Category Archives: Mario Apuzzo

Citizen Wells, Open Thread, 2009, October 12, Barack Obama, Orly Taitz, Leo Haffey motion, Obama thugs, US Constitution, Natural born citizen

FREE LEO THE ATTORNEY FROM JAIL

 

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.

Charles Kerchner, Kerchner v Obama, et al, Mario Apuzzo, Lawsuit, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama’s false birth registration in Hawaii, Bill Cunningham Radio Show, Youtube video

Just in from Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit:

“Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff Kerchner v Obama, explains Obama’s false birth registration in HI is the key to generating all the derivative so called evidence being proffered by Obama, during his appearance on the Bill Cunningham Radio Show, a national talk radio show.

The false registration of Obama’s birth in Hawaii generated all the subsequently displayed and discussed so called evidence, i.e., the newspaper announcement and the newly released index data in the Hawaiian registration system. This radio show was done in early August 2009 but the subject of new information and statements coming out of Hawaii this last week makes this interview relevant and worth re-listening to. All data and statement by and from the Hawaiian Birth Registration office were all based on and premised on what is likely the false REGISTRATION of OBama being born in Hawaii when he was likely born elsewhere since there are no witnesses to his birth in Hawaii, hospital, doctors, or any others. Listen at this link:”

From the YouTube video:

“His grandmother mailed in a form to the birth register in Hawaii, simply stated that Barry was born at home. This way Barry got his citizenship. Later, the birth register printed out registered births for the previous week and sent it to the newspapers. GIGO.

Charles Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit, converts Talk Show Radio Host Bill Cunningham of 700 WLW of Cincinnati, Ohio into a Birther.

Charles Kerchner: “Willie” Cunningham listened to what I had to say and he understood the point I made of how easy it was to fraudulently register a birth as having occured in Hawaii in 1961 and get the birth announcement placed in the paper by the Hawaii Dept of Health, which was routine for all birth registrations, whether truthful and fraudulent registrations by the mother or grandmother. Any birth, real or not, could be done in Hawaii via a mail order form, with no alleged witnesses other than the person signing the form, which was permitted in 1961. I convinced him this needs to be investigated and the original long-form document must be released to document examiners and the public. At the end he said he too was becoming a Birther.””

Orly Taitz, KY officials, Esquire article, August 11, 2009, Obama not eligible, Oath of office, US Constitution, YouTube video, KY Attorney General, Kentucky Secretary of State

Whether it’s Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo or any American citizen, we deserve the protection of the US Constitution and Government officials that recognize their duty under the law. I am fed up with government officials and the MSM disregarding the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land and belittling law abiding US Citizens.
From an Esquire article dated August 11, 2009:

“What Really Happens When You Demand the President Produce His Birth Certificate?
Buzz up!You get a bunch of outrageous people — very nice people, mind you, but frustrated enough to believe anything about Obama — storming the offices of the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the FBI. At the center of it all was Esquire.com’s political columnist, bearing witness to the “birthers” for the conclusion of a two-part series.”

“Then there’s Orly Taitz, queen of the “birthers,” who brings outrageous thinking to a whole new level. This was her at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in Kentucky, which I touched on here last week, well before the town-hall tirades took over the airwaves. This was her four months ago, shouting over the gunfire in a thin, shrill voice:

“I am extremely concerned about Obama specifically because I was born in Soviet Union, so I can tell that he is extremely dangerous. I believe he is the most dangerous thing one can imagine, in that he represents radical communism and radical Islam: He was born and raised in radical Islam, all of his associations are with radical Islam, and he was groomed in the environment of the dirty Chicago mafia. Can there be anything scarier than that?”

At the “birther” booth, Taitz greeted her fans.”

“I made a date to accompany Taitz and a group of “birthers” on a trip the next day to the state capital, where they were going to meet the attorney general and demand an investigation into Obama’s birth certificate. A few minutes later, the man standing in the booth and passing out flyers — Carl Swennson, a computer store owner from Georgia — addressed the gathering crowd. “All right, everybody! If you are from Kentucky and you would like to be a part of a common-law jury to try and indict the usurper, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, all you need to do is step forward and we will hold court here today, right now!””

“We set off in a flotilla of cars. When we got to the state office complex an hour later, it took less than ten minutes for us to get badges and pass through security. A man named George Wilding, the manager of Kentucky’s Public Corruption Unit, led us to a conference room. A few minutes later, we were joined by Bob Foster, Kentucky’s Commissioner of Criminal Investigations.

Then Taitz began to talk, and she did not stop for 15 solid minutes: Obama forged this and his campaign forged that and these are his false addresses and here’s something very strange that Justice Scalia told her at a book signing and here are the 500,000 signatures collected by WorldNetDaily magazine demanding an investigation…

Finally Wilding held up a hand. “Let me just stop you right there. What applies to Kentucky?”

