to me. Cloward-Piven Strategy in the works for our Constitution and court system. This is a disgrace. The DOJ should be working to protect the Constitution and We the People per their oath of office and not work to promote the status quo usurpation of the Constitution by Obama, a complicit Congress controlled by the Marxist Progressive Caucus, and an enabling Main Stream Media and press. If Obama takes over as Dictator in the model of Castro and Chavez as President for Life, which I have no doubt is his goal, he will discard these enablers as his no longer needed useful idiots. The lessons of history and National Socialism have not been learned by these people who support the Usurper in Chief.

A copy of the cover pages of that Judicial Notice filing in CA at this link:

We intend to appeal Judge Simandle's opinion within the next 30 days and pray and hope the higher courts have more courage and respect for the Constitution than the Federal Trial Court Judges to-date seem to do.

Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

FollowTheConstitution said...

"The DOJ should be working to protect the Constitution and We the People per their oath of office and not work to promote the status quo usurpation of the Constitution by Obama,..."

This is true, BUT, we no longer have a government so they have no constitution by the people to uphold for the people. The entire congress and usurped our government.

If the United States, Inc, the United States Congress, Inc., the United States Senate, Inc, The bar inc, every single court being a corporation, every local, county and State police being a corporation, every elected official being a corporation, every city, town, county and State being a corporation, and everyone of them all being a foreign corporation, then how can they being a foreign corporation possibly have any jurisdiction to hear any of these cases filed when we the people are considered as foreign to their corporations?

Go to dunn & brad street and look them up! Look up United States Corporation. Look up the United States Congress, the United States Senate, The IRS, The Supreme Court, the district courts, county courts, local police, county police, State police, your State offices, like your State government, senators, etc, etc, etc.

Every single one of them are all listed on dunn & brad street as private corporations doing business.

So if these are all corporations, then HOW could they possibly have jurisdiction over us as the people?

There is only ONE court that has jurisdiction and that is the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In order to file civil suit against a foreign corporation you must file the suit in their jurisdiction which is within the 10 mile square of the District of Columbia. In order to sue any of these officials you have to sue them in their corporate capacity. You can't sue them in their official capacity.

Look up Obama on Dunn and Brad Street. He is listed as a corporation. The President of the United States is listed as a corporation. They are ALL a foreign corporation in the District of Columbia.

They even have each of the citizens listed as a corporation! They issues bonds on each one of us and we are all traded on the stock market!

The entire thing is nothing but a big fraud against the people of this country.

There is a case pending right now in the Superior Court that exposes this fraud. They are suing the United States DBA Corporation. Suing elected officials in their corporate capacity. Served Eric Holder in his corporate capacity. Eric holder is now in default. He has failed to respond to the complaint. Why did he not respond and allow themselves to be in default? Because there is no possible way he can respond to this case!

We are waiting on the Judge to enter the motion of default that has been filed.

You can look the case up.



FollowTheConstitution said...

I typed in Obama for District of Columbia on dunn & bradstreet.

Here is what comes up:

Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA

Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA

Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA


Also Traded as BRACK OBAMA

Sallyven said...

Wake up, people! We must put more into this fight than just our words here and on other blogs as comments. Donations to further this lawsuit and the education of the public on this issue can be made at . I contributed yesterday--I challenge all those here reading this blog to consider giving as well. This case is solid and Mr. Apuzzo is one of the most knowledgeable attorneys on this subject in the country. His writing style is eloquent, articulate and intelligent, his research is top-notch, and we are so fortunate to have his dedication and compassion on this issue—arguably the greatest and most symbolic Constitutional crisis of our lifetime!

If you have been paying attention to this issue, as well current economic indicators, the value of our dollar is declining quickly. If Health Care Reform and Cap and Trade pass, we can expect further erosion and possible hyperinflation. Our dollars, in a few short months, may not be worth the paper they are printed on. Let's make them count today, while they still have value.

In addition to informing everyone we know of the true facts on this issue, when we have an opportunity like this to support this case, not just with encouraging words here or comments and thoughts—we must give our financial support. It is one thing that most of us can do, very easily, by going to and clicking on "donate." This can be done so easily, without wasting the precious time he and Mr. Kerchner need to spend working on the Appeal, instead of answering all of our questions here. Imagine the impact if thousands of dollars, in addition to thousands of citizens, were dedicated to this cause!

Let's show our support for Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner, two of the truly great patriots of our time!

Don’t let this be our nation’s gravestone:

Journalism died in 2008.

The Constitution died on January 20, 2009.

The Mob Rules.

Unknown said...

Our Constitution setup a system that inherently has checks and balances against the kind of usurpation that has taken place by Obama. Where the Legislative Branch of government may have abdicated its responsibility under the Constitution with respect to candidates for the Executive Branch, that is where the Judicial Branch of government provides the "check."

The question before the court is not "who has suffered damage" by way of usurpation, but rather "by what authority" does Obama claim the seat - quo warranto. This is purely a LEGAL question that goes back directly to the Consitutional requirements of presidential candidates, which question can only be decided by the Judicial Branch. This is not a political question at all. It's as purely legal in nature as can be.

Where courts abdicate their responsibility under the Constitution, they are violating their oath under the Constitution. Such is nothing more than treason against the way our Constitutional system is supposed to operate.

cfkerchner said...

Hi all,

Ignore the biased political party shot headline but read the first paragraph of this latest poll and survey. 30% of all Americans polled believe that Obama was not born in the USA. That is hardly a fringe percentage. When is the Main Stream Media and so called free press and 4th estate of our government going to investigate this matter with the power of the press. And when are our federal judges and Congress going to live up to their oaths? Will they wait until 55% of the People don't believe the Usurper in Chief is not eligible and was not born in the USA and 5,000,000 people are marching in the streets of Washington demanding the Usurper's removal. What does it take to get our media and government to uphold Article II of the U.S. Constitution?

Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Help me get the word out. Visit this site and do what you can to help. And spread the word and link to other blogs. We need your support and help to get the message to the print media and its readers where it cannot be scrubbed by Obama's Blog Squad and helpmates at Google: United States Marijuana Party said...

Hi! (SECONDLY) An additional cause of action missing is that allegedly Nancy Pelosi has no legal right to be Speaker of the House, Third in Line to the Presidency, because she is allegedly a dual citizen of the Jewish State of Israel and therefore has a conflict of interest so serious as to adversely affect national security;
likewise U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and others of the U.S. Congress, are all allegedly dual citizens of the Jewish State of Israel (some because the Jewish State of Israel gives citizenship to people whose mother and grandmother were Jewish under Jewish Law). Isn't it an illegal conflict of interest for members of U.S. Congress to be dual citizens? Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is allegedly seriously and willfully and intentionally concealing her own dual citizenship under alleged threat by Obama that he would expose her if she exposes him?

Cris Ericson

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ms. Cris Ericson,

"Natural born citizen" status is determined at birth. It does not matter what the person does later in life, provided that one does not renounce U.S. citizenship.