Tag Archives: Kerchner v Obama

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.”

Kerchner v Obama, Update, July 21, 2009, Filing Announcement, Plaintiffs’ Brief Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo

From Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit, July 21, 2009:

For Immediate Release:

Filing Announcement for Kerchner vs Obama & Congress lawsuit:

Plaintiffs’ Brief Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

For more information see:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/filing-announcement-plaintiffs-brief.html

Downloadable and Printable copy available at SCRIBD.com:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

See this advertorial in Monday’s, 20 July 2009, Washington Times National Weekly edition for an overview of the issues:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17478578/

Contact Mario Apuzzo, Esq., at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Washington Times, July 20, 2009, Charles Kerchner, Weekly edition ad, Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject, Kerchner v Obama

From Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit, a new ad placed in the weekly edition of the Washington Times for July 20, 2009:

“The below linked advertorial is running tomorrow in the Washington Times National Weekly edition on page 9.  Introduced to the readers of that national newspaper with this issue is an additional key point about Obama and 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/17478578/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090720-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

Kerchner V Obama, lawsuit, July 13, 2009, Washington Times, Mario Apuzzo, Obama not natural born citizen

** See update from Charles Kerchner below **

Look for this ad in the Washington Times on Monday, July 13, 2009, regarding the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit filed by attorney Mario Apuzzo.

Kerchner090713WashTimes

Here is the text of the ad:

 

Obama is NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen and therefore is NOT Eligible to be President

 
The President and CINC of the USA Must be a .Natural Born. Citizen . U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
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
Obama’s Father Was
Not a U.S. Citizen, nor
Was He an Immigrant
to the USA, nor Was
He Even a Permanent
Resident of the USA
The Law of
Nations,Vattel, 1758,
Chapter 19, Section 212:
.natural-born citizens, are
those born in the country,
of parents who are citizens.
Article II .Natural Born Citizen. Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth
Article II of our Constitution has a lot
to say about how a would-be President
is born. .Natural born Citizen. status
requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also
birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens
by birth or naturalization. This unity of
jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent)
in the child at the time of birth assures
that the child is born with sole allegiance
(obligation of delity and obedience to
government in consideration for protection
that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49
F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to
the United States and that no other nation
can lay any claim to the child.s (later an
adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed,
under such birth circumstances, no other
nation can legally or morally demand
any military or political obligations from
that person. The child, as he/she grows,
will also have a better chance of not
psychologically struggling with conicted
allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.
Unity of citizenship is based on the
teachings of the law of nature (natural law)
and the law of nations, as conrmed by
ancient Greek and Roman law; American,
European, and English constitutions,
common and civil law, and statutes; and
Vattel.s, The Law of Nations, all of which
the Founding Fathers read and understood.
These sources have taught civilizations
from time immemorial that a person
gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore
attachment for a nation from either being
born on the soil of the community dening
that nation or from being born to parents
who were also born on that same soil
or who naturalized as though they were
born on that soil. It is only by combining
at birth in the child both means to inherit
these two sources of citizenship that the
child by nature and therefore also by
law is born with only one allegiance and
loyalty to and consequently attachment
for only the United States.

 
Our Constitution requires unity of U.S.
citizenship from birth only for the Ofce
of President and Commander in Chief of
the Military, given the unique nature of
the position, a position that empowers
one person to decide whether our national
survival requires the destruction of or a
nuclear attack on or some less military
measure against another nation or group.
It is required of the President because such
a status gives the American people the
best Constitutional chance that a wouldbe
President will not have any foreign
inuences which because of conict of
conscience can most certainly taint his/
her critical decisions made when leading
the nation. Hence, the special status is
a Constitutional eligibility requirement
to be President and thereby to be vested
with the sole power to decide the fate
and survival of the American people.
Of course, the status, being a minimum
Constitutional requirement, does not
guarantee that a would-be President will
have love and fealty only for the United
States. Therefore, the nal informed and
intelligent decision on who the President
will be is left to the voters, the Electors,
and Congress at the Joint Session, to
whom hopefully responsible media and
political institutions will have provided
all the necessary vetting information
concerning the candidate.s character and
qualications to be President.
Through historical development, unity of
citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is
not required for U.S. born citizen Senators,
Representatives, and regular citizens under
the 14th Amendment and Congressional
enactments. In contradiction and which
conrms the Founding Fathers. meaning
of what a .natural born Citizen. is,
naturalized citizens, since 1795, before
becoming such must swear an oath that
they renounce all other allegiances to
other nations. During the Washington

 
Administration, the First Congress
passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in
which it provided that new citizens take
a solemn oath to support the Constitution
and .renounce. all .allegiance. to
their former political regimes. This is
during the time that most of the Framers
were alive and still actively involved in
guiding and forming the new national
government and Constitutional Republic.
Today, we still require that an alien upon
being naturalized must give an oath that
he/she renounces all former allegiances
and that he/she will .support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.. Hence, allegiance
is not simply a thing of the past but very
much with us today. It is important to
also understand that naturalization takes
an alien back to the moment of birth and
by law changes that alien.s birth status.
In other words, naturalization, which by
legal denition requires sole allegiance to
the United States, re-creates the individual
as though he were a born Citizen but only
does it by law and not by nature. This
is the reason that the 14th Amendment
considers a naturalized person to be a
.citizen. of the United States and not
a .natural born Citizen. of the United
States. This recreation of birth status
through naturalization which also existed
under English common law also probably
explains why John Jay underlined the
word .born. when he recommended to
General Washington that only a .natural
born Citizen. (as to say born in fact, by
nature, and not by law) be allowed to
be President. Consequently, naturalized
citizens stand on an equal footing with
born Citizens (who are so recognized and
conrmed by the 14th Amendment or by
an Act of Congress and who can be but
not necessarily are also .natural born
Citizens.) except that they cannot be
President or Vice President, for they were