One of the citizens starts showing him documents. “This is clearly his school record that shows that he was a citizen of Indonesia…”

“I don’t understand what that has to do with the Kentucky attorney general’s office,” Wilding repeated.

“He was on the ballot here in Kentucky,” Taitz said.

“That was a federal election. There are federal-election laws. The FBI investigates those. So I believe that your best venue and jurisdiction lies with the U.S. district court and the FBI.”

That’s when Taitz lost it. “I can see that you are hell-bent on doing absolutely nothing,” she said, eyes flaring. “You want to pass the buck.”

“No ma’am. I’m trying to follow the law.”

“I’m going to the FBI and not only reporting Obama, I’m going to report you for refusing to investigate crimes. You have a duty to investigate those crimes! Why are people paying salary for this whole office of attorney general of Kentucky?

To do nothing?”

“I think we’re finished,” Foster said.”

“But Taitz wasn’t finished. She marched her troops straight over to the secretary of state’s office and did the exact same presentation all over again. Then she headed to the FBI to do it a third time. And the whole time, she never stopped talking:”
“But like I said — and this is important to emphasize — all of Taitz’s followers seemed like very nice people. Even Taitz had her good side on the rare occasions when she stopped talking for long enough that it could come out. I saw it when she talked about her three sons, or joked about how glad her husband was to get her out of the house. But there was fear and sadness in all of the “birthers,” and a sense that things were surely coming to an end. And they were willing to believe anything bad that anybody said about Obama, no matter how or implausible or unfair.

It was pus exploding from a wound.”

Esquire article:

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birth-certificate-update-081109 

After I read the article and discerned the attitude of the KY officials, I had had it from the jackasses. So I decided to review KY law and I quickly put up a YouTube video. The attitudes of elected officials and judges in this country  increasingly sickens me.

The US Constitution rules.

Kentucky oath of office administered to Secretary of State:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of Secretary of State according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.”

Quote from jackass above:

“No ma’am. I’m trying to follow the law.”

From the Kentucky Statutes:

“118.176 Challenging good faith of candidate.
(1) A “bona fide” candidate means one who is seeking nomination in a primary or election in a general election according to law.”

“(2) The bona fides of any candidate seeking nomination or election in a primary or general election may be questioned by any qualified voter entitled to vote for such candidate or by an opposing candidate by summary proceedings consisting of a motion before the Circuit Court of the judicial circuit in which the candidate whose bona fides is questioned resides.”

“118.195 Inspection of nomination papers.
All nomination papers filed under KRS 118.165 and 118.365 shall at all times be subject to inspection by any person.”

“118.305 Persons entitled to have name on ballot — Certification of names of candidates — Eligibility of candidates defeated in primary — Notification of vacancy in elective office.

(6) The names of candidates for President and Vice President shall be certified in lieu of certifying the names of the candidates for presidential electors.”

118.325 Nomination by parties by convention or primary election.

(2) The certificate of nomination by such a convention or primary election shall be in writing, shall contain the name of each person nominated, his residence and the office to which he is nominated, and shall designate a title for the party or principle that such convention or primary election represents, together with any simple figure or device by which its list of candidates may be designated on the voting machines. The certificate shall be signed by the presiding officer and secretary of the convention, or by the chairman and secretary of the county, city, or district committee, who shall add to their signatures their respective places of residence, and acknowledge the same before an officer duly authorized to administer oaths. A certificate of the acknowledgment shall be appended to the certificate of nomination. In the case of electors of President and Vice President of the United States the certificate of nomination shall state the names of the candidates of the party for President and Vice President.”

Here is a really interesting paragraph:
“118.581 Nomination of candidates by State Board of Elections.
The State Board of Elections shall convene in Frankfort on the second Tuesday in January preceding a presidential preference primary. At the meeting required by this section, the board shall nominate as presidential preference primary candidates all those candidates of the political parties for the office of President of the United States who have qualified for matching federal campaign funds. Immediately upon completion of this requirement, the board shall transmit a list of all the nominees selected to the Secretary of State and shall also release the list to the news media.
Effective: July 14, 1992″

118.591 Nomination of candidate by petition — Qualification of candidate through filing of notice of candidacy.

(5) In lieu of the petition requirements of subsections (1) to (4) of this section, a candidate may qualify to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot of his political party by filing with the Secretary of State, no later than the last Tuesday in January preceding a presidential preference primary, a notice of candidacy signed by the candidate and either of the following:

(b) Evidence that, by the filing deadline, the candidate’s name is qualified to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot of his political party in at least twenty (20) other states.”

