Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Receives Kerchner v. Obama/Congress for Decision

As I have already reported, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (retired), Lowell T. Paterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., have filed a legal action against Barack H. Obama II, in both his private and public capacity as putative President of the United States. They have included claims against Congress, former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

First, they argue that the Founders' and Framers' definition of a "natural born Citizen" may be found in the law of nations as commented on by Emer de Vattel in his highly influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1758 French edition, 1759 first English edition) and not in the inapplicable English common law. The Framers adopted the “Law of Nations” as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States” but did not so adopt the English common law. We also know that under Article VI, the “Laws of the United States” which are made in pursuance of the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the law of nations, a “natural born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents, meaning both mother and father. Vattel, Sections 212-33. The Kerchner plaintiffs maintain that under the law of nations, Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the military because, being born with conflicting allegiance to Great Britain which he inherited from his non-United States citizen father and possibly to the United States if he was born in Hawaii as he claims but has not shown, he cannot meet the Founders’ and Framers’ constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which requires the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth only to the United States which status is acquired at birth only if the child is born in the United States (or its equivalent) to a citizen mother and father.

Second, they also argue that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was in fact born in Hawaii or any other place in the United States and that even if he were born in the United States, at most he is a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States" but not an Article II "natural born Citizen." At the time the Framers adopted the Constitution, they allowed persons who were "citizens of the United States" to be President, provided that they had that status as of the time the Constitution was adopted which we know was 1787. If a child did not have that status at that time, the Framers required that a would-be President be a "natural born Citizen." There is no denying from a simple reading of its text that the Fourteenth Amendment only grants to individuals, who can acquire by either birth or naturalization in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the equal status of a "citizen of the United States." The amendment makes no mention of a “natural born Citizen” and surely would not by implication equate a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen” since the Framers in Article II were careful to make a distinction between the two types of citizens and we must give meaning to the words the Framers so chose and a naturalized citizen can be a “citizen of the United States” but cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Amendment only defined the Framers' "citizen of the United States," which status created doubts throughout our history but did not define the Framers’ "natural born Citizen" which never created any doubts as to its meaning and therefore needed no clarification through any constitutional amendment.

Hence, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he would fall under the Framers’ "citizen of the United States" status as later defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. But being a born "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment in 1961 is not sufficient to establish eligibility under Article II which now requires that Obama be a "natural born Citizen." There is also no denying that being born in 1961, Obama was not a “citizen of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1787. Hence, to be eligible to be President, he must be a “natural born Citizen.” But if Obama was born in Hawaii which we know was to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, he would be a born "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment but not a "natural born Citizen" under Article II. So even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he would not be eligible to be President under Article II.

I have already reported that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia decided it did not need oral arguments on the Kerchner appeal to that Court and that the Court would receive the case on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 for decision on the briefs. I have also been informed that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman. See the latest 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Summary Docket for this case here.

Now we have to wait for the Court to render its decision. We do not know how long it will take to do so. We can only presume that the Court is aware of the critical importance of this issue and that my clients need to know as soon as possible where they stand. Hence, I believe that we can expect that the Court will provide us with its decision in the not too distant future.

If the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner case, the case will most likely return to that lower court for discovery and trial. On the other hand, if the Court affirms the lower court because of standing and/or political question, we will then file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will in any event provide the final judicial word on Obama’s eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 30, 2010


jayjay said...

Very clear - thank you!!

Joe said...

Good luck to you all !!

Unknown said...

Thank you so much for the update.
And Mr. Kerchner law reads to me that the punitive potus is not NBC

Cassie Tuttle said...

On what basis was Cheney named in the original suit?

cfkerchner said...


For conducting the Joint Session of Congress contrary to the explicit procedures spelled out in U.S. Code/Law, i.e., not calling for the objections to the votes from each and every state as each individual states votes were presented, for one reason. You have to read the complaint to get the whole picture. See page 34 of the lawsuit. Read the whole second amended complaint for all the violations of the rights of the appellants detailed in the complaint by the Obama and non-Obama defendants. I believe the 2008 Presidential Election process was fraudulent as to the candidates put up and both major political parties and their leadership and key people were culpable in allowing it to happen and enabling the fraud and cover up. Link via this Table of Contents page at

cfkerchner said...


Here is an essay I wrote which might help you understand why people in both parties are defendants in the lawsuit. Washington DC and both political parties are corrupt and put party power before the U.S. Constitution as to who they wished to run for President in 2008.

