Monday, October 11, 2010

Kerchner v Obama Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed & docketed with U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 5

Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 30 Sep 2010 and docketed 04 Oct 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 25, 18, and 11 Oct 2010 issues, page 5.

U.S. Supreme Court Docket Number: 10-446
. Response from defendants due to the U.S. Supreme Court by 3 Nov 2010.

[Update 13 Oct 2010: Kerchner v Obama - Supreme Court Activity]

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

Link to read and download newest ad:

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.


A request from CDR Kerchner:

Also, please cast your votes to Help the Cause to get the word out:

1st: Vote for the show topic for the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show to be a discussion of the legal term of art, "natural born Citizenship". Please add your vote (in addition to making a comment if desired) for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too:

2nd: Vote for Mario to be a guest on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch TV show: Please add your vote here (in addition to making a comment if desired) to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for Mario Apuzzo. Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too:

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


Tiza said...

This is about those newspaper birth announcements. Please go here and study what has been researched about those.

There are more things that ladysforest has found out that isn't up yet. It's very time-consuming to go through that stuff, but something was going on with messing with the microfilm. When you see what she's written, then you'll understand. This is just kind of a recap of what has been found out.

bdwilcox said...

Jake Tapper from ABC News (of all people) exposes David Axelrod for the lying, transparent, sniveling, hypocrite he is.

TAPPER: Isn't that like the whackjobs that tell the president he needs to show them his full long-form birth certificate so he can put to rest the questions that have been raised?

AXELROD: The president’s birth certificate has been available to people.

TAPPER: The long form?

AXELROD: Someone once in the course of this debate about whether we should have a law to force these organizations to disclose where they’re money is coming from in the campaigns, someone said, and I think they’re right – “the only people who want to keep things secret are folks who have something to hide.” If the Chamber doesn’t have anything to hide about these contributions, and I take them at their word that they don’t, then why not disclose? Why not let people see where their money is coming from?

Nice try at redirection there, Axey, old boy. As if we wouldn't notice... I'd say you should be red with embarrassment over that one, but I don't think you could get any redder than you already are, comrade.

Jake, Jake, you're half-way there, buddy! Drop your jaundiced, cynical view and realize the whackjobs are the people who've accepted Soebarkah's eligibility with ZERO proof.

cfkerchner said...

U.S. Supreme Court Activity in the Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al lawsuit.

This is routine paperwork and notification of counsel type activity. Any questions on this will have to be directed to the attention of Atty Mario Apuzzo via this blog or if more confidential or private in nature use the email contact link in the upper right hand corner of this blog.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

MichaelIsGreat said...

Thank you for you fight to defend the Constitution of the USA and to demonstrate that THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA APPLIES TO ALL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION!

Obama is NOT eligible to be president of the USA because he is NOT a natural born citizen. That is as simple as that. His place of birth is irrelevant even though I am pretty sure that he also lied about his place of birth, as well as he lied for several other facts!

Moreover, he knew that he was not eligible to the presidency of the USA a long time before he started to run as a Democrat candidate!

For all these reasons, the liar, deceptive person that Obama is should be uncovered and punished as much as possible.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Some argue that the constitutions of New Jersey 1776, Massachusetts 1789, New York 1777, Delaware 1776, Maryland 1776 all provide that common law should remain in force. Then they also rely on the Lynch case to show that the "natural born Citizen" clause should be defined by English common law. They quote: “The Constitution of the United States, like those of all the original states, (and in fact of all the states now forming the Union, with the exception of Louisiana,) presupposed the existence and authority of the common law. The principles of that law were the basis of our institutions. In adopting the state and national constitutions; those fundamental laws which were to govern their political action and relations in the new circumstances arising from the assumption of sovereignty, both local and national; our ancestors rejected so much of the common law as was then inapplicable to their situation, and prescribed new rules for their regulation and government. But in so doing, they did not reject the body of the common law. They founded their respective state constitutions and the great national compact, upon its existing principles, so far as they were consistent and harmonious with the provisions of those constitutions. . . ” Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (N.Y. 1844)

Lynch is a New York State decision that dealt with an heir's rights to inherit real estate in New York and cannot be relied upon to define an Article II "natural born Citizen." A state has every right to define the terms and conditions for one to inherit its land. But such internal rules do not and cannot control questions of national citizenship which are left to the federal government to decide. Lynch just adds in dicta that not only can the heir (basically a foreigner) inherit that New York piece of real estate but she can also be President of the United States.

Lynch errs in relying on English common law to define what it said was national citizenship. The English common law was selectively adopted only by the states and applied there to resolve local issues such as arising in contracts, inheritance, property, torts, matrimony, etc. But that common law was not adopted on the national level. National law only included the "Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties..." Article III, Section 2, Clause 1. We know from Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 that the Framers included "the Law of Nations" as part of "the Laws of the United States." While the Founders and Framers relied heavily upon Emer de Vattel for justification for the revolution and in writing the Constitution, this reference is to the body of law then called the law of nations, not Vattel's treatise called, The Law of Nations," which explains how the law of nations is based on natural law and summarized what that law was. The law of nations which was relevant on relations among nations specifically addressed what a "citizen" and "natural born citizen" was. The English common law which to a great degree was based on Roman law did selectively make its way into the Constitution by way of the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) which were ratified on December 15, 1791. But the Bill of Rights did not address citizenship or nationality as did the law of nations.

Hence, based on the Constitution itself, the great amount of historical evidence, the historical context of the American Revolution, and several U.S. Supreme Court cases (but see U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark relying in part on the Lynch decision and on English common law to define a "citizen of the United States," not a "natural born Citizen"), we can reasonably conclude that the Founders and Framers relied on the law of nations and not the English common law to define generally citizenship and nationality in the "infant" state (Jefferson) and specifically what a "citizen of the United States" and "natural born Citizen" were.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Guy4013 said...

Hi Mario and Charles,

Congratulations on your SCOTUS legal work.

If you look at the calendar for SCOTUS conferences, one might expect your appeal to be taken up in conference on December 3 or 10.

I will find it really hard to believe that there will not be 4 judges knowing they must clarify Article II natural-born citizens.


In the 9th court of appeals, Barnett vs Obama, the injustice department basically said the judiciary can not do Anything about usurpation because that would violate separation of powers.

BUT, last week ONE woman federal judge placed an injunction against the entire Defense department. Now, how is that possible if the judiciary must respect the other two branches.

There is a double standard. One for liberal legal beliefs and another for the rest of us.

Again, Thanks Mario and Charles for your hard work.

Guy4013 said...

Hi Mario and Charles,

I meant to add the following to my previous comment.

The laws of Physics remind us that one can NOT be in two places at the same exact time. Everyone knows this law.

Natural law demands that one can NOT be born a British SUBJECT at birth and at the same moment be a 100% American and Natural-Born citizen. It's impossible, just as in Physics.

It is soon plain to be that I can not understand why the SCOTUS is "evading" the issue.

Michael said...

Mario & Charles
Some information on the corruption at Hawaiian Dept of Health

Go here for information on this on-going investigation & associated research:

'Red Flags in Hawaii' is particularly interesting.

cfkerchner said...

Excellent new video at YouTube about our Petition to the Supreme Court.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Anonymous said...

Liberal misinterpretation of citizen at birth, let alone 'natural born citizen,' rely on selected English common law as precedent, and 'place of birth' as the principle of claimed citizenship, superceding succession and inheritance of allegiance and nationality from a father.

There is a lawsuit being heard in SCOTUS next month concerning the 'gender neutralization' of alien and immigration laws (naturalization), which we can assume is an attempt to equate jus sanguinis natural allegiance from the father with that of a mother.

English common law is useful for defining idiomatic terms of art such as 'escheate' or 'nuisance,' but the unlimited discretion and plenary power of a king in English law has no standing as precedent in our common law system.

Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark created a 'gray' area of legal domicile, allowing citizenship at birth to children of legal alien residents. However, note that James Wilson, IA, in the 29th Congress, specified that 'sojourners' had no claim of U.S. citizenship for children born on U.S. soil.

Like the Jindals, on student visas from India, Obama, Sr's child may have had statutory U.S. nationality at birth, that became U.S. citizenship when Sr. abandoned the family. However, both Bobby Jindal and Barack Obama are not Natural Born Citizens.

The framers of the constitution and contemporaneous commentaries of congressmen and authors of the 14th Amendment knew that a Natural Born Citizen had to have a U.S. citizen father.

The liberals are trying to obscure that fact with 'jus solis' rights and natural born citizenship from a U.S. mother, married to an alien.

Applying reductio ad absurdum, this makes the child of an illegal alien (let alone of a British subject father) eligible to the presidency. What would the framers, and Vattel, say about that?

cfkerchner said...

An essay I did on the difference between "Citizen at Birth" vs "natural born Citizen at Birth".

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT identically equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC) at Birth.
Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Let us move forward said...


"There is a lawsuit being heard in SCOTUS next month concerning the 'gender neutralization' of alien and immigration laws (naturalization), which we can assume is an attempt to equate jus sanguinis natural allegiance from the father with that of a mother."