“118.995 Penalties.
(1) Any person who violates any of the provisions of KRS 118.136 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) If the Secretary of State violates any of the provisions of subsection (4) of KRS 118.215, he shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
(3) Any person who violates subsection (5) of KRS 118.176 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(4) If any county clerk violates any of the provisions of subsection (5) of KRS 118.305, he shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
Effective: July 13, 1990”

“119.285 Irregularity or defect in conduct of election no defense.
Irregularities or defects in the mode of convening or conducting an election shall constitute no defense to a prosecution for a violation of the election laws.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but there may be some grey area in KY law regarding presidential elections.

However, the US Constitution rules

Charles Kerchner, Update, August 10, 2009, Kerchner V Obama, Obama British Subject 1961, British Citizen, Obama not natural born citizen

From Charles Kerchner, of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit, August 10, 2009:

10 August 2009 – For immediate release

Obama was a “British Subject” when born in 1961 and is a “British Protected Person” and/or a “British Citizen” to this day. He has multiple citizenships at this time. Two citizenships were acquired at birth, if we are to believe he was born in Hawaii and there are doubts about that since he has not released a copy of his vault form, long form, original birth certificate for examination. If born in Hawaii he obtained U.S. citizenship by his mother and British citizenship by his father who was a British Subject in 1961. Obama also acquired additional citizenships later in life such as while being raised and adopted in Indonesia by his step-father when his mother remarried an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama attended school there registered as being an Indonesian citizen.

This is not what the founding father’s of our nation and framer’s of our Constitution intended for future Presidents after the original generation passed. They wrote and intended that to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our vast military power the man in that office must be a natural born citizen and thus have “unity of citizenship at birth” and sole allegiance to one and only one nation at birth, and thereafter in his life. They did not intend that a person with multiple citizenships could serve in this singularly unique and most powerful office in our federal government and be the Commander in Chief of our military. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA, nor even a permanent resident in the USA. Obama’s father was a transient to the USA and only sojourning here for a few years while attending college. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen of the USA and thus is not eligible under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to be the President. See the two-page spread in today’s, Monday’s, 10 August 2009 issue of Washington Times National Weekly, pages 8 & 9.  Or see a copy of the two-page spread and advertorial at this link and/or the PDF file copy attached:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18352802/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Advertorial-Wash-Times-200900810-pg-89-Obama-is-a-Brit

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Natural Born Citizen, US Constitution, Kerchner update, August 6, 2009, Founding Fathers, Obama not natural born citizen

I received this update from Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit.

From attorney Mario Apuzzo:

“Thursday, August 6, 2009

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “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. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in his, The Law of Nations (1758), a “citizen” is a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a native or indigenes or “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).

The original definition of “natural born Citizen” gives our Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other foreign citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. Having all other means of acquiring other foreign citizenships or allegiances cut off is unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth. Additionally, by requiring the child’s parents to be U.S. citizens best assures that those parents most likely will have absorbed American customs and values which, in turn, they will transmit to their child.

The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President does not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty. It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President. Knowing the President is a “natural born Citizen,” the American people will trust their President with their lives. Finally, such a President can expect that the military will give him or her full trust and obedience.

When President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. This ineligibility has absolutely nothing to do with his race or class but all to do with his being born with multiple citizenships and allegiances and not satisfying the strict eligibility requirements of Article II. If someone believes that today the “natural born Citizen” clause no longer serves any useful purpose, then the proper way to change or abandon it is by way of constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, not by usurpation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.”

Read more about the lawsuit here:

Obama camp censorship, Google, Mario Apuzzo blog, Charles Kerchner, Altered search engine algorithms, Internet cyber attacks on conservative websites

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”

George Orwell, “1984″

 

From Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit, regarding Google attempting to shut down attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog.

“1 August 2009

For Immediate Release

Are Obama and his still fully operating campaign staff and organization, ACORN and its numerous affiliates, and Google via its search engines and staff for its main organization and subsidiaries … engaging in increased cyber-warfare against Obama opponents online?

Censorship by Google and BlogSpot Robots, Altered Search Engine Algorithms, Biased Google Staff, and Internet Cyber-Attacks on Obama Opponent’s Websites and Blogs.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/censorship-by-google-and-blogspot.html

Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress”

“Censorship by Google and BlogSpot Robots, Altered Search Engine Algorithms, and Biased Google Staff. A National Resource and Public Corporation has been Compromised by an Extremely Politically Biased CEO. Other Internet Cyber-Attacks Being Attempted & Orchestrated by the Obots . Some Cloaked and Subtle. Some Not.”

“31 Jul 2009 – Update: Denial of Service (DOS) attacks are being reported at various websites on the net which have been critical of Obama and his lack of eligibility under our Constitution to be the President. The official “TheBirthers.org” website was temporarily blocked for about 9 hours from access by normal users by a coordinated DOS attack late Thursday and early Friday. Others have reported similar attacks. We believe these DOS attacks are being orchestrated via ACORN and affiliated groups using “zombie programs” installed on the computers of 10s of thousands of their members nationwide and even worldwide (they have 1 million members outside the USA) and that these zombie sleeper codes in these thousands of computers are being controlled by a central “war room” operation operated by ACORN and/or the Obama campaign staff, to engage in cyber-warfare against there target of interest, which is still in operation. I believe they also engage paid and/or volunteer ACORN chapter members as bloggers who are turned loose when needed to flood conservative blogs with trolling type messages in any blog where any a thread about the Obama eligitiblity issue is gaining traction or in the news. This internet war room, with its paid bloggers and 10s of thousands of zombie computers world wide, can then send out a simple internet coded command at any time at will to attack any website on the net at any given time with massive, overwhelming numbers of internet “page serve” requests or emails to block access to the site by normal users, and to cause servers to crash and to clog up email in boxes with robotically generated page serve requests and emails. Keep you firewalls and virus checkers up to date and report any DOS attacks to your ISP immediately and request they report it to law enforcement and/or report it yourself directly to the FBI cyber crimes unit for investigation. I believe ACORN and all its affilations and “cousins” should be investigated under the RICO laws. and under international criminal conspiracy crime laws.”

Read more:

 

What to tell the Birthers Bashers, Mario Apuzzo, July 31, 2009, Natural born Citizen, Founding fathers, free of all foreign influence

From Mario Apuzzo, attorney in the lawsuit, Kerchner V Obama, July 31, 2009:

“You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama’s eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

The distinction between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a “citizen” is simply a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. It is this definition of “natural born Citizen” which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth.

Obama’s father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government.”

Read more:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-to-tell-birthers-bashers.html

Kerchner V Obama, Update, July 31, 2009, Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo, Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition

Just in from Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit:

“For Immediate Release:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/filing-announcement-plaintiffs-reply.html

For more details contact Attorney Mario Apuzzo at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress”

Kerchner V Obama, Update, July 28, 2009, Filing Announcement, Defendants filed their reply, Charles F. Kerchner

Last night I received notification from Charles Kerchner, plaintiff in Kerchner V Obama, of a filing announcement from the defendants:

“Monday, July 27, 2009

Filing Announcement: Defendants have filed their reply to Atty Apuzzo’s opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss (MTD).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17727971/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-37-Defendants-Reply-to-Plaintiffs-Opposition-Brief-to-Defendants-MTD

As I read these documents and the docket, the motion decision dates are now scheduled as follows: on or about 3 August 2009 on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit and on or about 17 August 2009 on the Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to get leave from the court for the 2nd Amended Verified Complaint portion of the lawsuit Nunc Pro Tunc, which said motion the Defendants are opposing as the defendants want that 2nd Amended Verified Complaint stricken. Note: The 2nd Amended Verified Complaint was the only one served on the Defendants.

Atty Apuzzo will likely comment more on this later.

For more information and details contact Mario Apuzzo, Esq., at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al”

Learn more here:

Kerchner V Obama, Congress, Lawsuit, Update, July 27, 2009, Washington Times National Weekly, Charles Kerchner update

Just in from Charles Kerchner, the plaintiff in the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit, July 27, 2009:

“The below linked full page advertorial is running today in the Washington Times National Weekly edition on page 9.  This is the second week in a row with the British Born additional key point about Obama … one more of his many flaws in his exact citizenship status, i.e., that:

“Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject”

And of course, as a British Subject at birth, Obama is not eligible to be President and the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces since he is not, and never can be, a “natural born citizen” of the USA as is required under Article II of our Constitution, per the intent of the founders of our nation and framers and legal scholars of our Constitution such as Franklin, Jay, and Washington, and per legal constitutional standards.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17695670/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090727-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-9

If you can, please give some coverage of this new key point in this newer version of the advertorials I have been running, i.e., that Obama was born a British Subject when born in 1961 no matter where he was born. His father was a British Subject and thus under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama was a British Subject at birth too.

While we who have been fighting this battle may clearly know and understand that point, most in America do not, nor do they understand the importance of that point as to natural born citizenship status under Article II of our Constitution, to constitutional standards.

Also if you can, please point out that if your readers wish to see more of this type of advertising in a national newspaper on the issue of Obama’s citizenship flaws, that they can now help the cause and contribute to funding the advertorials at:  http://www.protectourliberty.org/  I thank all the patriots who have contributed to-date to make this latest advertorial insertion possible. With help, more will be done.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress”

As noted by Charles Kerchner:

“If you can, please give some coverage of this new key point in this newer version of the advertorials I have been running, i.e., that Obama was born a British Subject when born in 1961 no matter where he was born. His father was a British Subject and thus under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama was a British Subject at birth too.”