Category Archives: Standing

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

Obama eligibility challenged in 2 supreme courts, May 28, 2013, VT or AL, Most liberal or most conservative state, Obama birth certificate natural born citizen status

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison


Obama’s eligibility to be president as a natural born citizen of the US is being challenged in 2 state supreme courts.

In Vermont, perhaps the most liberal state in the US, H. Brooke Paige has challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status due to his father being Kenyan/British.

In Alabama, perhaps the most conservative state in the US, Virgil Goode and Hugh McInnish have challenged Obama’s natural born citizen status since no evidence of US birth has been presented. Mike Zullo of the Arpaio investigation has submitted a lengthy affidavit regarding the image placed on and other records.

We expect a fair proceeding in the AL Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, Roy Moore, is a strong proponent of adhering to the US Constitution and has spoken of the lack of evidence for Obama being eligible.

From Citizen Wells April 1, 2013.

From Attorney Larry Klayman April 2013.

“Obama eligibility appeal in Roy Moore’s court”

“Many cases challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility have come and gone, but now an appeal has been filed with a state Supreme Court led by a newly elected chief justice who has expressed doubt about Obama’s qualification for office.”

“Now, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish are asking the state’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.”

“Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.

In an interview with WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.
Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.”

What may surprise you is the hearing that H. Brooke Paige received before the VT Supreme Court on April 23, 2013.

Despite the best efforts of Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz to obfuscate by distorting VT statutes and election responsibilites and Mr. Paige’s standing, some of the justices presented intelligent questions and statements.

I have had several email exchanges and a lengthy phone conversation with H. Brooke Paige. This quote says much:

“Right Now – “its wait and see” here in the Green Mountains. I have great
confidence (for reasons I cannot reveal) that this question will be
adjudicated to a favorable finality.”

Read more:

Here is a segment of exchanges between Vermont state attorney Todd Daloz and the supreme court justices.


Vermont Obama eligibility challenge update, May 19, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal in VT Supreme Court, Awaiting decisions on multiple issues, Obama not natural born citizen

Vermont Obama eligibility challenge update, May 19, 2013, H. Brooke Paige appeal in VT Supreme Court, Awaiting decisions on multiple issues, Obama not natural born citizen

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“Vattel was quoted by US Supreme Court Justice Livingston in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 8 CRANCH 253 253 (1814)”…Citizen Wells

On May 5, 2013 Citizen Wells reported on the Obama eligibility challenge appealed in the Vermont Supreme Court by H. Brooke Paige.

From the Burlington Free Press April 23, 2013.

“President Barack Obama may be the “de facto” president of the United States, but that doesn’t mean he was elected legally, a former Republican U.S. Senate hopeful told the Vermont Supreme Court on Tuesday.

H. Brooke Paige, appearing without a lawyer before the state’s highest court, said Obama does not meet what the framers of the U.S. Constitution meant when they decreed that a person holding the presidency must be a “natural born citizen.””

On May 7, 2013 Citizen Wells provided analysis of and audio from the VT Supreme Court hearing.

“Standing is a non issue in this case and they damn well know it!

In fact, at least one justice questioned this.

There are at least 3 reasons why H. Brooke Paige has standing.

1. Vermont election statutes clearly give him standing as a voter. Mr. Paige complied with the protocol.

2. Ruling from a lower court, the Superior Court.

3. The Tenth Amendment. If their argument is that the state does not have the power to challenge, then any citizen does.”

On May 7, 2013 Mr. Paige placed the following comment at Citizen Wells.

Dear “Citizen WEIIs”

Thank You for your interest and support! I am well aware of the apparent shortcomings of my “oral argument”. Trust me it is difficult to be on- your “game” with the clock ticking. Oral Argument is really a misnomer as this is actually a “Q and A” affording the Justices the opportunity to seek further information after their through review of the briefs, appendixes( of documents and legal authorities) and the docket of the lower court “the printed case”. It is/was impossible to summarize the 225 years of history and source documents that support my litigation in the 15 minutes afforded each party.

