Tag Archives: Mario Apuzzo interview

Mario Apuzzo interview, Supreme Court confers Kerchner v Obama, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity Lou Dobbs question Obama’s eligibility

Mario Apuzzo interview, Supreme Court confers Kerchner v Obama, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity Lou Dobbs question Obama’s eligibility

From  Tim Bueler, early this morning, November 24, 2010.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
24 November 2010

CONTACT: Tim Bueler
media@timbueler.com
(530) 401-3285

WND EXCLUSIVE: U.S. SUPREME COURT CONFERS ON OBAMA ELIGIBILITY

Conducting interviews on this topic is the Washington, D.C staff writer for WND.com, Brian Fitzpatrick.

Is president a ‘natural-born citizen’ as Constitution requires?

By Brian Fitzpatrick
(c) 2010 WND.com

WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a “natural-born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

“This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.”

If the Supreme Court decides to grant the “writ of certiorari,” it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court’s decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the “death knell” for Obama’s legitimacy.

“Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it’s a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else,” Apuzzo told WND.

Apuzzo observed it is “undisputed fact” that Obama’s father was a British subject.

A hearing on the merits “is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don’t know what that would show,” according to Apuzzo. “We might not even get to the question of defining ‘natural-born citizen.’ If he was not born in the U.S., he’d be undocumented, because he’s never been naturalized. We don’t even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that’s hearsay. We have not seen the root documents.”

Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama’s presidency.

“If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office,” Berg told WND. “We would ask for a lift of Obama’s ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don’t spend that kind of money unless there’s something to hide, and I believe the reason he’s hiding this is because he was not born in the United States.”

“The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case,” Berg added. “If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office.”

“They’re taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens,” Berg noted.

Apuzzo is arguing the “Vattel theory,” which asserts that the term “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, “The Law of Nations,” was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term “natural-born citizen” has never been altered.

“The courts and Congress have never changed the definition,” said Apuzzo. “The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him.”

Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel’s definition of “natural-born citizen” in “dicta,” or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the 1814 “Venus” case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel’s definition.

Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.

Previous cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

“To me that’s false,” said Berg. “The 10th Amendment refers to ‘we the people.’ If the people can’t challenge the president’s constitutionality, that would be ridiculous.”

“My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president,” said Apuzzo. “Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients.”

Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

“They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody’s life, liberty and property in the process.

“They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen.”

Link to Article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232073

Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh have all questioned Obama’s birth certificate, natural born citizen status and eligibility to be president. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh stated the following on his radio show:

“The imposter got into the equivalent of the White House in Afghanistan. Did they not ask this guy for some kind of identification? They clearly didn’t. They clearly didn’t ask this guy for his birth certificate. How in the world could they trust in a leader and even give money to somebody who has not been properly vetted? Well, because it happened here in the United States. We have an imposter for all intents and purposes serving in the White House.”

Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo interview, October 16, 2009, Kerchner V Obama, et al, Lawsuit updates, MommaE blog radio

Just in from MommaE Blog Radio, October 16, 2009:

“Hi,
 
I just want to remind you that MommaE Radio Rebels is on tonight!  MARIO APUZZO AND CHARLES KERCHNER WILL BE THE GUESTS TONIGHT!  MARIO AND CHARLES WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THEIR CASE AND ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM THE CALLERS!     It will be open lines for call ins with any questions you have as well as comments!!  It should be a hot, rocking and interesting show!
 
PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR BLOGS OR WEB SITES AND ANY OTHER BLOGS OR WEB SITES THAT YOU ARE CONNECTED WITH AND SEND TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. 
 
I look forward to seeing you all there!  Link, time and call in number for the show is below.
 
http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels
 
Call In # 347-237-4870
 
5:30 PM Pacific Time
 
6:30 PM Mountain Time
 
7:30 PM Central Time
 
8:30 PM Eastern Time
 
I hope to see you all.  Please join us in the Chat room!
  
MommaE”

 

A recent article by attorney Mario Apuzzo and information on Kerchner V Obama
“Why Should a Reputable Attorney Pursue the Obama Eligibility Issue?

I have been asked by one pro-Obama commentator on my blog who calls himself “kris” why a reputable attorney would pursue eligibility litigation against our putative President, Barack Obama.

In his argument, the commentator makes several correct statements. He is correct in stating that “Wong Kim Ark, while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen of the United States,’ simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.'”

He is also correct in stating that the Founders never defined in the Constitution what a “natural born Citizen” is. What the commentator does not state is that the Founders believed in a Creator, who to provide order and justice, gave society natural law. That natural law manifested itself in the minds and hearts of men. What society was, who its members were, and what the ends of society were to be were all revealed through that natural law. Hence, there was no reason or motivation for them to write down what a “Citizen” or “natural born Citizen” was. Given the task of creating a new society after having won a revolution, for them it was intuitive that a “citizen” was a member of the new society and the children of the first citizens would in the future be the society’s “natural born citizens.” They also provided for others to join the new society in the future through naturalization and the children of those so joining the society would also be “natural born citizens.””

Read more:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-should-reputable-attorney-pursue.html