Friday, March 12, 2010

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Les Naiman Show, WGTK 970, Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, Sunday 14 Mar 2010 10:30 PM EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner were featured guests on the Les Naiman radio show, WGTK 970 in Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, on Sunday, 14 March 2010, 10:30 PM EST. Some topics discussed:

~The defendant's (Obama & Congress et al) Opposition Brief recently filed with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA for the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and the forthcoming appellant's (Kerchner et al) Reply Brief.
~Continuing efforts by the Plaintiffs to educate the public and promote knowledge about the merits and constitutional legal issues involved in this lawsuit in the national print media via full page ads placed in the Washington Times National Weekly edition. See examples at:
~Other topics and questions by the host and/or from the listening audience call-ins.

Podcast link for the show. Our interview segments starts at about 28 minutes into the show if you want to fast forward to that segment:

Link to WGTK 970 in Louisville KY:

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired). Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and donate to help the cause:


William said...

Charles (and others),

This is an interesting read from the State of N.Y. pertaining to "Standing" in a case that has bounced back and forth from the lower court and the 2nd Circ. Court.

Another attempt to use Standing in a very different manner.

jayjay said...

Lookin' forward to the show!! Break a leg ...!!

Larry said...

Our totally corrupt, 100% unrepresentative of "We the People", and arrogantly un-Constitutionally operated federal government has no clue how absolutely fed-up the vast majority of Citizens have now become. I have never in my entire lifetime witnessed nearly so much widespread frustration and openly expressed anger with the federal government as we presently have. Contrary to the way they behave, Congressmen and Senators are NOT members of royalty, they are OUR EMPLOYEES! NEVER VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENT, NO PERSON SHOULD EVER BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME A PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAS CREATED THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF CORRUPTION WHICH WE MUST NOW CORRECT. Tell your Congressional and Senatorial employees exactly what you believe needs to be done and be certain to remind them THEY WORK FOR US! No mentally competent business owner would ever allow an employee of his business to order him around AND foolishly spend his company into bankruptcy, so why are "We the People" allowing this totally out of control and corrupt government to spend our entire nation into bankruptcy without saying one word to our Congressmen and Senators?! The U.S. Capitol switchboard is staffed with live operators and it is open 24/7/365. The very kind and highly professional live operators will advise you who represents your district and promptly connect you with the proper office. 202 224 3121 - Make a note of the number, keep it handy, share it with all your friends, call it often, our Representatives need to understand and properly address all our concerns. Our very arrogant Representatives have simply done as they please, plus they've ignored the wishes and needs of the Citizens and violated the U.S. Constitution for too long. Tell your Representative's staff not to mail you any of their silly "form letters", they're merely useless "fluff" and they're just another disgraceful waste of our tax dollars (Congressmen and Senators are granted "franking privileges" while in office, they pay no postage on "official mail" - we foot the bill). Representatives can't read your mind and screaming at the television and complaining to your family and friends is a waste of time which accomplishes nothing. Call the U.S. Capitol right now - our Representatives MUST feel the heat of many angry Citizens or they shall continue to ignore us and imperil our nation! 202 224 3121, GET BUSY, PATRIOTS!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

jayjay said...


I honestly fail to see that "standing" in the manner indicated in your post is related to the Kerchner case. It seems to me to be a totally different "ball of wax".

Let us move forward said...

10:30 AM EDT?

Daylight Savings time begins tonight.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just left this comment as Dr. Conspiracy's blog:


You said: "Minor doesn’t speak of any “citizen of the United States” that could be born here, get their citizenship by being born here and yet not be a natural born citizen.

You cannot find a single court case to suggest such a thing."

My response: You are exactly correct. Justice Gray in Wong, by going back in time to before the adoption of the Constitution and applying the inapplicable English common law to defining national citizenship, created a person who could be a born "citizen of the United States" but not a "natural born Citizen."

You said: "In fact, since it’s an argument made often by white supremacists and tax-evaders, it has been explicitly considered and rejected by at least a dozen cases."

My response: Are you kidding me! The next thing I will see appear in your arguments is that I believe the earth is flat and that the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio.

You said: "(By the way, Justice Field’s view of citizenship – in re Look Ting Sing – adopted and extended by Gray, was the majority opinion in the circuits when Wong was decided. If Gray hadn’t been appointed, the decision might have been shorter, but there is no evidence to suggest it would have been different!)."

