Saturday, June 19, 2010

The Kerchner v. Obama/Congress Case Is Not the Same as the Berg v. Obama Case
Despite the OBOT Minions' Talking Points Blogging/Claiming That It Is

On June 29, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals will receive for decision the Kerchner et al. v. Obama/Congress et al. appeal to that Court of the Federal District Court's dismissal of the case for what it said was lack of standing and political question.  Putative President Obama's supporters are out and about arguing that the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case and therefore the Third Circuit Court of Appeals should affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case for lack of standing. This is not only an incredible statement but an outright lie. First, while Berg focused only on the place of birth issue, Kerchner argues that Obama is not and cannot be President no matter where he was born because not being born to a citizen father which made him born a subject of a foreign power, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Second, Berg sued candidate Obama before the general election but the Kerchner plaintiffs sued both President Elect Obama (after Congress confirmed him but before Chief Justice Roberts swore him in) and putative President Obama (after the Chief Justice swore him in). Third, Berg did not sue Congress but Kerchner did. Fourth, Berg did not argue like Kerchner does that based on the plaintiffs' individual Fifth Amendment right to protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property, which protection they do not receive from a person who is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore is an illegal and illegitimate President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This lack of protection from their President and Commander in Chief to which each particular plaintiff is entitled under our Constitutional covenant between the People and the Government as conceived by the Founders and Framers is more than sufficient to show the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing. Fifth, there is also so much more to the Kerchner case. If one were to fully read both the Berg case and the Kerchner case, there is no way that one could honestly say that the cases are the same and that the Kerchner plaintiffs therefore do not have standing. Rather, such a reading will clearly show that Obama’s supporters are fully engaged in not only wishful thinking but also outright deceit. Only one driven by animosity or the deceit of party spirit which rears its head in various explicit and hidden forms rather than by the desire to protect the Constitution and the Constitutional Republic can come to the incredible conclusion that the Kerchner and Berg cases are the same.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 19, 2010


jayjay said...

That seems so obvious (since I've read all of the legal proceedings in both Berg and Kerchner proceedings) that it seems a travesty to even have to explain it to those trying their various tricks to protect the CIC (Chief IslamoCommunist).

Anonymous said...

Praying for relief, but preparing for battle.

God Bless Charles & Mario

Anonymous said...

Heads up, more propaganda from Bowling Green Kentucky.

The Stacker said...

Mr. Birk did an OK job, but he didn't ask the right questions! Mr. Adams, if Obama has a facsimile and you are telling us that he was not born in Hawai'i, then shouldn't the COLB reflect that? You don't see a problem with Obama then allowing his administration to deceive the people and say he was born at Kapiolani, or Queens, or wherever?

On the one hand he admits the general evidence is bogus but then, due to ignorance of Birk or his own, he doesn't connect the most important part of the story, which is:

Why has Obama gone to such lengths to hide and then LIE to us about all the details? Come on, man where did the real investigative reporting go? This is a HUGE issue

Chief said...

If you listen closely to Adam's live interview you come away with this:

1. He is a Progressive.
2. He believes our constitution should be a living document.
3. He believes in social engineering.
4. He believes dual citizenship is being punished rather than rewarded.

When he talks about single parent birth he forgets their was another person in volved and the status of that person's citizenship.

He is an academic; who stepped in it by espousing Obama's birth right and now is trying to justify Obama eligibility. Bottomline no birth certificate no citizenship period.

Joe said...


Despite Tim's personal feelings, it is remarkable that someone has come forward. Now if we can get the msm to cover this story that would be something.

I don't know when the truth will come out but I hope it is in my lifetime.

I still feel he should sign an affadavit and be polygraphed. It could be useful in the future.

As for now, do you believe his story??

Anonymous said...

John 10:1-2, 10
I tell you the truth, the man [USURPER] who does not enter the sheep pen [OFFICE OF PRESIDENT] by the gate [ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION], but climbs in by some other way [FRAUD], is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate [ARTICLE II NATURAL-BORN CITIZENSHIP - BORN IN THE COUNTRY, OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS] is the shepherd of his sheep [WE THE PEOPLE]. The thief [USURPER] comes only to steal and kill and destroy [THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES]…

Matthew 7:15
Watch out for false prophets [USURPERS & THOSE WHO SUPPORT USURPERS]. They come to you in sheep’s clothing [POLITICIANS, MAIN STREAM MEDIA, LIBERAL BLOGGERS], but inwardly they are ferocious wolves [WHO COME ONLY TO STEAL AND KILL AND DESTROY AMERICA].

Anonymous said...

Is a savings and loan association taken over by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board – without any notice or hearing and on the basis of an administrative record compiled ex parte by the Board – entitled to a post-deprivation hearing “upon the merits” as provided in 12 U.S.C. § 1464 (d) (6) (A) and as required by the Due Process Clause, or is the association restricted – in its first and only opportunity to be heard on the seizure of its property – to an attempt to prove that the Board action was arbitrary and capricious, based solely on the administrative record selected by the Board itself?

Anonymous said...

Are “We the people” entitled to a hearing “upon the merits” as required by the Due Process Clause when the “office of President” is occupied by a person who is not an Article II natural born citizen and thus not “eligible to the office of President” under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...”, or are “We the people” required – in its opportunity to be heard on the seizure of its property, the “office of the President”, by a usurper – to simply accept that Barack Hussein Obama is an Article II natural born citizen and thus “eligible to the office of President” based solely on the digital image of a purported Certification of Live Birth, which was posted on the internet by the usurper himself?

Anonymous said...

Zahar: “The solution is resistance [Terrorism]”
ObHamas official calls for shooting rockets from the West Bank

ZaHillary: “The solution is resistance [Judicial Terrorism]”
Obama official calls for suing [shooting rockets] Arizona [from the White House]

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

There is a charlatan (maybe an Obot plant) on the blogs posting about the Kerchner case and me. His name is Leo Patrick Haffey. He also posts under the name Free Speech. He claims he is a lawyer. He has been posting at the Citizen Wells and Steady Drip blogs. I just left the following little message for our friend at the Citizen Wells blog:

"Mr. Haffey,

May I offer to you that you are terribly incompetent? I am sure you have heard when they say that someone is clueless. Well, that surely describes you. Through your writings and questions you have clearly demonstrated that the Obama eligibility issue is way over your head. Therefore, I recommend to you that you find another topic to blog about. May I again impose upon you and recommend that you write about what you enjoyed most about your summer vacation."

Let us move forward said...

Two things:

First: Check out this video of Kyl talking about a meeting with Mr. O on border security:

Shocking! or hot air?


Mr. Apuzzo:

Have you addressed the question of allegiance split between the US a religious state? Like a Catholic's allegiance to the Vatican/Pope and Jewish allegiance to Israel?

Historically Catholics were denied access to the presidency, justified by their possible allegiance to the Pope. JFK broke that barrier.

I would also think that a Jewish person serving as President could have an allegiance conflict especially since modern Israel has always been threatened by its neighbors.

Wouldn't these religious related allegiances be present from birth? Do you consider these questions relevant? If not, why not?

Please reply to my email if you do not want to post this.

MichaelIsGreat said...

Another interesting article "Elections official hits TV to affirm no Hawaii birth" at

When will justice be served concerning Obama?
When will Obama be ordered to resign from his usurped position of President of the USA simply because he is not legally eligibible to it?!!

A pen said...

Indeed, if dismissed it will be proof the courts have joined the usurpation and the remedies remaining are resignation, military decision to vet as art II legal and impeachment which at this point is an impossibility given the makeup of the senate. Of course there is always the last resort of the citizenry but with DHS already monitoring Americans as enemies of the state it is highly unlikely any success would be gained but rater as a state by state representation of annulment of federal power and authority beyond the scope of what is lawfully granted. In that way funding through tax witholding at the state level can accomplish what the individual can not, stopping the misappropriations by congress.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Let Us Move Forward,

A "natural born Citizen" has sole and absolute natural allegiance to the United States from the moment of birth, imparted to him/her by U.S. citizen parents. "Natural born Citizen" allegiance is not controlled by religion. Rather, it is connected to politics and expresses itself as love, affection, loyalty, and sympathy for the secular nation. It is the U.S. citizen parents of the child who impart to that child these values from the moment of actual birth. A person must have this political allegiance from the moment of actual birth to be able to be a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Religion, which contains different values from that which is purely secular, does not control the “natural born Citizen” allegiance test. This is not to say that religion is not important in preserving a nation. Religion, in its many forms, makes up a significant part of the value system of the people of a nation. But at the same time, consider that the people of a secular nation can practice a multitude of religions without those same people being divided politically. A prime example of this is the historical experience of the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Robert said...

"Let us move forward" would be pleased to learn that the Church teaches us to be completely loyal to our earthly nation just as it calls us to become one with our spiritual nation.

I believe that in the case of the United States of America we are more than fortunate to have a nation whose founding was ordained and blessed by God and whose founding documents were also inspired by Him.

It is our responsibility both as members of the Church and as Citizens of the United States, our respective states, and our communities to stand and defend our nation and its laws with our whole heart, mind and body.

As Jesus taught us, "Give unto Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and to God what belongs to God." In the USA "Ceasar" is "We the People."

Be also comforted to know that God will never give us challenges without also endowing us with the graces to conquer them.

Charles and Mario, I hope that you, too will accept this message for the encouragement that it was intended to be. Your are clearly on a mission for God.

May He bless you fully.