Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate - Wed, 17 Nov 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) will be guests on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate on Wednesday, 17 Nov 2010, at 9:00 p.m. EST. The subject will be the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court including review of the four questions presented in the Petition. Two Justices, Sotomayer and Kagan, have been requested in the Petition to recuse themselves from this case in that they have a direct financial conflict of interest in the outcome of this case, i.e., their very appointments to the court were made by Obama. We have also asked the Justices in our Petition to take judicial notice of the Lt Col Lakin court martial in process and the Affidavit filed in that military trial by Lt Gen McInerney as to the impact that the uncertainty of the constitutional eligibility of Obama is having on our military whose members have all sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Recent activity in the case includes an Amicus Curiae Brief which was filed by the Western Center of Journalism in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. The uncovering and initial release to the public by this blog on 5 Nov 2010 of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) internal memorandum to members of Congress will also be discussed.

Listen to podcast replay at this link:

Also stop by and read Dr. Kate's post-show blog on the show and the comments at:

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010. To read the Petition see this link:


1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.


P.S. A special 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, see the site and help the cause with a donation:



Ladies and Gentleman, I host a radio show called "Howie Unveils Gods Shield". I have hosted Commander Kerchner and Mr. Mario Apuzzo esq on the show in regards to "Natural Born Citizenship" These gentleman have dissected the Constitution and many supporting documents and KNOW without doubt the Constitutional meaning of "Natural Born Citizen". The citizens of this great nation would be blessed by hearing these gentleman discuss the issue with Judge Napalotano.
For a review of their interview log onto; and listen today.

May God Bless America
May Freedom Ring

Jim "Howie" Mandel Jr

Ted said...

Interesting that there is current kerfuffle on lib media over GOP House & Senate leaders supposely postponing Obama’s invitation to meet them at this time or next week, until Nov 30 — AFTER Nov 23 (when if the Supreme Court advance on standing on Kerchner Case, it’s effectively the end of the Obama Presidency) — so makes sense to wait and see.

cfkerchner said...

Hi all,

If any or all of the followers of this blog wish to alert their U.S. Senators personally about the upcoming conference at the U.S. Supreme Court on the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and Petition, here is a convenient link to online eForm and email addresses to reach your Senators and other key Senators you may wish to write to. Go for it. Let them know that we know what they are not doing to support and defend the Constitution by still at this time in history they are still not openly and public speaking out and not addressing via a call for hearings on the issue for the most pressing question in Washington DC and the nation ... and the elephant in the room ... the constitutional eligibility of Obama to be President and Commander of our military. They held hearings on McCain's citizenship status but not for Obama. The time has come for them to exercise their oversight responsibilities and heed the calls and pleas of the American people and electorate to investigate this issue.

With your eForm or email message along with your personal comments you could send them all a link (below) to the current ad in the Washington Times National Weekly from this past Monday's edition.

Thank you for any help you can give getting the word out.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

P.S. Pass this request for the People to take action now about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al petition and contact their Senators and Reps along to your friends, associates, and blogs you frequent. Help get the word out. Thank you.

P.P.S. If you have more and better email lists for the House Reps and/or the newly elected reps and senators, post the link in this blog thread.

cfkerchner said...

Here is an email site I found to write to your U.S. House reps online.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

cfkerchner said...

A list of names and email addresses for new members of Congress courtesy of

Write or email them about the Petition at the Supreme Court about Obama's constitutional ineligibility to be President and Commander of our military. Mention the Petition and send a link to it. Also mention the LTC Lakin case too and how Obama's continued hiding of all his records is causing a chain of command problem which could ultimately affect our national security in a larger way than it is already. Ask them to speak out NOW and call for hearings now on the matter. There is no need for them to wait until they are seated to speak out on this eligibility issue and demand that hearings and investigations be conducted similar to what was done for John McCain's eligibility issue.

With your eForm or email message along with your personal comments you could send them all a link (below) to the current ad in the Washington Times National Weekly from this past Monday's edition.

Thank you for any help you can give getting the word out.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Anonymous said...

An exposition of the constitution of the United States By Albert Orville Wright (1888) pg 87

IV. NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS. — This phrase is used in Article II, section 1, where it is provided that the President of the United States shall be a natural-born citizen. A natural-born citizen is not necessarily a native of the United States. Members of Indian tribes are natives, but are not natural-born citizens. And there are some natural-born citizens who are not natives of the United States, but were born in other countries. There are two conditions required to make a natural-born citizen — parentage and place of birth. A child born of American parents in any place under American jurisdiction is unquestionably a natural-born American citizen. But where the parentage and birthplace do not agree, there is a case of doubtful citizenship which is decided by the choice of the person himself, when he comes to years of manhood.
Any person born of an American father, in a place subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation, may be ji natural-born American citizen, if he claims that privilege when he arrives at the proper age. So, also, any person born of a foreign father in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, may be a naturalborn American citizen, if he choose. In these doubtful cases the person may choose the country of his father or the country of his birth. So that a person may be a natural-born citizen of the United States, without being a native of the United States.