Please cite said case.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Let Us Move Forward,

Regarding Ruben Flores-Villar v. United States of America, the real issue is not whether we should have "gender neutralization" of our citizenship and naturalization laws or whether we should have equality of jus sanguinis natural allegiance inherited from the father with that inherited from the mother. Rather, given the biological differences between a man and a woman, the real issue is how best to prove that a child not born in the United States, claiming derivative citizenship from the father, is born and attached to a particular man versus to a particular woman, and what are the limits on Congress' plenary power to determine how best to resolve such a citizenship and naturalization question. Another sub issue is what is the extent of judicial review of Congress' plenary power to decide such an issue.

The law of nations has taught us through the ages that a nation has every right to self-preservation and that a nation best preserves itself through the allegiance that its people give to it. The same law of nations which has its basis in natural law, as confirmed by the common law established by our own U.S. Supreme Court, has taught us that a person gains his or her strongest allegiance through nature, meaning from the parents from whom and from the territory in which one is born. Hence, the nation must have in place the means to protect itself which includes deciding who will and will not be a citizen of the nation. Of course, this concept extends to the need as recognized and constitutionally provided for by the Founders and Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to have a President and Commander in Chief be a "natural born Citizen." Because of the critical nature and need for national self-preservation and the Framers' inclusion of the "natural born Citizen" requirement for presidential eligibility in the Constitution, not even the equal protection clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment or even Congress' plenary power over citizenship and naturalization trumps the doctrine of self-preservation of a nation and its people. For an interesting discussion on the concept of Congressional plenary power in the area of citizenship and naturalization, see the amicus curiae brief of the Immigration Law Institute filed in the Ruben Flores-Villar case which can be accessed at

Also, given that there is an equality of jus sanguinis natural allegiance inherited from the father with that inherited from the mother, a child must be born to both a citizen father and citizen mother in order to be an Article II "natural born Citizen." The child inherits as much natural allegiance and loyalty from the father as he/she does from the mother. The natural allegiance inherited is as full from one as it is from the other and is as equal if not stronger to that inherited from being born in the territory of a nation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

jimmy said...


I don't know if you've seen this but a judge has apparently ordered the Alaska Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Joe Miller to release his personal records and documentation citing the public need to see them outweighs his own privacy rights.

And yet, not one single judge, for two years has even so much as acknowledged Obama HAS hidden documents that could be revealed.

I guess it pays to be part of the protected party and doesn't pay to be a part of the persecuted one.

FAIRBANKS -- A judge ruled Saturday that the Fairbanks North Star Borough must release personnel records of U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller.

In an unusual weekend hearing, retired Superior Court Judge Winston Burbank ruled that the public's right to know about candidates outweighed Miller's right to privacy.

Read more:

bdwilcox said...

Interesting ruling in Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller's document release case:

A judge ruled Saturday that the Fairbanks North Star Borough must release personnel records of U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller.

In an unusual weekend hearing, retired Superior Court Judge Winston Burbank ruled that the public's right to know about candidates outweighed Miller's right to privacy.

"I hold that although Mr. Miller has a legitimate expectation of privacy in those documents, Mr. Miller's right to privacy is indeed outweighed by the public's significant interest in the background of a public figure who is running for the U.S. Senate," the judge said. He noted that U.S. senator is among the highest elected offices in the nation.


Miller's lawyer, Van Flein, argued that Miller's personnel records with the borough should not be made public because he was merely a part-time employee rather than a public official.

"It's not correct to argue that merely by running for U.S. Senate, that somehow everything in your past: your school transcripts, your medical records, your birth certificate, or your personnel file, suddenly magically convert to public records," Van Flein said.

Burbank rejected that argument in his ruling, saying that people who run for office expect their past will be researched and revealed.

McKay, the lawyer for Alaska Dispatch, called on the judge to release the paperwork given that Miller is applying for a six-year political term but his background has never been reviewed by the public -- until now.

"The voters can decide what bearing this should have on his fitness or qualifications," McKay said of the borough records. "They have a right to decide."

Among the arguments for release was that the state Supreme Court, in earlier cases involving access to government information, has held that candidates for office expose their private lives to public scrutiny.

bdwilcox said...

Sorry, jimmy beat me to the punch. Great minds think alike, I guess. :)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review--if any--should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.]” (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.)"

Keyes v. Bowen, CO62321 (Cal. Ct. App., Filed 10/25/10)

Anonymous said...