 
born with an allegiance not owing to the
United States and acquire that allegiance
only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized
citizen, even though having sole allegiance
to the United States, is not Constitutionally
eligible to be President, we cannot expect
any less of someone who we are willing
to declare so Constitutionally eligible.
The Founding Fathers emphasized
that, for the sake of the survival of the
Constitutional Republic, the Ofce of
President and Commander in Chief of the
Military be free of foreign inuence and
intrigue. It is the .natural born Citizen.
clause that gives the American people the
best ghting chance to keep it that way for
generations to come. American people do
not have the Constitutional right to have
any certain person be President. But for the
reasons stated above, minimally they do
have a Constitutional right to protect their
liberty by knowing and assuring that their
President is Constitutionally eligible and
qualied to hold the Ofce of President
and Commander in Chief of the Military.

 
. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Obama is not Article II Constitutionally
eligible to be President. Q.E.D.
. Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lead Plaintiff
Commander USNR Retired

 

If you would like to help with
this lawsuit, please contact
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo@erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900
FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Paid for by: Concerned Americans contributing at ProtectOurLiberty.org in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit.

 

** Update and clarification from Charles Kerchner 7/13/09 **

“To clarify and help people find the correct newspaper in print, you may wish to change the headline to read, “Washington Times National Weekly edition”, instead of just using the name Washington Times.  Some may think it is in the daily paper which it is not, and buy the wrong paper.  I chose the National Weekly edition since it reaches all the movers and shakers nationwide.  It is sold in major book store news stands.  It also has about 100,000 paid subscribers nationwide who in general are the very political aware people in this country. It is also read by leading conservative writers and spokes people on radio and TV.  I hope it stirs things up in DC.”

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lehigh Valley PA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Kerchner v Obama, attorney Mario Apuzzo, July 4, 2009, US Constitution, standing, immunity, Obama not eligible, Obama is a dictator, Youtube video

Barack Obama is not president of the US

Why?

Obama is not a natural born citizen

Obama is a usurper and a dictator

Obama took the office of the presidency of the United States by lies, deception and tactics resembling those of a dictator. Obama was not vetted by the DNC, any state elections office or the United States Congress. No judge that has been presented with the alarming evidence against Obama and no evidence to support his eligibility has done the job they swore to do. Uphold the US Constitution.

Mario Apuzzo filed a lawsuit on February 2, 2009, representing Charles Kerchner and others against Barack Obama, et al. Here are some excerpts from the lawsuit:

“Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. He served 33 years in the U.S. Naval Reserves as both a Commissioned Officer and an Enlisted person.”

“It is plaintiff’s duty to support and defend the United States Constitution pursuant to that oath. Additionally, while currently not statutorily subject to recall, by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency, the President and/or Congress could order people in plaintiff’s status of service to be recalled. Should plaintiff be recalled to active duty, he would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in
fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.”

“To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has investigated or held hearings and verified that Obama ever established and proved conclusively that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

The defendants have requested more time and received it. Their latest ploy alleges that the plaintiffs have no standing and that the defendants have immunity. On June 28, 2009, Charles Kurchner and Mario Apuzzo were interviewed on the Chalice radio show. This video includes some clips from the audio and some documents from the legal wrangling.

Listen to the entire Apuzzo and Kerchener audio beginning approx at 82:00 minutes:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/06/29/The-Chalice-Show.mp3?guid=1ca3a577-5720-4bd9-96f1-9b68f7b2027d

View the court documents at Mario Apuzzo’s website:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Listen to the Chalice show here:

http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.com/

Clarification of original filing timeline (provided by commenter ramjet767)

“To the Editor:

Just noticed another important point both in your article and in the accompanying YouTube video description paragraph and in the video itself on a slide.  The Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit was filed very early in the morning of 20 Jan 2009, 9+ hours before he was sworn in, not in February.  It was later amended twice with the latest amendment, the 2nd Amended Complaint being filed on 9 Feb 2009.  See the copy of the 2nd Amended Case filing document headline which clarifies that the original suit was filed on 20 Jan 2009. You can see that in the headline at this link:”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

Kerchner v Obama, Mario Apuzzo, Lawsuit, Update, May 18, 2009, Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009

From Mario Apuzzo website,  May 18, 2009:

“Monday, May 18, 2009

Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009

Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit – On 18 May 2000 I filed a Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009. The defendants have already had almost three months to answer, move, or otherwise respond. Regular citizen defendants get 20 days. The government normally gets 60 days. They have already had almost 90 days. What they are asking for would get them to over 120 days before having to answer or otherwise move. In our opinion, they have had an adequate amount of time to answer or move or other wise respond. Thus I have filed our opposition to any further extensions of time to answer or otherwise move on this case. More on that in a subsequent post.

Link to a copy of the Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15610545/

Link to view Advertorial on page 11 in 18 May 2009 edition of Washington Times National Weekly:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15611836/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com”

More here:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/