Then on page 166-167:

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; neither shall any person ba eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-live years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
I. CITIZENSHIP. — The President must be a naturalborn citizen of the United States. The President must be a citizen by inheritance, not by adoption. He cannot be a naturalized citizen; but it is possible that a person born out of the United States might be President. The child of American parents born in foreign lands, would be a natural-born American citizen, but not a nativeborn citizen,+AN+EXPOSITION+ON+THE+CONSTITUTION+OF+THE+UNITED+STATES&ei=AJDlTIn6DIOjnQflh-SGDQ&ct=book-preview-link&pg=PA87&id=P1wUAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II


Your post on the definition of a "natural born Citizen" provided by Albert Orville Wright is noted.

As the famous case of Minor v. Happersett said:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166, 22 L.Ed. 627, 21 Wall. 162 (1874).

As we can see, Minor recognized that there were various “authorities” who defined a "natural born Citizen" differently. But the Court was clear in stating what definition presented no doubts at to the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." While not citing Vattel by name, the Court verbatim provided the definition found in Vattel's The Law of Nations, Section 212. That definition is a child born in the country of citizen parents. Surely the Framers would have used a definition of "natural born Citizen" which presented no doubts as to its meaning, a definition that was immutable, binding, and which evoked universal consent because it was based on universal law, especially given the immense importance of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military and the need to provide uniformity and at the same time satisfy the competing interests of the new "Free and Independent States."

What is generally binding in our legal system is authoritative and on-point decisions of our courts, especially those of our U.S. Supreme Court. What commentators or "some authorities" have to say about some legal issue is just opinion that goes to inform our legal process. But until our courts adopt that opinion, it is not binding.

Albert Orville Wright is just one of these “authorities” who would fall within the "other authorities" of whom Minor spoke. His word is not binding but only informative. It should also be noted that Wright did not provide any case citations or historical sources to support his expansive definition of a “natural born Citizen.” From what he wrote, it appears to be his personal opinion. Additionally, it appears that Wright was not a lawyer or judge formally trained in the law but rather a congregational clergyman, educator, and author.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Wright also writes in the same book: "Naturalized citizens, who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted, were made eligible to the office of President. But none of that class are now alive, and none have ever been elected President. This provision is therefore now practically obsolete." Id. at 167. This statement is clearly wrong given the generally accepted definition of a naturalized citizen as being one who acquires a new citizenship and allegiance and thereby renounces the old after birth. We know that none of the early presidents were born "natural born Citizens" of the United States. They were all "natural born British subjects." They became "citizens of the United States" after they were born through the Revolution, adherence to that Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Treaty of Peace of 1783. Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830). These early Presidents were born with allegiance to the British Crown and became "citizens of the United States" by transferring their allegiance to the United States after birth, doing so directly, if adults, and indirectly through their parents, if minors. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Peace of 1783 evidenced the consent of both the United States and Great Britain to that transference and new allegiance to the United States. Hence, they were in every sense naturalized "citizens of the United States." To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case, including Wong Kim Ark v. United States, that has adopted a definition of a "natural born Citizen" as put forth by Wright. So as we can see, we cannot always adopt the opinions of writers simply because they took the time to write a book.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Anonymous said...


What struck me was the fact that Wright defined NBC according to Vattel and then proceded to imply that a child born to mixed nationality parents could somehow after the fact at age 18 make themselves a NBC by choice. To me, that is in direct contradiction to the law of nature which the term is taken from.

The 2nd thing that struck me was Wright's definitive use of the word native and that its use is not in direct correlation with the term natural as used in the A2 qualifications.

And finally, what was most amusing is that this treatise came to me via a freepers obot who had quoted this part of the treatise (pg 286):

All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized.

Anonymous said...

The framers never intended a quote “national citizenship” to be instituted because that would centralize the power & usurp the sovereign states as England did under feudal law. US citizenship was to be defined according to the sovereign citizenship laws of the states. If you were not a citizen of one of the states, you were an alien and therefore not eligible for "national political citizenship" which is what US citizenship is. It is merely a political term.

The Origin and Growth of the English Constitution: The making of the ... By Hannis Taylor

And yet at the time of the adoption of the present constitution the sense of nationality had not sufficiently developed to permit the statement of the ultimate and inevitable conclusion, that every citizen of the Union is primarily a citizen of the United States, and not merely of one of the states which compose them. The one particular in which the first confederation rose above the older Teutonic leagues after which it had been patterned was embodied in the new principle of interstate citizenship which it originated. Section one of article four of the articles of confederation provided that, “ The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states.&rdquodquo; The substance of that provision was reproduced in section two of article four of the present constitution which provides that, “ The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Beyond that point the framers of the more perfect union were not prepared to go. They did not attempt to do more than establish an interstate citizenship to which they imparted the qualities of uniformity and equality by denying to every state the right to discriminate in favor of its own citizens as against those of any other state.