My response: First, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether the California Circuit Courts were correct. That necessarily required that the Court make an unbiased and ethical decision. The Court could have said the Circuit was wrong as it does in so many of its decision. Second, none of that changes that Chester Arthur, who was born in the country to alien parents, appointed Justice Gray to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Gray wrote the "leading" Supreme Court case on what is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" in the context of the question of whether a child born in the United States of alien parents was a "citizen of the United States." Remember that the Government had argued that Wong was not a citizen. What does that mean? It means that our own Government necessarily argued that Chester Arthur also would not have been a “citizen of the United States.” What does that mean? It means that Chester Arthur was not eligible to be President. What does that mean? It means that Justice Gray was appointed by an ineligible President. Do you believe given those indisputable facts that it was appropriate for Justice Gray to sit with the Court in the Wong case let alone write the opinion which in the end made Justice Gray’s appointing President, Chester Arthur, a “citizen of the United States?'"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just left this comment on Dr. Conspiracy's blog:


You said: “We are still waiting for you to point out any early authority that says the common law required citizen parents. Since we can’t find it, whoever Waite had in mind could not be very important.”

My response: I guess the United States Government including Congress in all its naturalization laws was wrong for all those years following the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 until Wong was decided in 1898 for believing that the law of nations controlled the meaning of national citizenship and that a child born in the country of alien parents was an alien and needed to naturalize.

You said: “Minor takes no poition on the only issue relevant to Obama and hence is not authority on the issue. Thus, any court following up on Minor would be instructed to look at basis of such doubts and examine what the true definition of the common law was. This is what Wong did in great detail.”

My response: Article II’s “grandfather clause pertaining to “citizen of the United States” is obsolete. Hence, Obama needs to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Minor defined what a “natural born citizen” was. Wong did not define what a “natural born citizen” was but rather what a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” was. Clearly, Minor wins and Wong loses on the question of which case applies to Obama.

You said: “In the absense of helpful legislative history, the court would look to what the terms were understood to mean in the founding era. That is all Scalia ever cares about. Hence, if you cannot find anyone defining the term in such era in accordance with Vattel, you are done.”

My response: First and foremost, the text and structure of the Constitution supports my position and not yours. Second, I have weight and force of history on my side. You do not. You are trying to convince the world that the Founders used English common law to define national citizenship in the context of the American Revolution. Just the context of the American Revolution alone proves you wrong. Add to that the following: (1) evidence of what the political philosophy was during the Founding; (2) the intellectual content of the Founders learning; (3) the Founders’ warning of keeping foreign influence out of the new national government; (4) the Founders’ attachment to natural law and the law of nations as evidenced by virtually all of the Founders writings and speeches; (5) the Founders’ high esteem for Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, and especially Vattel; (6) citizenship being an international topic and not a mere domestic one; (7) the Founders’ rejection of English common law as a guide for the new national government; (8) what Thomas Jefferson told us in his Virginia citizenship statutes of 1779 and 1783; (9) all the early naturalization laws by Congress; (10) speeches and debates in various Congresses; (11) America’s historical rejection of dual allegiance; (12) the U.S. Supreme Court cases that defined a “natural born Citizen;” (13) the position always taken by the Federal Government up until the Wong case that children born in the country to alien parents were aliens and needed to naturalize; and (14) the national security reason for the “natural born Citizen” clause, which alone demands a stronger test of citizenship and not a weaker one for one who would aspire to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States.

Given this overwhelming evidence against your position, you and your supporters better keep praying that the court does not grant the Kerchner case standing."

Mick said...

Obama disinformation team has been in high gear for months. SMRSTRAUSS exposed as OBOT.

Anonymous said...

The date time of his visit according to Indonesian standard time will be March 20 2010 but the real thing is that to US standard time will be 19 March 2010 (Indonesian time is a day ahead the US time zone). Every one of you always wonder on his birth certificate but didn't he already told all of you that he shall visit the haunting ground on SDN Menteng 01. But actually he is lies to you since that haunting ground shall heavily guarded by his supporter. To get the birth certificate you must go to his first school in Indonesia which are the SD Fransiskus Asisi on Jalan Haji Ramli No.24 Kelurahan Menteng Dalam. Here's the reason why you must go to that place:

Anonymous said...

1. Every time you needed to make a form in Indonesia especially when you go to school in Indonesia you will required a copy of Birth certificate (indonesian translate akta kelahiran). As former Indonesian I fully aware about this.
2. Then you will needed the KK (Kartu keluarga/ in english translate into family card/family form). if you wanted to know what is the kartu keluarga look like then the example you can google it and write exact letter kartu keluarga. Now the family form it self cannot be created without birth certificate.
3. On that KK itself there's column written kewarganegaraan ( citizenship) and if the column is written WNI or Indonesia ( means Indonesian) and if written WNA/ asing means foreign or alien citizen.
4. Now; look at the parents name (nama orang tua) if that name said on nama ayah ( father name) Lolo soetoro, his mother shall be iether Ann Stanley Dunham, Ann Stanley Dunham Soetoro or Ann Stanley Soetoro.
5. His name of course most likely is Barry Soetoro.

Anonymous said...

How to get this letter on team form at least 6 person or a team of PI:
1. First you must able to act as his hard core supporter; I know this one is dangerous but you can do this simply because of the MSM cover this thing away from the world in order to secure him and them from shame and most of Indonesian don't know all about this.
2. Said to the school principal or kepala sekolah that you wanted to know about him deeper. For either your news paper( not the real one of course since they shall guarded your name on hit list), or better make his biography from the point of view of his first school.The SD fransiskus asisi is a bilingual language school means they use english and Indonesian language.
3. Now after a few chat ask them about his school certificate.
4. If the school principle show it; then tell them that most of the people in US that admired him always believed that his school is merely on SDN Menteng 01. Then asked the school principle to show the copy of akta kelahiran and Kartu keluarga; please write this on list: Kartu keluarga and Akta kelahiran.

Anonymous said...

7. If they give to you then you can get him, by simply take complete picture of the whole document for otherwise they can denies it. for they had the mark on which county the kartu keluarga was created or better yet if they allow you to copy that documents and bring home to the US.
8. But first of all is you must do before visit to Indonesia:
a. Make sure that you had Indonesian conversation for beginner. And also dictionary from Indonesian to English vice versa; don't look for translator for if you hire one from Indonesia you will ended up either in jail with the terrorist group or shoot death.
b. Bring digital camera and sd card or USB flash or whatever with netbook/notebook. Preferably a new one so they cannot trace you down if you bring it. And send the data that you already aquired before March 20 2010 indonesian time.
c. Stayed in Indonesia until the day the potus has leaving Indonesia to Australia on March 23 2010.
d sneak that documents ASAP if electronics simply by using the internet ID but if the hard copy send it not by your self alone but also by UPS etc.
d Whey you stayed in Indonesia watch and record the news on the net from Indonesian national TV including TVone, Metrotv, RCTI,SCTV, GlobalTV, TPI. Look and record all of them although the first 2 is top priority and RCTI sometimes gives me suprise when I saw the potus school certificate form from SD Fransiskus Asisi.
That's it; God bless and give him a good fight
Ps:The Indonesian law related to that data is on my backup files on the password is faithfulfriend.

jayjay said...

Mario & Charles:

Good job on the show. It really should help to educate more and more Americans as to what has been perpetrated on them.

Time will tell!!

Anonymous said... contains the document of his movement to new school, all of his gang succesfully said this is false, On March 12 2010 indonesian time; indonesian local tv show it on his former teacher hand. Mrs Pareira. The comment that I sent to you is if you wanted to get him do it ASAP and this shall stopped his healthcare and other of his agenda.This school is bilingual school speak both indonesian and english so I think you shall had no tropuble at all. The kk if written WNI or Indonesia shall confirm to you that he had Indonesian citizenship and acknowledge by Indonesian gov and authority as an Indonesian.

Incredulous said...
BREAKING: The Tyranny of Harry Reid! Fine Print of the Bill says it can't be Repealed!

Can "they" DO that? Take over 1/6th of the US economy and make it permanent?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


BREAKING: The Tyranny of Harry Reid! Fine Print of the Bill says it can't be Repealed!

Can "they" DO that? Take over 1/6th of the US economy and make it permanent?"

Such a clause would be clearly unconstitutional, for one Congress cannot bind future Congresses. The Constitution does not give one Congress the power to prevent a future Congress from changing a law that the former Congress may pass. Law can always be changed by courts or the legislature. A constitution can also be changed, but only by duly passed constitutional amendment.

Pragmaticite said...

Mario, could you please comment (or post a link to previous remarks you have made which I have not found) on standing preserved in the Tenth Amendment where the gov't has failed to exercise the power to enforce the Constitution?

It seems to me that no legislative body thus far has seen fit to establish any process or assign any direct responsibilities to any gov't office to enforce Art. II Sect. 1 eligibility provisions of the Constitution.

Under the Tenth Amendment don't We The People reserve the power to enforce NBC provisions, and therefore retain standing for exactly those purposes as identified in your complaint?