I believe, based upon the Justices’ enquiry, that they had a solid grasp of the six underlying issues that arose as this case proceeded. In addition to the original issue of the candidate(s) constitutional qualification (natural born Citizen[ship]), the following procedural issues arose as the case evolved: 1 – Standing (of the plaintiff), 2 – Jurisdiction (of the Superior Court), 3 – Venue (of the Washington County Court), 4- Political Question, 5 – Mootness. All six issues were thoroughly explored and answered in the Appellants’ Principle and Reply Briefs (over 30,000 words in length – combined) prepared with the expert assistance of Mario Apuzzo, Esq..

As I expressed in my opening statement before the Court, I have proceeded “pro se” out of necessity after an exhaustive search for a qualified Vermont attorney – it was only after every competent member of the Vermont Bar had declined to accept my “engagement” because they did not believe they had the “expertise or resources” to properly prosecute
the case. Regardless of what is ( or has been) said elsewhere, Mario is the patron saint of this “pro se” litigant. Since I first contacted him last June, he has selflessly done everything I required to assist me in properly constructing and presenting my case and I truly believe we have presented evidence, history and law sufficient to allow the Vermont Justices to find favorably as to all six issues.

The Justices treated me and my action with both respect and the attention this important issue deserved . I salute them for having the insight and wisdom to accept the appeal from the lower Court and for allowing it to be presented before the full Court (as opposed to declining to hear the appeal or relegating it to the “rocket docket” !)

H. Brooke Paige
Appellant/Plaintiff, pro se.”

I responded.

“Mr. Paige.
I am in no way criticizing you.
In fact I admire you for your attempts.
It is my job to ask questions and seek the truth.
If I can be of help, let me know.

On May 16 2013, after several email exchanges, I had a lengthy phone conversation with Mr. Paige. It was clear from the onset that he has a solid command of facts regarding the history and laws defining Natural Born Citizen.

Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the  entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

This contradicts the Vermont state attorney who attempted to marginalize Vattel’s description of natural born citizen and portray it as antiquated.

From the emails and the phone conversation, Mr Paige stated that he was awaiting decisions from the VT Supreme Court.

“The Vermont Supreme Court is still contemplating their decision on the
issues = there are six: 1. Standing (of the Plaintiff/Appellant) 2.
Jurisdiction (of the VT Superior Court) 3. Venue (of the Washington County
Superior Court in Statewide and national elections) 4. Political Question,
5. Mootness AND 6. the definition of the Constitutional Presidential
Qualification idiom “natural born Citizen”.”
“If I am successful, in all probability the results (especially “nbC” will
be appealed by the Vermont Attorney General or, more probably, another
state seeking to have the issues resolved by SCOTUS = as the incongruity
of the qualification among the states would be considered untenable.

Right Now – “its wait and see” here in the Green Mountains. I have great
confidence (for reasons I cannot reveal) that this question will be
adjudicated to a favorable finality.

If the Court finds against me on the “nbC” issue alone I will appeal to
SCOTUS. If I fail in the other issues, it will be necessity to proceed to
Federal Court first to resolve “due process” violation issues. (I am sure
that you are aware that the “nbC” issue can only be advanced from the
Vermont Court directly to SCOTUS – as Federal Courts are prohibited from
hearing the qualification issue as their involvement would violate the
Constitutional precept of separation of powers).”

“it is important to understand that issues 1-5 have never been
litigated since they were inserted in Vermont Title 17 (the Election Code)
as to a statewide or national election, therefore aside from the “nbC”
issue that is your primary concern – all elements are important to those
following my action within the political, legislative and judicial spheres
here in Vermont.”

Here is link to an excellent article from George Miller presented at Obama Ballot Challenge on May 15, 2013. It contains much of the same dialogue that I had with Mr.Paige as well as many legal documents.

Robert Bauer et al illegally scheme with Obama, Attorney ethics, Rules of Professional Conduct, Criminal or fraudulent conduct

 Robert Bauer et al illegally scheme with Obama, Attorney ethics, Rules of Professional Conduct, Criminal or fraudulent conduct

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”… US Code, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384

Robert Bauer, husband of Anita ( Mao Tse-Tung is my hero) Dunn, is at it again. He is aiding Obama in his continued efforts to keep his birth certificate and other records hidden. At this point, it must be assumed that Bauer’s primary motivation is to avoid jail time for himself.

