Last Night on the O’Reilly factor on Fox, Bill O’Reilly and two fawning females belittled Dr. Orly Taitz and millions of Americans who support the US Constitution and want proof that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Commenter Jacqlyn Smith of this blog has presented a video that explains Obama’s eligibility issues in a manner that even Bill O’Reilly can understand.
From the Youtube video:
“Life and Liberty PAC presents the Proof Positive Series with Molotov Mitchell. In this fifth episode, Molotov takes a closer look at the people Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman call “kooks” and “cowards”, Dr. Alan Keyes and Maj. Stefan Cook.”
“Proof Positive: Just Some Guy”
Just in from Charles Kerchner, plaintiff in Kerchner V Obama, October 27, 2009.
“Kerchner Appeal Filed with Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA
This is to give notice that today, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 2:19 p.m., I filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA of Judge Jerome B. Simandle’s dismissal of the Kerchner et al. v. Obama & Congress et al. case.
Recently, the Hon. Jerome B. Simandle decided the Kerchner case, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. As I explained, through the dismissal, Judge Simandle avoided having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible for the Office of President and Commander in Chief.
In the Kerchner complaint/petition, we allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same, citing E. Vattel’s, The Law of Nations (1758) and John Jay’s letter of 1787 to then-General George Washington regarding providing a strong check on keeping foreign influence out of the Office of Commander in Chief by requiring that only a “natural born Citizen” occupy that critical and powerful office. As a naturalized citizen cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, neither can Obama. It is important to understand that the Court did not rule in the Kerchner case that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because of jurisdiction (Article III standing and prudential standing) and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous. By the Court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the Court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications. As I have shown in my essay entitled, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html, the Court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is my hope that the public will take the time to read the Kerchner complaint/petition and the legal briefs that were filed supporting and opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss so that it can learn first hand what the Obama ineligibility case is really about and draw an intelligent and informed decision on whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
The case is now with the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia PA which court we hope will decide the real Kerchner case and thereby reverse the decision of the Federal District Court. The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” which would make him eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. It is our position that because Obama was born with conflicting allegiances and citizenships at birth (British and U.S., if he was born in Hawaii), he cannot be President and more so Commander in Chief of our military men and women.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
October 27, 2009
Posted by Puzo1 at 12:15 PM ”
The REAL case will soon be going to the higher courts on appeal, and then to Washington DC ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the case the higher courts will hear on the merits will not be the imaginary straw-man version the case that Judge Simandle presented in his Opinion this week. The REAL case is about a core, basic, black-letter written, verbatim clause in the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, as to who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of the military per our founders and framers of the Constitution. Our Constitution is the guarantor of our Liberty! We cannot let any part of it be ignored by a Usurper. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide this historic Article II case based on its merits, or our Constitutional Republic is history. And said history and “We the People” will record well and ultimately hold directly accountable those who are actively directly involved and also the enablers who are attempting to destroy our Constitution and Republic and participating in the cover-up. The facts and truth can only be sealed and hidden so long. Sooner or later the Obama fraud and cover-up will all be exposed. The truth will be told in a court of law and Obama and his enablers will be judged and held accountable for what they have done.
“A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications. As we have seen, the Court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is my hope that the public will take the time to read the Kerchner complaint/petition and the legal briefs that I filed supporting and opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss so that it can learn first hand what the Obama eligibility case is really about and draw an intelligent and informed decision on whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We are now working on filing our appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia which court we hope will decide our case dispassionately.”
Attorney Mario Apuzzo called me a few minutes ago. Judge Simandle has granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. More on this later. Mario will post some initial comments in the blog but he still has to read the Judge’s decision in full. I also need to read the full decision. But we will definitely appeal.
Like in the Battle of Long Island in the Revolutionary War, we have lost a battle. But we have not lost the war. The real decision on this will ultimately be made by the U.S. Supreme Court on the real crux of this matter … which is a legal issue, i.e., the legal question of what is a Natural Born Citizen per Article II of our Constitution per original intent, and is Obama one. I say he is not. Read this as to why:
Attorney Mario Apuzzo Makes Statement Regarding Judge Simandle’s Decision to Grant the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit.
Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.
The Hon. Jerome B. Simandle of the Federal District Court in the District of New Jersey at 10:39 a.m., on October 21, 2009, filed his long-awaited opinion dismissing the Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. complaint/petition. In the complaint/petition, we allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. We also allege that even if he was so born, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of which makes him ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We also allege that Congress violated it constitutional duty under the Twentieth Amendment to adequately investigate and confirm whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an “injury in fact.” It added that plaintiffs’ alleged injury is “only a generally available grievance about government” and “is one they share with all United States citizens.” Finally, it said that plaintiffs’ “motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. . .”
By way of footnote, the Court said that even if the plaintiffs could show that the Court had Article III standing, they would not be able to show that the court should exercise jurisdiction because prudential standing concerns would prevent it from doing so.
Finally, the Court again in a footnote said that it cannot take jurisdiction of the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Congress has acted constitutionally in its confirmation of Obama for President because the matter is a “political question” which needs to be resolved by Congress. The Court said that there simply is no room for judicial review of political choices made by the Electoral College and the Congress when voting for and confirming the President. The Court added that the plaintiffs’ remedy against Congress may be achieved by voting at the polls.
It is important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because of jurisdiction and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous. Given the nature of the Court’s decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief.
As promised, plaintiffs will be filing an appeal of Judge Simandle’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
October 21, 2009
In the case of constitutional issues We the People and/or the Constitution created by We the People are sovereign. The fundamental law of our nation, the Constitution, can only be changed by amending it by the process provided in that Constitution, not by a branch of the federal government usurping or ignoring it. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by itself and certainly not with a simple majority vote. It takes a vote of 2/3 the members of Congress to put forward such an amendment to the several states and ratification by 3/4 of the several states of our nation. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. All rights and power not given to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the several states and to the People. See the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights for the details on that fact. We the People created the federal government enabled by the founding document, the federal U.S. Constitution. The Congress or the President cannot arbitrarily ignore the U.S. Constitution and those branches of the federal government cannot hide behind sovereign immunity. For if they can the Constitution is then no longer the supreme law of the land and the Congress and the President have placed themselves above that supreme law. We would no longer be a nation of laws if the supreme law of the land can be ignored and not enforced by the whims of the simple political majority in control of Congress.
I believe that Article I, Section 6, clause 1 protects the individual Senators and Reps from arrest and/or charges due to their speech and debate. It does not grant sovereign immunity to the Congress as a whole or the Senate as a body or the House as a body to totally ignore the Constitution, the “fundamental law” as Vattel describes such laws, and the foundational law of our federal government and nation. The sovereign power in our Republic is “We the People” and the Constitution we established to limit the power of the Federal Government, and thus the Congress which is part of that. Thus the Congress as a body in our government is not sovereign and thus cannot have sovereign immunity regarding charges that it as a body did not do its constitutional duty and/or ignored parts of the constitution. Who or what is the USA. It is the several states and We the People and the Constitution. It is not the Congress and it is not the President. The Constitution is the supreme and sovereign law. Congress is not sovereign and neither is the President and thus they cannot use sovereign immunity to betray and undermine the constitution. If the Congress is sovereign, then Congress would be the ultimate power and even be above the constitution. That is not our system of government. And that is not what Vattel taught either and wrote about a republic with a written constitution. The elected officials are our representatives and we acquiesce to them to run the government as long as they obey the Constitution and not ignore any part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and that these elected representatives act in a way to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our patriot ancestors and many who have served since fought and died to obtain and keep for us. The written Constitution is supreme and sovereign as that contract was established by We the People acting through the several states. And it states it takes 3/4th of the several states via agreement of the People of those states speaking through their respective legislative body to change that sovereign law, the U.S. Constitution.
We the People are the sovereigns and the Constitution is the supreme, fundamental, sovereign law in our federal system. The President and Congress are not above the law. No executive order or statutory law passed by them is supreme to the Constitution and the inalienable rights of We the People. I did not swear an oath to defend a man or any particular person serving as the President or a piece land. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We the People retain the ancient right of the sovereign, which is us in our system, to bring a Quo Warranto charge against a usurper Putative President. And I did so in my lawsuit. Any order or law made by Congress or anyone else in our federal government which stands in the way of We the People’s inalienable right to protect our Constitution, which we created, from a usurper must fall. Those laws must fall by the wayside as subservient and that they are not applicable to blocking our inalienable rights and cannot be allowed to block the People getting answers in the federal courts to Constitutional questions. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so.
“Last week I published a report which established that Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett was invoking “attorney client privilege” as to the opinion issued to Department of Health Director Fukino wherein the AG reviewed and approved the July 27, 2009 press release which stated to the world that President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citzen”.
Is there no story here? Attorney client privilege was applied to a public statement? How is that possible? The statement was issued in a press release. No privilege applies.
In part 3 of my UIPA report, I detailed the legal statutes and case law in Hawaii that demand the Attorney General opinion be made public.
Parts 1 and 2 of that same report explained how the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) gives “any person” standing to challenge in court the failure of a Hawaii state agency to release records which the public are entitled to.
Furthermore, I also detailed – here and here – how DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo has been running interference by failing to answer proper UIPA requests as is required by OIP administrative rules.
I am preparing a follow up on all of this which illustrates Okubo’s continued failure to answer UIPA requests under OIP administrative rules which has the effect of stopping all research. Additonally, my appeals to the OIP have gone unanswered.
WHERE IS WND?
They are allegedly in possession of a petition with half a million names on it in support of political leaders investigating Obama’s POTUS eligibility. My question to WND is – why don’t you investigate his eligibility by using the very simple devices listed in the UIPA?
All WND must do is write up a copy of the same questions we have asked… email it to Janice Okubo and then follow up with an OIP appeal and a judicial branch appeal (to be expedited to the front of the litigation calendar by statute).
I have always found the WND reporting on eligibility to be very convenient to the Obama administration. They have chosen to focus on the sensational conspiracy theory aspects of the issue rather than the genuine legal problem he faces in that he was a British citizen at birth. But if WND want to genuinely establish themselves as true investigative reporters on the issue of Obama’s eligibility, all they have to do is make an effort to use the public disclosure laws available to “any person”.
I would be happy to write model UIPA requests, model appeals to the OIP and model judicial complaints to be filed in Hawaii Circuit courts for World Net Daily to act upon and to gather information. Not only is Obama’s COLB available for discovery right now via these laws, but so is the Attorney General opinion which guided Fukino’s infamous July 27th press release as well as the original vital records she viewed which allowed her to state that Obama was born in Hawaii.
There’s no reason to be groping around in the dark looking for these documents in federal court rooms by people who have no chance of garnering standing. Standing is granted to “any person” in Hawaii. WND and all the other attorneys involved in POTUS eligibility should be using the UIPA laws in Hawaii, along with the OIP administrative rules and judicial precedent to get the information necessary for the country to have closure on Obama’s place of birth.
If Okubo tries to stonewall WND the way she stonewalls the rest of the public, then she can see her face and her replies spread over the front pages of WND. And WND certainly has the resources to take this fight to the judicial branch in Hawaii.
Hawaii officials appear unwilling to work with me under their laws. I will be filing law suits. But I don’t see why WND and other interested attorneys continue to ignore the UIPA, OIP and judicial branch in Hawaii where standing is not an obstacle. If your fight is to see the Obama birth records, then these laws make that possible.
I see a pattern emerging where the UIPA is ignored and the federal Quo Warranto statute is not followed properly. It feels like a big attempt to keep public eyes away from true legal solutions while impossible exotic suits are brought in federal courts which have no subject matter jurisdiction for plaintiffs with undeniable standing issues.”
I’ve deleted my prior post so that the journal mentioned might reverse course now that I’ve made my point: that information is available from Hawaii for those who will call Hawaii to follow their own public disclosure laws.
No news journal can talk about this issue and deserve any respect if they aren’t willing to use the law available to them for research. Research is to the media just as a hammer is to a carpenter – a necessary tool. We shall now see if they are interested in doing their job or if they will continue to dodge that chore.”
From early in 2008 to the present, those following the Obama eligibility scandals were aware of numerous reports of Obama being born in Kenya and repeated internet scrubbing.
I received the following email from Charles Kerchner at 2:17 AM ET this morning, October 16, 2009. The download that I did this morning apparently did not function properly and YouTube took longer than normal to process the upload to them. Was some force working against me. I do not know.
“Since you are all covering this newly released/discovered webpage for the June 27, 2004 article in your news sites and blogs, and that the Obots are immediately labeling it a fake, I thought I’d share with you a video recorded by a volunteer research on July 9th, 2009 showing the documentation of the existence of the article’s page being found on the net early this year, but contents scrubbed … but then in early July the volunteer researcher found two copies in TWO (2) Way Back Time Machine process archives servers at two locations in the world. The second system has not been revealed as of this time before, as of yet that I know of, while the first one was found and revealed by someone yesterday. This video evidence we had been saving is hereby being shown to you for news release via an attached video piece done by the researcher that shows that the June 27th, 2004 article found is not fake and existed on the net for quite some time and copies of the article were inventoried and were still in the Way Back Time Machine at two separate sites in the world on 9 July 2009. We had not released this piece of evidence until now as we were awaiting getting to the discovery phase of our lawsuit against Obama & Congress, et al, waiting to get past the motion to dismiss made by the defendants and for which the Judge in our case is still not making a decision although the calendar scheduled decision date on that motion was set at August 3rd, 2009 by the court. But at this time we feel we should release this video for all to see.
See attached video proof from the evidence research conducted early this summer by a volunteer researcher for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit that proves that the Obama was Kenyan Born article found was as published in the Sunday Standard newspaper in Kenya on June 27th, 2004. The article is real and was inventoried and archived by the Way Back Time Machine systems in 2004 on two separate world servers in the Way Back Time Machine process. See the video attached.
The Post & Email has been doing a great job of covering Obama and posted an article revealing other news stories about Obama being born in Kenya.
“WIDESPREAD KNOWLEGE OF DIFFERENT BIRTH STORY”
“Even as the Hawaiian Advertiser scrubs their report of January 8, 2006, in which they identified Barack Hussein Obama as born overseas, 2 more African Newsites have come to light which report the former U.S. Senator as “Kenyan-born”. The present report is a follow up to The Post & Email’s previous reports of
Oct. 14, 2009 — AP declares Obama “Kenyan-Born”!
Oct. 15, 2009 — Google’s archive shows Obama’s birth story has changed
To forestall any attempt at Internet revisionism, The Post & Email has cached and image captured the pages of each Nigerian paper, featured in this report.
The Nigerian Observer proclaims Obama “Kenyan-born” on Nov. 4, 2008”
“The Newspage Weekly of Nigeria proclaims Obama “Kenyan-born”
In a piece written after the national conventions of each party had chosen their candidates, that it, at about the beginning of October, 2008: the Newspage Weekly published this article:”
I just want to remind you that MommaE Radio Rebels is on tonight! MARIO APUZZO AND CHARLES KERCHNER WILL BE THE GUESTS TONIGHT! MARIO AND CHARLES WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THEIR CASE AND ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM THE CALLERS! It will be open lines for call ins with any questions you have as well as comments!! It should be a hot, rocking and interesting show!
PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR BLOGS OR WEB SITES AND ANY OTHER BLOGS OR WEB SITES THAT YOU ARE CONNECTED WITH AND SEND TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
I look forward to seeing you all there! Link, time and call in number for the show is below.
I hope to see you all. Please join us in the Chat room!
MommaE”
A recent article by attorney Mario Apuzzo and information on Kerchner V Obama
“Why Should a Reputable Attorney Pursue the Obama Eligibility Issue?
I have been asked by one pro-Obama commentator on my blog who calls himself “kris” why a reputable attorney would pursue eligibility litigation against our putative President, Barack Obama.
In his argument, the commentator makes several correct statements. He is correct in stating that “Wong Kim Ark, while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen of the United States,’ simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.'”
He is also correct in stating that the Founders never defined in the Constitution what a “natural born Citizen” is. What the commentator does not state is that the Founders believed in a Creator, who to provide order and justice, gave society natural law. That natural law manifested itself in the minds and hearts of men. What society was, who its members were, and what the ends of society were to be were all revealed through that natural law. Hence, there was no reason or motivation for them to write down what a “Citizen” or “natural born Citizen” was. Given the task of creating a new society after having won a revolution, for them it was intuitive that a “citizen” was a member of the new society and the children of the first citizens would in the future be the society’s “natural born citizens.” They also provided for others to join the new society in the future through naturalization and the children of those so joining the society would also be “natural born citizens.””
Yesterday, October 12, 2009, was full of thought provoking and scary news items. Glenn Beck on Fox News did a superb job of exposing the Obama camp for treating Fox News, and in essence the American public, as the enemy. Beck also revealed who loses and who benefits from government run healthcare. His use of charts and simple explanations was reminiscent of Ross Perot and his techniques should be used by more politicians. Except for maybe one thing. Most politicians do not want to reveal the facts. Beck also has continued to warn of the decline in value of the US Dollar and has provided ideas to safeguard our assets.
Yesterday we learned that a six year old boy, a youngster who was proud of being in the cub scouts, was expelled from school for bringing his new cub scout knife to school. The young boy now faces the possibility of 45 days in a reform school.
What a bunch of idiots!
Barack Obama has lied and thugged his way into the White House and the six year old boy is expelled!
We also brought you a story about an ACORN worker who was convicted of voter fraud in Ohio.
This is an open thread for October 13, 2009. We are still waiting to find out what is going to happen to Nashville attorney Leo Haffey who was arrested on suspicious affidavits, denied bond in a hearing by presiding judge Gloria Dumas, who received a lengthy formal complaint from the TN Judiciary for illegal and unprofessional behaviour a few days later. Is Leo Haffey a political prisoner?
I recently delved into my archives regarding voter fraud in NC and found a really interesting document. I hope to reveal it to you soon.
I hope to share with you my plans to galvanize the public leading up to the 2010 elections. Please share this thought with bloggers that you trust and respect. We must gel as a cohesive group.
I have a collection of facts and thoughts on health care reform I have worked on. I hope to share that soon.
And speaking of Captain Connie Rhodes, her commanding officers and judge Land, I have not forgotten you either.
This is the second day of our open thread. I am pleased that so many commented and at the same time cared enough to comment and take action to help attorney Leo Haffey to get a fair hearing and justice.
Many are following Orly Taitz, Philip Berg, Mario Apuzzo and others who are trying to hold the nation accountable to the US Constitution and the rule of law. That is a good thing. We must never stop doing so. We must also continue to let congressmen know we are out there and watching them. Actually, not just watching them but scrutinizing them in detail. We will reward those that perform as statesmen and serve their country faithfully and punish those complacent with the status quo and disregard for the public.
I encountered my first person diagnosed with H1N1 Swine flu today. A female high school student.
Citizen WElls 