This lawsuit is not based on politics. It is based on violations of the plaintiffs rights and legal questions such as defining to Constitutional standards once and for all, what is a "natural born Citizen" per A2S1C5 of the constitution. We say Obama is clearly not. But the federal courts and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court must decide this legal question of historic precedence.

I Believe The Fix Was in for the 2008 Presidential Election. The Perfect Storm for a Constitutional Crisis. We the People and the Constitution, specifically Article II, Section I, Clause 5 as to who is constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander of the Military were betrayed by the leadership of both major political parties.

Anonymous said...

Department of Energy Survey

I received a call last evening. Rutgers University was doing a survey on behalf of the DOE.

I usually don’t participate in surveys or polls. But, the pollster was friendly, and I was intrigued as to why the DOE needed to conduct a survey.

Well, about halfway into the survey the purpose of the survey became apparent… The survey was to gather data for the Obama propaganda machine so he can force Cap & Trade and Global Warming down our throats.

One of the questions I was asked had to do with whether the scientific community understood global warming.

Another question specifically asked me whether our society would be better served if the wealth was distributed more evenly.

Another question asked me whether wealthy people who earn their wealth should be entitled to keep it.

Needless to say, I informed the young pollster about the true intent behind the survey. She was open to listening to my opinion. Interestingly, and thankfully, she said that I wasn’t the first person who had expressed the same thing to her.

There is a Communist in the White House…

We the People are behind enemy lines…

jayjay said...


'Deed we are!!! A lot of people don't seem to realize that (yet). By the time they do, it will likely be too late.

It's quite possible there will be no real "election" in 2015. If you paid attention before, during, and even after the Second WW you'd know that. I think a lot of people (perhaps too many) weren't around then and it may cost us BIG TIME!!

chuck said...

Thanks for the excellent work. God bless all of you.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Dr. Conspiracy is desperately trying to maintain his credibility with the public. I asked two questions of the Obama enablers/obots regarding the alleged birth of putative President Obama: (1) where exactly in Honolulu was he born and (2) who was present during the birth to attest to that fact. Well, I am not surprised that Dr. Conspiracy and team were not able to answer me. Now, is that not funny? One would think that the Obot Czar would have that information at his finger tips. But he does not. And what does that tell you? If Dr. Conspiracy cannot produce it, neither can anyone else.

Now Dr. Conspiracy goes on the attack. He wants me to show the exact place in Kenya were Obama was born. What a poor try. Dr. Conspiracy refuses to admit that it is Obama that must first provide sufficient and credible evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Once he does that then we can explore whether that evidence is authentic and conclusive. Hence, I do not have to first prove where in any part of the world Obama was born. How absurd would that be to place such a burden on the American people.

Things should be very clear to any reasonable person who is following this issue that the Obama enablers/obots are nothing but bluff and that they have no evidence to back them up. That includes evidence regarding Obama's alleged birth in Hawaii and the law on the meaning of a "natural born Citizen."

Dave & Heidi said...

When this case reaches the Supreme Court, how can two potentially illegitimate Obama appointments on the Court be allowed to make a determination of the legitimacy of the Obama presidency?

Brianroy said...

Obama confesses his citizenship is based on the faith of others, not blood or birth? Is anyone listening?

“Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it’s a matter of faith,” Obama declared...

Or in others words...Obama is saying to all Americans:

"I don't have a US Long Form birth certificate, my Kenyan Father was not an American, I probably wasn't even born in America, and who long as YOU have the faith I am an American Citizen, that's all it takes."

Is that a fair summary of what he said?

Really? Now he openly admits it and flaunts his alien status as an "in your face" taunt? Does any one else take it that way, or what?

Can that statement of Obama's be used with the judges to expedite the case?

cfkerchner said...

For Immediate Release - 2 July 2010

Forward this to appropriate newspapers and media with which you have contacts.

Important Historical Dissertations and Legal Articles from 1789 to 1916 on "Citizen of the United States" vs. "natural born Citizen of the United States" which discuss the Eligibility to Be President have been uploaded to Attorney Mario Apuzzo's account. See this link to read these dissertations and legal articles:

In addition, please note that these historic writings were filed in April 2010 as part of the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit appeal to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA. This appeal has now been fully briefed by both sides and has been officially received as of 29 June 2010 for a decision by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA.

For details on the lawsuit and appeal see:

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Receives Kerchner v. Obama/Congress for Decision

Obama may possibly be a "Citizen of the United States" but he is NOT a "natural born Citizen of the United States" to Constitutional standards. Being a "natural born Citizen of the United States" is a key eligibility requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as to who may legally and Constitutionally serve as the President. Obama is not now and was not in 2008 eligible to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military. He must be removed from the office he usurps.

For additional information or comment about the lawsuit, appeal, or these important historical writings on the meaning of "Citizen of the United States" vs. "natural born Citizen of the United States" and eligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our Military, contact Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg NJ.

Email: ""
Telephone: 732-521-1900

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

“Simply Saying Something Is So Does Not Make It So”—Rhodes v. Obama (September 16, 2009, the Hon. Clay D. Land of the United States District Court in Georgia).

The insults to our intelligence continue in Obotdom. Now, at Dr. Conspiracy's website, they say that Obama has proven that he was born in Hawaii and that the issues of in what hospital and who was present at the time of the birth are irrelevant. That sounds like saying I have proven I am a millionaire but the issue of how much money I have is not relevant.

The Obot logic is amazing. Now they want us to accept their logic that Obama has conclusively proven thta he was born someplace (Honolulu) but the exact place where he was born (where in Honolulu) and those who were present to see him born in that exact place are irrelevant in testing whether the statement that he was born in Honolulu is true. How does one prove one was born someplace if one does not prove where in that place one was born and who was present to witness one being born there? How does one prove such a birth event occurred unless one produces evidence that someone was present to see the birth happen in a specific place? Surely, the Obots would not expect us to accept infant Obama himself as the witness to his own birth.

Again, we are told by Obama and his enablers that we are not talking about a person who may have been born in a non-institutional setting (house, barn, hut, field, etc.) with no records or information available to people who may later question whether that birth occurred as alleged. Rather, in Obama's case, the evidence needed to answer my two questions (exact place of birth and who was present at birth) should be readily available given that he alleges he was born in a modern U.S. hospital only in 1961. So I say to the obots, either produce the simple evidence or simply admit to the truth that Obama has not yet conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii.

jayjay said...

Dave & Heidi:

Good point!! Two BHO appointees on SCOTUS (assuming Kagan or someone else je picks makes it).

Are you saying that the MIGHT be a tad bit influenced by the fact that their lifetine appointments to the 1/4 million $/year job might not be valid??? Would they not get unemployment like my son who lost his (much lower paid) job in private industry???

After all, if they remained on the court for, say, 40 years that would only be a drop-in-the-bucket amount of $10,000,000. Who would care about such a tiny amount (and that assumes no raises).

And what about Justice Ginsburg? I'm certainly sympathetic to her having lost her husband recently, but let's recognize that she has already stated in one or more Supreme Court cases what the definition of ?natural born Citizen" is so that her grandson born in France would be one. Does that not qualify as having the answer before hearing the evidence???

What would the balance of SCOTUS be if it lost 3 liberal votes??? Perhaps THAT'S why the liberals are struggling so hard to keep the Kerchner et al case from being heard??

jayjay said...


Good observation.

Also, perhaps it possible that the man is trying to pass amnesty for illegals so that he, himself, can have amnesty.

I for one certainly wouldn't put it past him, but it would still not serve as a Constitutional argument for nbC status.

Perhaps, though, he's gettiong desperate.

Bunratty said...

Kerchner v. Obama, appeal denied, attorney Apuzzo must show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal.

Unknown said...


Your perception is that of mine. Trying to wiggle out of our laws.

Spaulding said...

While Mario and the Commander expected the appeal to fail, the court's use of Berg and Hollister is insulting. We are approaching the criteria expressed in The Declaration in which patriots rejected the tyranny of the annointed. The tone and reasoning of this rejection are exemplified by the arrogance of this federal court.

While the courts avoid their sworn allegiance to the Constitution behind their invented doctrine of standing, they won't be able to hide from "the people." I will contribute to Cmder Kerchner again, though my business is dead, with the hope that Mr. Apuzzo will explain to the the growing number of the injured, that the courts won't honor the Constitution because too many of us have been injured by the actions of a president whose authority has not been granted by our rule of law.

Let us keep a list of those paid and sworn to uphold the Constitution who fail their to execute their duties and refer to that list when we take it back - and we will take it back!

Brianroy said...

Contrary to Obama is the Supreme Court Law, the original intent of the Founding Fathers (regarding what a Natural Born Citizen is), and the history behind it: the history reaching back to the Bible for Nature's Law, and the Greeks (like Plato) for the Law of Nations.

Being an American, therefore, and contrary to Obama, is by a combined action of Nature's Law and the Law of Nations, where by blood being joined to a people by Covenant Oath: when a parent or ancestor is adopted into a national family or the nation of the United States of America, those descendants who follow him, being born by blood or birth, and soil, become Americans through their fathers by blood and by birth in the United States or one of its sovereign territories. The nationality of the child as an American Citizen is not dependent upon their ethnicity, but the Covenant Citizen Relationship of the parent with the United States, the location of birth, the domicility of the child, and the fact that the child is subject to the laws and sovereignty of the United States.

If it were merely a matter of faith and not of blood or birth under the Law, then anyone in the world who runs up a US Flag, and says by faith that they are now American -- without union by blood, birth, soil, and an officially recognized covenant oath with and to the US -- Obama declaes as an American?

So therefore, in Obamaworld, from the Pygmies in Africa, head-shrinkers living on the Amazon, to active members on the Chinese Communist Parliament or in the Russian spy agencies...anyone who simply says, "by faith, I am an American", is so. Do we now pay these Social Security welfare checks and change the rules of who collects the benefits of US taxpayers if they should be unemployed, and having a financial hardship?

A pen said...

Well, men, it appears the contempt for the supremacy of the constitution is well rooted in the third circuit court of appeals. I might be mistaken but the law simply means what it says and I don't read anywhere that some harm must come from violating it before it can be enforced. If that were the case, prostitution is certainly legal as would be polygamy. I can think of a great number of victimless crimes that the 3rd circuit would have to hold unenforceable. I think I shall become a benevolent dictator too. It is legal according to their views of the law.

Larry said...

If the ruling is not overturned, America shall effectively cease to exist. "We the People" shall not allow this nation to fall, we shall take whatever action is necessary.

FollowTheConstitution said...

Proof positive Thomas Jefferson wanted "citizens" stated instead of "subjects"

Vici57 said...

It saddens me that we no longer anyone our court system willing to defend the constitution. Like Abraham Lincoln said "...Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." I think that is long gone now. The American People have no say in the government of today. Somehow "standing" must be changed. We should be able to question anyone in our government. The courts are afraid to take on this case because they are afraid of the repercussions. Mr. Kerchner and Mr. Apuzzo, I admire your tenacity. I pray that it will be heard by the Supreme Court. Again, thank you for all of your work.

Robert said...

I think the key to being heard on the merits is to put 100% into researching and analyzing the entire body of law on standing. Every aspect of standing needs to be dissected and argued. For example, if I am not mistaken, Blackstone believed - a public right, was a public wrong; the king was the only one injured by such a violation, and he was the proper prosecutor. The problem with believing that the natural born citizen issues only present a public wrong is that Obama is arguably the king, and he won't prosecute himself.

Now let's look at Marbury v. Madison where they cite Blackstone, “that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded.” Blackstone explained that private rights included the “absolute” rights of personal security, life, liberty, and property, as well as “relative” rights which individuals acquired “as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other. Are the courts telling us that we have no such rights in having a natural born citizen as president?

Now lets look at the qui tam action, in which a private individual could bring suit to prosecute fraud on the government. Arguably, qui tam actions establish that there is no restriction whatsoever on private individuals enforcing public rights. That being said, I believe that the eligibility cases are arguably a good faith modification or extension of a qui tam action.

On a final note, no matter what the courts say, I firmly believe that Article II is a guarantee to each and every individual American that only a natural born citizen shall be president.

William said...

Mario or Charles,

Could you please post a hot link to the courts decision so that I may review it?


Anonymous said...

Have you all seen they tried ....

back in 2006

FollowTheConstitution said...

Standing should not have a baring on a CONSTITUTIONAL issue!

The courts are ignaroing the constitution by basically saying, the constitution means nothing unless an individual can prove standing in their individual copacity by showing they have a personal injury that only injures them without being an injury that could be considered an injury towards most or all people. It's down right INSANITY!

It just goes to show how corrupt the whole system is where these public servants have usurped their powers and authority to overthrow our government and reform their laws to make themselves immune from being held accountable and be able to just shove the constitution to the side so they can remain as corrupt as they choose!

I foresee the peaceful revoloution coming to a end here in the very near future! The people are going to be trading in there protest signs for a lot of rope!

cfkerchner said...


Here is the hot link.

Dixhistory said...

I am a sad person in my home land of these United States of America. Born July 4Th 1776 the date of her death is unclear.

Like all people she started dying the moment she was born. The stink of her death was first noticed by Tex Dix in 2008 yet he knew as so many others knew that his America had been sick for many years before his own short life began.

I weep for our loss of the rule of just and natural laws that she gave birth to.

I saw that all was lost when on July 3, 2010 I read what a federal court had to say about those natives of this great land who no longer have any right to claim that just laws be enforced because they have no standing under its laws.

I'm proud to know grandparents in my own direct line that played a direct part in giving birth to her.

I'm sad that I was living at the time of her death.

Now I'm confused as to what type system of government we now live under.

I know for sure it's not an honorable or just system by the fact that no one has a right to have a just court hear the facts when its laws as written back when she was born have been violated.


bdwilcox said...

There has been an amazing discovery today, July 02, 2010, wherein we find the complete nullification of the arguments of those who believe that the terms "subject" and "citizen" are interchangeable, as did the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. The Library of Congress has revealed that in drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson purposefully and methodically removed the term subjects and replaced it with the term citizens. We see here that the founding fathers made a concrete distinction between the terms, rejecting the term "subjects" and instead using the term "citizens". Thus, it is not possible to believe that to understand the intent of the term "natural born citizen" one can simply replace one term with the next and retain intent or meaning.

May God bless the United States of America!

William said...

Charles or Mario,

I will not ask questions and next steps from this point as I am confident Mario will soon explain it to all of us.

Nevertheless, I find the ruling instresting in a couple of areas. For example, first the court agrees that Mario's arguement must and is taken in the sense of the facts as being true.

Secondly, the court agrees with you and understands your frustration for congress failing in its capacity. They confirm knowledge that congress did not do its job in vetting, its ministerial duties.

The court also confirms (in my opinion) that Obama does not meet the NBC clause requirement, but as the court said, you lack standing to do anything about it.

After they agree with you in several areas and feel your frustration, they then call it frivolous? That appears to contridict there agreement at first glance. But the more I read it, they are actually calling the lack of standing frivolous, not the claims. In other words, they are saying even though your case is true in fact, you should have known based on all the other courts ruling that we would not have granted you standing.

Lastly, and you gotta love this comment from the court, "Stemming from Obama's FAILURE TO SATISFY THE ELIGIBILTY REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE is not concrete and particularized"......

They know, they confirm, they agree, but are saying your injury is too broad. In many ways, this is not all bad news. We now know that the courts know and are aware that he is not a NBC and does not meet the clause.

William said...


It is interesting that you mentioned how many attempt to interchange a "citizen" and "subject" to describe Americans.

I have reviewed the Federalist Papers from Madison, Hamilton and Jay and found such agruements as redundant.

Between the 3 of them writing the Federalist Papers, the number of times they refered. To Citizens of America was 208 times.

The number of times they refered to us as Subjects of America, was 0.

The numer of times they refered or referenced the Laws of Nations applied in America, was 8.

The number of times they refered or referenced the British Common Law applied in America, was 0.

It becomes highly difficult, in my opinion, that anyone could attempt to argue the founding fathers used these two as interchangable.

Unknown said...

Mario and Charles.

I am saddened by the ruling but it was not unexpected by me.

What you have is Judicial cowardice and the fear of civil unrest. Which means only some laws are allowed to be enforced.

I notice they now force the defense on only those who can pay the fees to compete with the unlimited budget of the Unjustice dept. In some ways we can move forward to SCOTUS which is the good news part.

On appeal to SCOTUS I say you win 5-2. Four solid conservatives plus Ginsburg whose grandson was born in Paris but she believes is NBC because of the TWO US parents.

God bless your hard work and I'm sorry the justices do not see the need to defend our Constitution.

Take care Mario and Charles and God bless.

chuck said...

Exactly who paid off the courts and the news media? Was it Soros, Russia, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, the Saudis? I read on post email that Judge Carroll Ross said, "No one can bring charges of Treason against Obama in any Court in any county in any state." Did Holder issue that? Who is behind all this?
We have a usurper of the office, likely not even a citizen, who cannot be forced to prove who he is, nor can his confederates be subpoened. A DOJ attorney resigned because U.S. justice is nonexistent. It is a Dictatorship. Without peaceful redress in the courts and congress, it appears the military or a civilian army will have to take action against Obama like they did to King George. If that doesn't happen, this country is done.