 From the Birther Report December 30, 2010.

“This is an update to the Colonel Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, et al, lawsuit that was in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court of the United States website now shows the Petition for Writ of Certiorari was Distributed for Conference of January 14, 2011. The two previous filings by Col. Hollister in the Appeals court embedded below. That makes three eligibility cases against Obama before the Supreme Court in 2010, more details on the other cases here and here.

Click on the screen shot below and check out the law firm that is still defending Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah.

Cycle of Discernment at Free Republic laid out the expensive details;

(Robert Bauer-married to former Obama WH Communications Director Anita Dunn, who professed that Mao Tse-Tung was a personal hero–was appointed last year as White Counsel by Obama and had been the lead atty representing Obama in blocking release of any Obama documents).”

Read more:

You remember Robert Bauer.

From Citizen Wells September 24, 2008.

“44. Mr. Berg then alleges that Barack Obama,
the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve
as President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges
(contrary to fact) that Senator Obama is not a natural-born citizen.”
“Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
607 Fourteenth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003”

From Citizen Wells September 28, 2010.

“Robert F. Bauer was a partner in Perkins Coie before becoming White House Counsel in 2009. Bauer also began defending Barack Obama in eligibility lawsuits in 2008. Perkins Coie has represented Obama for America for over 2 years. Bauer is married to Anita (“I look to Chairman Mao”) Dunn.

Here is the payment total to Perkins Coie from Obama for America for the second quarter 2010.”

Many people are aware of the concept of attorney client previlege. Most people are not aware of the following.

From the American Bar Association.

“A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent”

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession
Rule 8.4 Misconduct
“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.”

I stated in 2008 that Obama had to win the popular vote and scheme his way into the White House to avoid prosecution. Likewise, it is apparent that Robert Bauer is fighting to avoid prosecution of himself.

Standing in court, Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr, Berg v Obama, US Constitution, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen

Standing in court, Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr, Berg v Obama, US Constitution, Obama eligibility, Natural born citizen

Earler today Citizen Wells presented a great interview of Margaret Hemenway conducted by Andrea Shea King. During the interview a reference was made to Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr,a legal expert, and his take on standing in court cases. Here is an article by DR. Vieira from October 29, 2008.
“America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?”
“The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).”

Read more:

Margaret Hemenway Interview:

Philip J Berg v Obama update, August 9, 2010, Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC, Berg as Relator vs. Obama

Philip J Berg v Obama update, August 9, 2010, Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC

From Philip J Berg.

For Immediate Release:  – 08/08/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire         
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                         
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

Berg Files a Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC
in the Case of
Berg as Relator vs. Obama
* * *
No Surprise that Attorney General Holder
Will “not” Prosecute “blacks” in Voting Rights Cases
as he has Refused to Prosecute Obama
in this False Claims Act Case
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/08/2010) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “Constitutional qualifications” to serve as President of the United States.  The Policy of United States Attorney General Eric Holder not to prosecute “blacks” in voting rights cases should be no surprise as A.G. Holder has refused to prosecute Barack Hussein Obama in the False Claims Act [Qui Tam] case of Berg as Relator vs. Obama.

Berg said, “The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, his offices and staff, including the Department of Justice have a clear Conflict-of-Interest in any type of prosecution against Obama.”

“This type case is usually utilized in Medicaid and Medicare cases where fraud is alleged.  In the case against Obama, I set forth that Obama is not “natural born” or “naturalized” but an “illegal alien” and therefore, his term as a United States Senator from Illinois was fraud and the salary and benefits Obama received must be returned to the United States Treasury, an amount in excess of One [$1] Million Dollars.  I base my claim on the fact that Obama was adopted/acknowledged by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia and Obama’s legal name became “Barry Soetoro.”  At age ten [10] when he returned to Hawaii, I allege that he did not go through U.S. Immigration on a U.S. Passport, but did so on his Indonesia Passport,  therefore, an “illegal alien.”  Also, I allege that “Barry Soetoro” [former Barrack Hussein Obama] has never legally changed his name and therefore, he has committed ongoing fraud by using Barrack Hussein Obama.

“The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, reports directly to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; was senior legal advisor to Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential campaign; and served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest existed and still exists with my, Berg’s, False Claim or Qui Tam Case.” 

Berg’s False Claims Act [Qui Tam] Case was originally filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia at the end of 2008.  The U.S. District Court Dismissed the Qui Tam Action and failed to respond to the issue of the Conflict-of- Interest.  Berg Appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who on June 30, 2010, upheld the District Court’s ruling and in so doing stated that Berg failed to demonstrate that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, have a Conflict-of-Interest.  This simply is not the case.

Government employees are required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations, which clearly spell out the issue of Conflict-of-Interest.  Just to name a few, Eric Holder’s placement with Obama through Obama’s campaign are in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder reports directly to Obama, the violator, spells out a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, is a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder was the Senior Legal Advisor to Obama’s Presidential campaign violates the Code of Federal Regulations under Conflict-of-Interests; and the fact Eric Holder served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee are all clear Conflict-of-Interests in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.

For this reason, Berg has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  When a case is brought to the United States Appellate Court, the matter or a three-Judge panel hears matters complained of.  When you request a rehearing En Banc, you are asking for the majority of active Circuit Judges to rehear the case En Banc. 

Many Appellate Courts, who have a large number of Judges and a large caseload, will divide the Cases (Appeals) into divisions or panels for each case.  For example, three [3] judge panels usually hear United States Appeals Court cases.  There are times however, at the request of the panel, or one of the litigants, the case is later reheard by the full court, or, En Banc.  En Banc is a French word that means “the full Court”.  When a Petition for a Rehearing En Banc is filed, the party filing the Petition is asking for the Full Court to rehear the matter complained of on Appeal.

Berg said, “If a Conflict-of-Interest does not exist in this case, Berg as Relator vs. Obama, then the words ‘Conflict-of-Interest’ must be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and from all legal and other dictionaries.”

Berg concluded, “If we are denied a rehearing En Banc, then I will take this Case to the U.S. Supreme Court as the issues presented are far too important not to address.”

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, April 8, 2010, Merits hearing scheduled, June 29, 2010, Newark NJ

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, April 8, 2010

From Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog.

“There has been activity in the Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al Appeal before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia Pa.

1st: Atty Apuzzo sent a letter on 2 Apr 2010 to the Court of Appeals requesting addition to the record the dissertation on natural born Citizenship written by David Ramsay and published in 1789, one of the founders of our nation.
2nd: A letter dated 6 April 2010 was received today from the Court of Appeals scheduling a hearing date for the case on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 in Newark NJ. The court indicated in the letter that it has not yet decided whether it will permit Oral Arguments and that the parties to the case will be notified on that decision at a later time. If Oral Arguments are not permitted the case will be decided on the written Briefs and documents before the court. The appeal will be heard by a panel of three Federal 3rd Circuit Judges the names of whom have not been provided at this time.

Atty Mario Apuzzo, time permitting given his active legal practice, will provide a fuller explanation about the filing he made and letter received today from the court later this evening or tomorrow.

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







April 6, 2010
Mario Apuzzo Esq.

Eric Fleisig-Greene Esq.

RE: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al v. Barack Obama, et al

Case Number: 09-4209

District Case Number: 1-09-cv-00253

Dear Counsel:

The above-entitled case(s) has/have been tentatively listed on the merits on


within the

The panel will determine whether there will be oral argument and if so, the amount of time

allocated for each side. (See Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedures, Chapter 2.1.) No later

than one (1) week prior to the disposition date you will be advised whether oral argument will be

required, the amount of time allocated by the panel, and the specific date on which argument will

be scheduled.

Counsel shall file an acknowledgment form

and advise the name of the attorney who will present oral argument. In addition, please indicate

whether or not s/he is a member of the bar of this Court. Bar membership is not necessary if

counsel represents a U.S. government agency or officer thereof or if the party is appearing pro se.

If the attorney is not a member of the bar of this Court, an application for admission should be

completed, which should be returned to this office without delay.

The hyperlinks for access to the

Tuesday, June 29,in NEWARK, NJ. It may become necessary for the panel to move this case to another dayweek of June 28, 2010. Counsel will be notified if such a change occurs.within seven (7) days from the date of this letter,acknowledgment form, application for admission, andappearance form
are provided for your convenience, and are also available on the Third Circuit

Please file your completed acknowledgment form through CM/ECF.

Very truly yours,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk


Tiffany Washington, Calendar Clerk-267-299-4905

Case: 09-4209 Document: 003110090637 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2010


Link to letter:

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, March 8, 2010, Obama and Congress File Their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner Appeal, Law of standing

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, March 8, 2010

From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress, March 8, 2010.

“For Immediate Release – 8 Mar 2010

Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s Statement about the Opposition’s Brief filed today in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit Appeal now before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Obama and Congress File Their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner Appeal
Today, March 8, 2009, putative President Barack Obama and Congress filed their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner appeal currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The brief may be viewed at this link. We now have until March 22, 2010, to file our reply brief which will address the arguments the defendants have made in their opposition brief.

The defendants brief is a presentation of general statements of the law of standing. Appealing to what other courts have done, the defendants basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all the other Obama cases have been dismissed. Its main point is that the Kerchner plaintiffs have not proven that they have standing because they failed to show that they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury.

The brief does not even acknowledge our factual allegations against Obama which are that he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born and that he has failed to even show that he is at least a “citizen of the United States” by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii. It is strange as to why the brief does not even contain these factual allegations within it, giving the appearance that the Justice Department does not want such allegations to be even included in any official court record.

Nor does the brief acknowledge let alone address what all our legal arguments are on the questions of standing and political question. Rather, it merely repeats what the Federal District Court said in its decision which dismissed the Kerchner case for what it found was lack of standing and the political question doctrine and asks the Court of Appeals to affirm the District Court’s decision dismissing our complaint/petition.

I will be filing my reply to the defendants’ brief on or before March 22, 2010.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 8, 2010

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, February 13 2010, Charles Kerchner lead plaintiff, Mario Apuzzo attorney, Obama and Congress Request and Obtain an Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief

From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress, last night, February 12. 2010.

“For Immediate Release – 12 February 2010

Obama and Congress Request and Obtain an Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal.

As Lead Plaintiff in this case it looks to me like the Defendants are having great difficulty finding a way to knock down the constitutional, historical, and legal arguments made by Attorney Mario Apuzzo in the Appellant’s Opening Brief to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals filed in Philadelphia PA, the city where our U.S. Constitution was written in 1787.

The truth about Obama’s constitutional ineligibility for the office he sits in, and the fundamental law of our nation, the U.S. Constitution, will win the day in the end.

It is only a matter of time before the fraud of Obama in the 2008 election will be revealed. And because of that the progressives are trying to run out the clock to keep him in office as the putative president as long as possible. But in my opinion Obama’s days of deceit and fraudulently occupying the Oval Office are numbered.”

From attorney Mario Apuzzo:

“Friday, February 12, 2010
Obama and Congress Request and Obtain Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner Appeal
On January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants’ Opening Brief in the appeal of Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that the New Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obama’s alleged eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents a non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the Founder’s and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Obama’s father was only a temporary visitor to the United States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen. Not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008) or through other contemporaneous and objective documentation. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept him as a “natural born Citizen.”

The defendants had 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Defendants have requested and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file their brief. The Court has granted them until March 8, 2010 to file it. After that filing, I will then have a chance to file a reply brief within the next 14 days.

You may obtain a copy of my brief at this site . We will be posting here the defendants’ opposition brief after it is filed along with my reply brief. I hope that many of you will take the time to read these briefs so that you may learn first hand what the legal issues and arguments are regarding whether the plaintiffs have standing and/or are precluded by the political question doctrine to challenge Obama on his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, and what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 12, 2010

If you can, help the cause.
CDR Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff
Posted by Puzo1 at 4:56 PM   ”

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Update, February 11 2010, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, North Carolina Board of Elections, NC Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall

From Lt. Col Donald Sullivan, February 9, 2010.