What if 200-years of case law making 'citizen' equal to 'subject' was wrong? What if Blackstone's 'generalized' common law making a child of an alien a natural born subject (actually, Blackstone may have been only refering to children of denizens) was not the basis of U.S. naturalization law?

Read the 1795 Naturalization Act, specifically Sec. 3. There is no provision making any child born on U.S. soil a citizen, except through special legislative provision.

In fact, the 1790 Act made a child born overseas 'as a natural born citizen' if the father was a U.S. citizen. Nothing in the law raising 'jus solis' over 'jus sanguinis.'

With English (foreign) law as precedent, the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment creates dual citizens.

But, wait; if an equally valuable secondary authority was relied upon by the framers, e.g., Vattel's 'Law of Nations,' the conflicts of law go away, e.g., §§ 212, 215, 220 . . . and the 14th Amendment makes sense again.

bdwilcox said...

"Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review--if any--should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.]” (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.)"

Keyes v. Bowen, CO62321 (Cal. Ct. App., Filed 10/25/10)

Which ultimately begs the question: If those two preceding bodies of review have abrogated their responsibilities, as they have both so demonstrably done, does it not follow that such duty naturally falls upon the Judicial branch? And if the Judicial branch denies to honor such a challenge and, in so doing, denies the people their right to redress of grievances, has the court not made itself complicit in such crimes carried out against the Constitution and the citizens of the United States?

Robert said...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution is a guarantee to each American that the President shall be a natural born citizen. There is an amendment process to change the Constitution, and it does not include inaction by Congress as one of the processes.

If a 20 year old man, who looks 20 to millions of people, represents himself to be 35 years old and is elected President, and all three branches of government accept his driver's license that states he is 35 years old as the only evidence of his age, who would have standing to challenge his eligibility? Each and every American should have standing to challenge the President’s eligibility because the intended beneficiary of the natural born citizen clause is the People, and not the Courts, Congress, or the President himself.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is what one Obot has to say about whether the Founders and Framers relied upon Vattel when reading the law of nations:

"Here is a study by a real scholar, i.e. not a dentist/attorney or DWI lawyer pretending to be a constituional lawyer, on who the founders actually cited. Blackstone was # 3, Vattel was #30. Pufendorf at #10 was the most cited authority on the law of nations. Can’t understand why your arguments are laughed out of court."

The joke is really on this Obot "authority" who goes on the internet by the name of an American beer but is not an American. What this genius fails to tell us is what did the Founders cite Blackstone for?

Spaulding said...

"Experts" have had a field day, assuming that most won't check their claims. Our courts have so far failed to demonstrate their expertise, but our framers and founders, who always intended that our legal doctrine be understandable, did an excellent job, if only citizens will read and trust their intellects.

Here is a citation from the Grotian Society Papers of 1972, an article titled "The Acceptance of Vattel." The tone of most Grotian Society papers casts Grotius has having deserved more credit for collating and communicating the reasoning behind the natural law, but acknowledged that Vattel (Vatel) was a more accessible writer.

"In the United States, it was said:

At the time of the American revolution the work of Vattel was the latest and most popular, if not the most authoritative , of the continental writers. Citations of Grotius, Pufendorf, and VAttel are scattered in about equal measures in the writings of the time. Possibley after the Revolution Vattel is cited more frequently than his prececessors."

From a chart published by a Professor Dickinson and cited in Nussbaums "A Concise History of the Law of Nations," New York, 1962, of the citations in American jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820, Vattel was cited 92 times in pleadings, Bynkershoek 25, Pufendorf 9, and Grotius 16. Similarly, court citations were 38 for Vattel, 16 Bynkershoek, 4 Pufendorf, 11 Grotius; Court quotations, 22 Vattel, 2 Bynkershoek, 8 Pufendorm, 2 Grotius.

Bob said...

Isn't more to the point that BOTH Blackstone and Vattel were cited by SCOTUS as recently as 2008 in the Heller case.

That would appear to me a substantial reason for SCOTUS to want to consider Attorney Apuzzo's full argument.

Why? If these moldy old laws were still active and imperative in 2008, then they are probably still active and imperative in 2010.

cfkerchner said...

Our fund raising campaign #5 has closed out successfully. This campaign, among other things, provided the necessary funding to get the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our petition is now on the Supreme Court Docket - docket number 10-446.

In order to provide funding for our continuing efforts to pursue the legal, publicity, advertising, and education aspects of this battle, we have now launched fund raising campaign #6. Campaign #6

Thank you to all who have given to help our prior campaigns achieve success.

The truth and the Constitution will win this battle in the end.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)