For further reference on this see also: History of federal government By Edward Augustus Freeman,+Federal+Government&hl=en&ei=hAfnTM2sC9uLnAfryeXuDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Please note that Dred Scott v. Sandford told us that, like no longer being able to naturalize citizens in the United States, the states could no longer create "citizens of the United States" in the new nation. The states could continue to make citizens under the Constitution and laws of that state. But those state citizens would not be "citizens of the United States" which would be recognized in all the other states as a "citizen of the United States." In other words, each state could still make its own citizens but that status only existed within that state and could not be imposed upon other states. On the contrary, if someone was a "citizen of the United States," he or she was a citizen in every state.

Anonymous said...

The entire progressive movement began to rapidly spread in the early/mid 19th century after most of the original founders were gone. I believe the Dred Scottt decision was a very calculated move as well as the assination of Garfield and the rise of the usurper Arthur who appointed Gray. St George Tucker actually saw it soon after the revolution. British loyalists in America were already stirring the pot:

Blackstone and Hume have made tories of all England, and are making tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. These two books, but especially the former, have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte, and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his Maker.

TITLE: To Horatio G. Spafford.
DATE: 1814

The exclusion from the courts of the malign influence of all authorities after the Georgium Sidus became ascendant, would uncanonize Blackstone, whose book, although the most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue, has been perverted, more than all others, to the degeneracy of legal science. A student finds there a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of the law. The distinction between these, and those who have drawn their stores from the deep and rich mines of Coke on Littleton, seems well understood even by the unlettered common people, who apply the appellation of Blackstone lawyers to these ephemeral insects of the law.

TITLE: To Judge Tyler.
DATE: 1812

Blackstone's commentaries are the biggest thorn to US history & law

Anonymous said...

In other words, each state could still make its own citizens but that status only existed within that state and could not be imposed upon other states. On the contrary, if someone was a "citizen of the United States," he or she was a citizen in every state.

Exactly, without the states, there would be no federal govt or national citizenship. Not to mention the fact that Congress was only given the power to regulate who came from abroad & their offspring, they have no regulation powers over those born to already existing citizens hence the term natural. This is part of the new world order progressive push. Open borders thus open society. Have you noticed how often you read in modern literature or hear spoken from so called progressive constitutional scholars that one does not have to have a permanent residence in the US to be a citizen? This is utterly ludicrious that has absolutely no foundation in the laws of any civilized society. Good news though, Hemmer on FOX today had Rep King from IA on discussing the birthright citizenship problem and Hemmer was very open to what Congressman King was saying about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th. Totally shocked me, I expected Hemmer to shut down the good congressman just as Kelly & O'Reilly did to the constitutional definititon of "natural born", but he completely let King have the floor.

Robert said...

An open letter to my Senator:

The Honorable Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,

The US Supreme Court will have the opportunity this November 23 to either affirm or reject the authority and integrity of our Constitution via their response to the Kerchner case.

It is clear beyond question that Mr. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen by any legal definition that has ever been accepted in our history and that he is illegally sitting in the White House. Mr. Obama doesn't even meet his own definition (see Senate Bill re: McCain eligibility). He has failed to qualify.

So far, all cases brought before the courts have been rejected not on their merits, but due to the courts' assertions that citizens have no "standing" regarding the constitutional guarantee that the president must meet certain and specified requirements.

In contrast you will find that the Kerchner case is uniquely positioned to address this issue not only via its thoroughly researched and justified claims and impeccable establishment of standing, but also through its timing which places the claims against Mr. Obama, et al at their optimum periods of ripeness.

Your place in history will be largely defined by how you address this issue.

I ask that you strongly and forcefully place your support behind our Constitution and the People.

As unpleasant as it may be to contemplate the removal of a sitting president, please remember that Mr. Obama has been acting with full knowledge as he has brought our nation to this terrible precipice.

Senator, there is no middle ground in this issue. Those who stand with Mr. Obama stand against our nation either through ignorance or purpose. Those who stand purposefully against this nation should bear the full burden of their actions.

Mr. Obama must be removed from office and all of his actions nullified to maintain the integrity of our Constitution. Any other action will only serve to further threaten the security of our nation and its promises of freedom.

Those who stand with our Constitution also stand with Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Madison, Adams, Hancock -- all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, all of those who framed our Constitution, all of those who have given thir lives to the cause of freedom, and with WE THE PEOPLE!!!

Senator, this issue can not be ignored. Please stand with the People.

(Name redacted for privacy, but sent to my Senators)

For more information please refer to:

and to: