Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal Reply Brief and Oral Argument Request Filed

I have completed filing the Kerchner Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument. These documents may be accessed at the indicated links. All parties have completed filing all briefs and now we just need a decision from the Court. We will now wait and see if the Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants my request for oral argument and if so when the oral argument will be. If oral argument is granted, it will take place at the United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The courthouse is located right across the street from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.

I want to thank all of my supporters on this blog and all those who visit here to find out what is going on with the Obama eligibility issue.

I will be posting more essays on natural law, the law of nations, Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers, the Courts, and the meaning of the "natural born Citizen" clause.

Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal Latest Filings:
Appellant's Reply Brief --
Oral Argument Request --

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 23, 2010


Incredulous said...

Bon Chance Monsieur Apuzzo
All my prayers are added to your brilliant works.

PA Tom said...

If Vattel's Law of Nations is good enough to define and punish Piracy as noted in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, then it should also be good enough to define Natural Born Citizen!

William said...

Why do we have laws against Usurpation if meaningless or Conflictive?

I’ll give a different example. For instance, I wish to run for the office of Mayor in the City/State of Chattanooga Tennessee; however I am a resident and live in Atlanta Georgia. One of the requirements to be eligible for Mayor of Chattanooga Tennessee is that I must be a residing citizen in the State of Tennessee for 10 years and be a resident within the Chattanooga City limits for no less than 6 consecutive years from the time applying for the Office of Mayor.

Step 1) I apply for the Office of Mayor even though I am not a resident of that State or City.

Step 2) On the application I swear under Oath I am qualified for the office of Mayor in Chattanooga meeting all the requirements for such office.

Step 3) If challenged, I claim First Amendment rights. No need to prove I meet the qualifications since I have not been voted in as Mayor at such time.

Step 4) Once voted in as Mayor winning the election, I seal all records that would otherwise show I am not and was never a resident of Tennessee or Chattanooga.

Step 5) As legal challenges of Usurpation mount, the Tennessee AG office must defend me and not the citizens of Chattanooga Tennessee. All Courts must reject every case based on Standing, since I equally defrauded all Citizens of Chattanooga. I also have a right to Privacy therefore the court must never allow discovery, especially since the questions were twittered, texted, discussed online. It is also not my personal responsibility to prove I meet the Qualifications.

Step 6) The Courts tell the Citizens of Chattanooga if they don’t like it, elect me out in 8 years and the voter box.

Again…. Why do we have laws against Usurpation if Standing is the Precedence not the illegal act of Usurping?

jayjay said...

Let's all now hold our collective breath for a timely and correct Appeals Court decision ...

Anonymous said...

Well done Mario...

Linda Camp said...

This is all well and good, but what good does this legal action do if the courts refuse to hear our arguments? It's like shouting down a well, is it not? It's not enough to get the citizens riled up. The law must be FORCED. To have a law on the books does not preclude its enactment. If the courts don't want to uphold the law, then they won't. It's that simple.

William said...

When my youngest son brought home his homework from junior high studying the 3 branches of government, I could not but help find it laudable the definitions of the Judiciary Brach under checks and balances clause. I specifically remember my early history/civics books in school (and maybe someone may still have them or look them up online) whereby it clearly stated a dual citizen is not qualified for the office of the President, only a Natural born citizen.

cfkerchner said...


By now you have all likely had time to read Mario Apuzzo's outstanding Reply Brief. I just read it again tonight. The closing two paragraphs sum up the issues and consequences and the duty of the court's role in resolving it very well. Mario's words will live in history. The federal courts must take this case or our Constitutional Republic is doomed and on its way to the scrap heaps of history.

Atty Apuzzo writes on pages 29 & 30:
"The Supreme Court has warned us what can happen to our republic if its government does not observe the laws of the land. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). A finding of no jurisdiction will mean that we as a nation accept usurpation and tyranny by a small group of individuals who can act in concert and gain control of both parties and overthrow the constitutional order of our Republic and that citizens of the United States such as the plaintiffs, whose life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property are threatened by such a plan and action, do not have any due process to protect themselves through a legal action in which they ask the judicial branch of government to protect them by enforcing the Constitution.

Judicial review is absolutely necessary when the other two branches of government act in a concerted way to subvert and ignore the Constitution’s requirements defining eligibility standards for the most powerful office of the land, the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This power balance is important to the survival of our Republic and our Constitution.  Plaintiffs’ case goes to the very core of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our land, and whether ultimately our legal system truly means anything when it comes to controversial but critical constitutional issues.  For the Court to grant plaintiffs standing, find no violation of the political question doctrine, and rule that it has jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims will do no harm to the role that the judiciary plays in our Constitutional Republic but will rather confirm that elections in America must adhere to the rule of law."

Bravo-Zulu Mario! You have done your job well. You have given the courts the facts and law.The decision is now in the hands of the Appellate Court. They must now do their duty in our system of checks and balances to prevent usurpation of power by the other two branches that is not permitted by the Constitution. May they look to God for guidance and the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Supreme Court decisions you cited in your Appellant's Opening Brief and then do the correct thing per their oath to support and defend the Constitution of our United States and remand the case back to the District Court for a trial on the merits.

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Larry said...

"Foreign influence is truly the Trojan horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence."
Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793. "The humblest citizen of all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error."
William Jennings Bryan. "If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government."
Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, Aug 28, 1794. "If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33, January 3, 1788. "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson. "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803. "The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens."
Thomas Jefferson, Note in Destutt de Tracy, 1816. The courts must do their solemnly sworn duty and enforce the supreme law of our land. "We the People" shall not stand idly by as our Constitution is trampled underfoot.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Dr. Conspiracy posted the following comment at his blog:

"Dr. Conspiracy says:
March 23, 2010 at 8:18 pm (Quote)
Mario Apuzzo: There is no contemporaneous birth certificate there. We need to see the 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate, not some computer-generated image from 2007. Come on, this is not difficult.
Certified abstract. This is not difficult. You’re a dinosaur, Mario.

Dr. Damon T. Arnold, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), is announcing the launch of the Electronic Birth Registration System within the Division of Vital Records. Earlier this year, the Department implemented a new birth registration system in all 121 birthing hospitals throughout Illinois. Instead of hospitals filing paper birth certificates with the local registrar, who then sends the paper certificate to the Division of Vital Records, birth records are now handled electronically.

Development of electronic birth registration in Minnesota began in the early 1990’s with a dual electronic and paper system. Birth records were entered electronically by the hospitals, printed, and registered through a manual paper process. Eliminating the manual birth registration process was an intrinsic part of the Vital Statistics Redesign Project, a five-year project from July 1997 through June 2002 to develop an integrated electronic system (MN VRV2000) for the collection, processing, and reporting of birth and death information.

Birth data for babies born in hospital and birthing centers must be filed by the hospital or birthing center using the Department of Health’s electronic birth registration system, called EBC for short.

From Iowa:
Electronic Birth Certificate: Work began on establishing an electronic birth certificate (EBC) in 1994. On January 1, 1995, 28 hospitals representing 80 percent of the state’s births began filing birth certificates electronically.

From Oregon:
OVERS is an online system that is modernizing and streamlining the vital records registration process–from the initial creation and registration of a vital record to making certified copies. OVERS will offer faster services and improved data quality, while meeting national standards and the requirements of the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act.
New York City electronic system.

Texas [providing link]

The State of Oklahoma is issuing this Request for Proposal (RFP) to qualified vendors for the customization and installation of off-the-shelf computer software to provide the Oklahoma
Electronic Vital Registration System (OKEVRS) as an integrated, web-based solution to register birth, death, and fetal death records, and support issuance of certified copies, accounting,
statistical, and reporting functions.

To achieve more rapid and accurate reporting, CHES, like many states, implemented an Electronic Birth Registration (EBR) process.

The Bureau of Vital Statistics wants to thank the hospitals – HIM directors, birth registrars, nursing, labor & delivery staff, & all who are involved in the birth registration process for being a part of the Electronic Birth Registration System (EBRS)."

My response to Dr. Conspiracy will be in the next comment.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Part I of II

"Dr. Conspiracy,

You said: "This is my professional area, not yours."

My response: I do not know what your professional area is since you along with henchmen have never identified yourselves. But as a lawyer I do know that the best evidence as proof of birth is a contemporaneous birth certificate when it is available which it is in the case of Obama.

You said: "The kind of documentation you claim is essential for validating a president’s eligibility will not exist in a few more years."

My response: That is not relevant. We are not in the future. We are talking about a birth event that allegedly occured in 1961.

You said: "Birth registrations are data, not documents. All birth registrations will just be lists of data items spinning on a computer disk, and birth certificates will all be exactly like Obama’s COLB."

My response: It does not matter how you want to play the words "data" and "document." We are still talking about the same thing which is physical evidence that something did or did not happen. You can consult the legal definition of "document" as is used in our jurisprudence for further edification.

You said: "The only difference is that in the case of Obama, some clerk typed information from the birth certificate into a computer system."

My response: Describing a process does not address the questions that concern that process.

You said: "Today and in the future data will be transferred from the hospital’s electronic health record directly to the state’s computer system."

My response: Such a system will still create contemporaneous gathering of information at the hospital (although electronic) which will be reliable and probative for future use. Again, how we will be doing things in the future has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of where Obama was born in 1961.

You said: "Yes, there are security features, but there nothing like what you’re demanding. In essence you are really not demanding to see the Birth Certificate, you are demanding to know a few data items from the birth registration that are not on the printed COLB, like the name of the facility where he was born. The specific data items you are requesting are not relevant to eligibility; the COLB fully suffices for that. They are only relevant to a fraud investigation — and I suppose at the base of it, your contention is that every president should be presumed a fraud and investigated to that standard."

My response: I cannot imagine how you can honestly argue that the hospital in which someone was born or where the doctor was physically located when he or she personally delivered a baby is not relevant as to the place in which one was born. Article II says that a would-be President needs to be a "natural born Citizen." Hence, one of the determining issues is where was Obama born. That means that we need credible and sufficient relevant evidence of place of birth. Any evidence which has a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of an action is relevant.
If there exists evidence that someone was born in a certain hospital which is necessarily physically located in a certain place, that evidence is surely relevant as to the question of where someone was born. Hence, we want to know what the original 1961 birth certificate says about what hospital Obama was born in and what doctor delivered him. Obama and all his supporters already told us that he was born in Kapi'olani Medical Center. That is a specific place in the State of Hawaii. Proving one was born in that specific place will necessarily prove that one was born in Hawaii. What is the problem with him producing credible and sufficient evidence proving that specific fact as opposed to just saying he was born in the State of Hawaii. Remember Judge Land: saying something is so does not make it so.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Part II of II

We are not conducting a fraud investigation. We are simply asking Obama to prove conclusively that he was born in Hawaii as he claims. He has to prove that because that is part of his Article II burden to show that he is a "natural born Citizen."

Your comment that we should treat Obama as we have treated every other president is really a red herring. We have to focus on Obama because he is the issue. We have to deal with the contradictory information that we have come to learn about his place of birth which we did not learn about any other presidents (Chester Arthur being one exception of which I am familiar). We are not treating him unfairly or illegally. We are simply applying the requirements of our Constitution and asking him to explain why there is such contradictory birth place information. Obama is not above the Constitution. His arrogance and disrespect for the Constitution which he swore to uphold is despicable and so is the extent to which you and his other flock go to make excuses for him.

jayjay said...


Great response to Doc Constipato!!! Almost all of his responses (and those of the rest of the Flying Monkeys) are as off-topic as the red herrings you note.

As to his "Profession", judging from his chapeau so proudly displayed on his site it appears that he is a farmer. Let's hope all of his emplyoees are soon covered along with their employer by the Obama Deathcare plan that the man must needs love since it came from King God Obama.

jayjay said...


I sincerely hope that everyone has read at the very least the Initial Appeals Brief as well as the latest Appeal Reply Brief if not the original action (DOC 3 on the website) itself.

Together they lay out a comprehsnsive understanding of the Constitutional basis of the laws that (used to) govern America - from sea to shining sea. Whether or not they still do remains to be seen and one indicator will be the response of the (presumably) three-judge panel in that court on the matter presently before it.

Whatever the outcome there, the Kerchner et al action will eventually go to SCOTUS where both Ginsburg and Sotomayor SHOULD recuse themselves if they have any inner feeling of professional ethics and/or love for the law within them (good joke, right???).

Even before that, however, one indication of whether the tide of ignored-illegality is turning will be the decision in the Appeals Court. If it favors the Kerchner action then we can begin to see some hope that not all of the Judiciary has given up their Constitutional role as both Mario and Charles have discussed.

Let's all keep our fingers and toes crossed ... and in the meantime why does everyone posting on this blog not kick in $5 or $10 to to help further educate and inform others??? Even small donations can make a huge difference and none of the money goes to legal fees or personal expenses.

Sallyven said...

Mario--do you know about this:

An upcoming Supreme Court case regarding citizenship.

Lisa G in NZ said...

I don't believe any legislation can make someone "natural born citizen". You either are or aren't. Some say McCain isn't NBC either (technically) and that is why he didn't fight this battle.

I probably missed it, but have you commented on the fact that BHO extended(?) the 'state of emergency' (correct me if I'm wrong) which G.W. Bush (article 51 I think?) had put into place/signed after 9/11/01 attacks?

Reason I ask is some bloggers (anonymous of course) elsewhere have mentioned this as a reason consitutional law/rules (enforcements?) are different 'now' and not being upheld.

Meaning: if USA is in 'state of emergency' ruling, different 'above' the constitutional laws/rules come into play?

Obviously I haven't fully researched this (and I'm not a lawyer so my terminology is probably all wrong), but I thought I'd mention for you to consider as we await outcomes. What I can find does not seem to support n

Best of luck. I'm in full support of your heroic efforts.

Larry said...

In one sense, I'm glad "Obamacare" passed. Now the majority of people have suddenly been jarred wide awake and they're very upset about what's actually happening in Washington. It's strange how so many people will deny that a boat is sinking until the water is filling their nostrils.

Dixhistory said...

Good work!

Glad to know the work that should be before the court is now before the court.

Only they can bring honor to their court.


Larry said...

"I was that which others did not want to be, I went where others feared to go and did what others feared to do. I asked nothing from those who gave nothing, and reluctantly accepted the thought of eternal loneliness should I fail. I have seen the face of terror, I have felt the stinging cold of fear, and enjoyed the sweet taste of a moment's love. I have cried, pained, and hoped, but most of all, I have lived times others would say were best forgotten. At least someday I will be proud to say that I was proud of what I was...a soldier." GEORGE L. SKYPERK. Mister Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired), thank you for your unfailing and outstanding loyalty and patriotism to the United States of America and our Constitution, SIR!

shakes said...

Please everyone listen to this audio....something big is about to take place.....the grand juries are about the take our republic back...

These were comments posted at American Grand Jury…..WOW…..WTH is going on here….

# Follow the Constitution Says:
March 25th, 2010 at 12:39 am

OK, you can listen to the entire recording at this link.

This is a 4 hour and 33 minute recording. The part you want starts at the 3 hour and 11 minute mark into the recording.

When the recording starts, you will see a little bar that starts loading across as the recording is going. Once that bar loads completely then you can point your mouse on the bar about 75% across towards the end and click it. That will advance the recording and you can click back and forth until you get near the 3 hour and 11 minute mark. The rest of the recording talks about the plan.

Incredulous said...

I read a review at WND

Just to be more specific, by the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father and grandfather were both British Subjects By Birth because they were both born in Kenya Colony. Obama was a British Subject By Descent. When he was 2 the Kenya Independence Act of 1963 made him a Kenyan Citizen as a son of Obama, Sr. however KIA63 required Obama to choose, before the age of 23, whether he wanted to become solely a Kenyan citizen. Obama went to Kenya in 1981, so he could have chosen Kenyan citizenship, but he "said" he did not. That deadline was August, 1983. But, by January 1983, he had already been made a full-fledged regular British Citizen via the British Nationality Act of 1981.

So in short Obama said his Kenyan citizenship expired, but he neglected to state that his British citizenship persists to this day, he did not become stateless. This hinges on his father being a British Citizen by BIRTH.

I read the WND article and it seemed a little muddled.

Doublee said...

I have two related questions.

Re: What the court will decide if it does decide.

What I have gotten from my study of constitutional decisions so far -- and it is an extremely limited study -- is the impression that many decisions are based on extra-constitutional issues.

What I see as an extra-constitutional issue in this case is the effect that removing Obama from office would have. Would the judges, for example, faced with the complex ramifications of removing a president from office, be so influenced by that prospect, that they would seek to come up with a decision that avoids that conclusion rather than decide the issue on strict constitutional grounds?

Yes, I know: the judges will do what they will do.

Re: The example of ineligible Senators.

Leo Donfrio has cited the example of two Senators who were found ineligible. They were struck from the election records. It was if they had never been elected in the first place.

Do you see this happening with President Obama? Or will he merely be found ineligible and be removed from office? There is still the issue of whether all the legislation he has signed would still be valid.

As I think about all the ramifications of a favorable court decision, I am fearful that, indeed, if the court rules on the merits at all, it will rule in Obama's favor.

Unknown said...

i think that obama and mccain will be struck from the election record for 2008 like the above poster questions.

pelosi will act as president temporarily. electoral votes will then be recast across the other "main" candidates of nader barr baldwin and mckinney.

wiki provides full details of the state popular results from 2008 here.,_2008

with no obama or mccain, no candidate will receive the number of electoral votes required for president and therefore congress will vote as to who will become president - choosing from candidates that won a state electoral vote which is likely all of those listed above unless any become discredited for whatever reason by the coming to light of the recent deceptions (pure speculation but perhaps nader will some how be caught up in it having played election spoiler / vote splitter in the past)

of course with all the present issues regarding the constitution and various "laws" (just rules, not laws) being passed that undermine it and are unconstitutional, the eventual winner of the congressional vote for president in my honest opinion will be chuck baldwin of the constitution party - seemingly fitting given the populace is likely to demand a return to constitutional governing which this whole anti-obama movement is alluding to. some may think it strange despite numerous previous presidents also having governed unconstitutionally, but it has taken the usurpation of the position of president for the public to notice what has been happening regarding how they have been governed for 50 odd years. i think obama was only allowed to win to bring about this situation to ulitmately assist unwittingly in the return to consitutional government - a sort of exo strategy if you will (although he is likely unaware of this aspect)

from the wiki figures you can see that as far as the popular vote is concerned baldwin would carry one state, utah. whilst other candidates would win many more electoral votes, because none would achieve the critical number all candidates that won at least one would be eligible for selection by congress' vote.

personally i do not see nader, barr, nor mckinney, being the usa's future president, particularly under a strict consitutional regime. baldwin appears the only logical choice if this is how the 2008 election is to be "redone" with a scrubbing of the ineligible obama and mccain from 2008 results. note: no new popular vote will be required as obviously the president is elected by the electors and therefore only indirectly by the people, thus the original popular vote will stand with the vast majority of votes having gone to obama and mccain and therefore at this point having little or no bearing on who will actually become president, legitimately.

just my thoughts. i stated this is how the 08 election would play out before nov 08 and staked money on baldwin to win at 999-1 - not for purposes of financial gain (although i could do with some) but to prove a game was being played at a much higher level. thus far ive looked a fool lol, but time will tell. as exo strategies go - this one is pretty impressive! baldwin of course having received the endorsement of ron paul which will no doubt count in his favour, and this merely firms up my suspicions when you check dunn & bradstreet and see that commercially the us congress trades as ron paul anyway- a man that clearly has a little more power than he is given credit for. so do not fret - all will come out in the wash. eventually apuzzo, or someone, will win - assuming obama does not beat you to it and resign coming clean.

interesting times! :)

Charles 17121 said...

Take hart Patriots obama is about to go down and it will be Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his cold case posse that brings this fraud obama to justice . Sheriff Joe posse has been on the case for several months now and has uncovered the truth about this fraud obama . The main stream media and the US government will no longer be able to deny the facts . US Constitutional law will be enforced and obama removed from office and face criminal charges .