FYI – Following are the comments I made verbatim to the court in my last hearing on the Obama eligibility matter.  The hearing was held in Superior Court in Roxboro, NC, on January 4, 2010, at 2:00.  I have attached the motion to amend which was the subject of the hearing and the documents indicated below.  The judge denied the motion, and I objected on constitutional grounds.  I am not planning to appeal.  That is bad news for Obama.  In my opinion, the movement to unseat Obama due to his citizenship may be the only thing keeping him alive.  When the last two cases go away, there will be no other way to get rid of this imposter than the old fashioned way.  I, for one, hope that does not happen. 
If any of you have any ideas for an appeal, I would like to hear them.  Otherwise, this is the end of the road on this subject for me.  The United States is on a dead-end road as far as I am concerned.  In a conversation today with the opposing counsel for the State of NC, I was told that it didn’t look like there was any way for the court to get jurisdiction over this matter such that an order could be issued to accomplish what I was after.  I told her that I agreed with that assessment if the court continues to disregard its constitutional authority and its oath to support and maintain the constitution.  I could almost hear her sigh on the other end of the line.
It is worthy of note that this case was not dismissed for lack of standing, as were so many others.  It would appear the “class action” status cured that.  It’s just too bad we can’t find a constitutional judge. 
My comments to the court – Sullivan v. NC Board of Education, Wake County File #08CVS21393, Motion to Amend, Vacate or Alter Order (attached), Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith, III, presiding:
Good afternoon, Your Honor, and thank you for hearing this motion to vacate your order in this matter today.  Can I presume that you are familiar with my motion?  First let me remind the court that I am here specially and not generally.  I am not an attorney, nor have I been schooled in the practice of law.  I ask the court to consider the substance of my pleadings and arguments and not the form; as the filings of a litigant acting on his own behalf, such as myself, are not to be held to the same stringent standards as those of a practicing lawyer, pursuant to Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519.  I appear at law and not of law. I don’t call myself a “Birther”.  I call myself a “constitutionalist”. Without the Constitution, there is no lawful State or federal government.  The Constitution of NC at Art. 1, Sec.5, requires us to follow the federal Constitution.  The federal Constitution requires the office of President be held a natural born citizen at Article II, Section 1, Cl. 6.  The key question before us today is the status of  Barack Obama’s citizenship and whether or not this case can go forward to challenge it.
1.                   First, due to the ruling by Judge Cobb this past December in a prior case, I move to voluntarily dismiss the Secretary of State as a defendant, res judicata.
2.                   Presentation of “Born in the USA” – Wong Kim Ark – Three types of citizenship (attached).
3.                   My motion today is based upon new evidence not available to me in our earlier hearing. (Introduce and present exhibits A, B, C, and D as described in the motion.
4.                   I believe the evidence I have introduced today and previously presents a prima facie case that Obama is not eligible for the office of President and was not a viable candidate in the first place.
5.                   Discuss INS affidavit attached to original complaint, my interview with the Secret Service, and “Unintended Consequences”.
6.                   “Overwhelmed by events and by Time”.  I became concerned that our government was no longer bound by the chains of the Constitution many years ago.  But after my hearing before Judge Jim Fox in federal court on March 21, 2003, I knew we were in trouble.  I had filed a case to prevent the war in Iraq due to the failure of the Congress to declare war.  During the House International Affairs Committee review of the Resolution to Authorize the President to use Military Force in Iraq, the chairman, Henry Hyde, said in response to Ron Paul’s amendment that we declare war as required by the Constitution that, “The Constitution has been overwhelmed by events and by time.  It is not relevant.”  I took this denial of the Constitution personally and made it the crux of my complaint.  Although Judge Fox agreed with most of my arguments, he denied my demand for a TRO to order Bush to stop the war which had begun two days earlier.  During the hearing, he admitted that our Constitution was no longer viable, having been overwhelmed by events and by time.  I read to you from the transcript of that hearing.  This quote has been featured in a Hollywood Movie by Aaron Russo.  [I read two pages from the transcript of “Sullivan v. United States, et al, 03CV039, USEDNC, March 21, 2003)
7.                   Read “Obama’s Own Words” (attached).
8.                   Read Judge Smith’s oath to support and maintain the US and NC Constitutions.  Do not raise the “Oath Question”, although Judge Smith’s oath is improper.  State:  “The people elect their judges to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and that of the State of North Carolina, where it is not in contravention thereto.  An unconstitutional act is void from the beginning.  It creates no office and grants no authority.  (16AmJur2d)
9.                   Your Honor, failure to allow your order to be vacated and this complaint to move forward in a proper form to provide relief from this probable violation to our Constitutional law would be a treasonous act, a violation of our oaths to the Constitution and to the people of this country.  There is a constitutional remedy for my complaint and this court at law has the authority to grant it.  While I have admitted previously that the court has no equity jurisdiction in this matter, it does have jurisdiction at law under the Constitution and the authority to grant the relief I seek.
That having been said, it is apparent from the passage of more than a year since I filed this class action complaint for injunctive relief that this is no longer a matter seeking equitable relief, but instead one seeking a remedy at law, in this case constitutional law.  That remedy must be in the form of common law mandamus authority rather than injunctive relief due to the overwhelming events of this past year and the judicial delays starting from day one.  In any event, the relief I am seeking has not changed: An order to the remaining Defendant Board of Elections to validate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be the President of the United States of America.  Therefore, I request this court vacate the order dismissing my complaint and grant leave to amend the complaint as a petition for the common law writ of mandamus in this matter.  Thank you for listening, Your Honor.
[After denying my motion, off the record, the judge asked me if there were any more cases out there on the subject of Obama’s eligibility.  I told him there were two that I knew of, the Barnett case in California federal court, and the recently filed Quo Warranto in DC.]
10.               Jury demand after positive ruling.  [The judge denied my motion, so I didn’t pursue this option.]
11.               POINT OF ORDER – Oath question after negative ruling.  [I presented the discussion of the impropriety of Judge Smith’s oath, along with nearly all other officers in the State, including attorneys and all grand and petit juries.  He took home with him my written summary of the issue along with a copy of his oath, a proper oath by Judge Allen Cobb, a copy of the oath sheet used by the clerk of Pender County criminal court, copies of NCGS 11-11 and 11-7, and a copy of the oath given to attorneys written by the State Bar.  He and the judicial officers in the court seemed genuinely interested in the arguments presented.  I informed the judge that his privilege of immunity was not in effect until he is properly sworn and the oath filed with the county clerk of court.  He assured me he would research my information and inform me as to what action he would take, if any.]

View motion:

Birth Certificate March on Washington, Philip J Berg, February 4 2010, Demand Obama Resign, Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be President, Berg cases pending in the Federal Courts

Just in from Philip J Berg, February 4, 2010.

For Immediate Release:  – 02/03/2010

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005

(610) 825-3134

(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]

Fax (610) 834-7659

Berg Announces

“Birth Certificate March on Washington”
to Demand Obama Resign
as Obama is not
“Constitutionally qualified”
to be President

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/03/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States announces “Birth Certificate March on Washington” demanding Obama resign as President as he is “Constitutionally ineligible” to be President.

Berg is requesting all citizens of the United States to email, fax or mail a “copy” of their Birth Certificate that will be presented to Obama demanding that Obama resign because he has failed to produce his long form [vault] Birth Certificate to show he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President.

Berg related an email he received.  A woman from Texas told me she registered her thirteen [13] year old nephew for school.  When registration was finished, her nephew asked the Principal, “Can I ask you a question?”  The Principal said, “Yes.”  Her nephew said, “How come I had to show my Birth Certificate to register for school, but Obama did not have to show his to be President ?”

Berg said, “That email motivated me to continue to expose Obama for the fraud he is !”

Berg continued, “Since the Courts are taking their time to get to the point of allowing ‘Discovery,’ it is time to motivate the citizens of the United States for a ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to expose the ‘HOAX’ of Obama, the biggest ‘HOAX’ in the history of our country, in over 230 years !”

Berg wants people to email, fax or mail a copy of Their Birth Certificate to:

Email =

Fax      = (610) 834-7659

Mail    =  Obamacrimes
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Berg said, “Then, we will be preparing them to deliver to Obama demanding that he resign from the Office of President as he has not proven that he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President and   that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia.

I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the 3.2 million men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution with our ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to prove that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”   

Berg continued, “I still have cases pending in the Federal Courts.  Go to to see the status of each case.”

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to: