Also, please cast your votes to Help the Cause to get the word out:
1st: Vote for Mario to be a guest on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch TV show: Please add your vote here (in addition to making a comment if desired) to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for Mario Apuzzo. Don’t just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-
The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court. The case will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence is therefore not required.
The Court also informed me that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.
The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.
Of course, it is our hope that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.
From Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress, January 24, 2010.
“I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong!”
I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama’s eligibility issue in the Main Stream Media, print press, and in the leading Conservative Talk Show radio stations. I believe that the RNC and the DNC were complicit in subverting Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as to the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President, i.e., the person eligible for that office must be a “natural born Citizen”, i.e., one born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country such that the child born has singular and sole allegiance at birth to the USA and no citizenship at birth with any other country via his parents or due to the place or location of birth. A natural born Citizen needs know law or resolution of Congress to give or clarify citizenship status. Natural born Citizenship status can only be obtained by the facts of nature at the child’s birth. This is natural law. This is what the founders and framers of our Constitution required for the singular and very powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the military. John Jay and George Washington put that requirement into the Constitution for exactly the reason that the person serving in that office would have no foreign influences on him/her at birth due to the facts and circumstances of his/her citizenship at birth. Only “natural born Citizenship” in the USA per natural law guarantees no other allegiance or citizenship claims by an another country at birth. If you are born on the U.S. soil of parents who are both citizens, no other country can claim you as a Citizen of their country and you are only governed by the laws of the USA at your birth. This is natural law as written by Vattel in 1758 in his legal book, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”. This book was used as a reference to set up our new new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.
Both parties put up questionable candidates in 2008 as to their birth citizenship and then the covered up for each other and helped shut down the media and talk radio totally via their respective high contacts in the media industry and elected officials within the sitting Bush administration and in Congress as well as within their own respective presidential campaign organizations. Though shalt not talk about the presidential constitutional Article II eligibility issues was the word put out by all the powers to be in Washington DC and the USA media. It was reported that threats were even made to certain conservative talk show radio hosts in the last quarter of 2008.
And it continues to this day, imo, and is most obvious with the stone silence and “cone of silence” and occasional mocking comments made by the talk show hosts about the eligibility issue questions if mentioned briefly by a guest now and then on Fox News. The approach on Fox News is to ban the topic. Other networks such as MSNBC simply mock the movement continually using Saul Alinsky’s tactics from Rules for Radicals rule number 5, ridicule, to stifle all open, serious, and public debate on the issue and to scare off any one in political power from broaching the subject. Anyone even just mentioning this issue is pounced on for the ridicule treatment by the press. This shut down of a free and full “on air” debate of the Obama eligibility issue with serious scholars and legal experts representing each side (such as my attorney, Mario Apuzzo) being allowed on the air together with someone from the Obot side to debate this issue openly is being orchestrated at the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official type contacts in various powerful positions both today and back in Dec 2008 and early Jan 2009. Whispers in the hallways allude to grave consequences if one breaches this subject seriously on the air ways. The RNC silenced opposition in the conservative talk show radio and elsewhere in late 2008 which has enabled Obama to take power virtually unopposed as to addressing his constitutional eligibility in any serious manner in public debate via the national media. The leadership of the RNC at the highest levels, imo, shut down members of their own political party in Congress and via using their contacts in the highest levels of government, they helped shut down conservative talk radio and TV hosts with innuendos and and whispers of the consequences if this subject surfaced for discussion in a major way on their shows. They were told to keep the eligibility issue and the so called “Birthers” banned on their callers list with special instructions to the call screeners to keep them off the air. The RNC powers to be and their political connections used their power to do this to cover up their own subverting of Article II of the Constitution via putting up a candidate of their own with questionable natural born Citizenship status as their candidate for President. The big liberal media anointed Obama (a hard core progressive and Socialist) and then anointed McCain (a progressive light) because they knew McCain had a citizenship issue of his own and thus would keep him silent about Obama’s. And it worked. A “cone of silence” was dropped on the eligibility issue in the DC media and Congress and elsewhere in American to cover up for what both parties were doing, subverting Article II of the U.S. Constitution in the 2008 election. Listen to this radio show interview for more details.”
Just in from Charles Kerchner, lead plantiff in Kerchner V Obama, Congress, November 14, 2009.
“The Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit has been appealed and is now formally Docketed by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA as docket number 09-4209. Copy available via this link.”
Just in from Charles Kerchner, plaintiff in Kerchner V Obama, October 27, 2009.
“Kerchner Appeal Filed with Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA
This is to give notice that today, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 2:19 p.m., I filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA of Judge Jerome B. Simandle’s dismissal of the Kerchner et al. v. Obama & Congress et al. case.
Recently, the Hon. Jerome B. Simandle decided the Kerchner case, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. As I explained, through the dismissal, Judge Simandle avoided having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible for the Office of President and Commander in Chief.
In the Kerchner complaint/petition, we allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same, citing E. Vattel’s, The Law of Nations (1758) and John Jay’s letter of 1787 to then-General George Washington regarding providing a strong check on keeping foreign influence out of the Office of Commander in Chief by requiring that only a “natural born Citizen” occupy that critical and powerful office. As a naturalized citizen cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, neither can Obama. It is important to understand that the Court did not rule in the Kerchner case that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because of jurisdiction (Article III standing and prudential standing) and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous. By the Court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the Court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications. As I have shown in my essay entitled, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html, the Court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is my hope that the public will take the time to read the Kerchner complaint/petition and the legal briefs that were filed supporting and opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss so that it can learn first hand what the Obama ineligibility case is really about and draw an intelligent and informed decision on whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
The case is now with the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia PA which court we hope will decide the real Kerchner case and thereby reverse the decision of the Federal District Court. The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” which would make him eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. It is our position that because Obama was born with conflicting allegiances and citizenships at birth (British and U.S., if he was born in Hawaii), he cannot be President and more so Commander in Chief of our military men and women.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
October 27, 2009
Posted by Puzo1 at 12:15 PM ”
The REAL case will soon be going to the higher courts on appeal, and then to Washington DC ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the case the higher courts will hear on the merits will not be the imaginary straw-man version the case that Judge Simandle presented in his Opinion this week. The REAL case is about a core, basic, black-letter written, verbatim clause in the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, as to who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of the military per our founders and framers of the Constitution. Our Constitution is the guarantor of our Liberty! We cannot let any part of it be ignored by a Usurper. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide this historic Article II case based on its merits, or our Constitutional Republic is history. And said history and “We the People” will record well and ultimately hold directly accountable those who are actively directly involved and also the enablers who are attempting to destroy our Constitution and Republic and participating in the cover-up. The facts and truth can only be sealed and hidden so long. Sooner or later the Obama fraud and cover-up will all be exposed. The truth will be told in a court of law and Obama and his enablers will be judged and held accountable for what they have done.
“A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications. As we have seen, the Court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is my hope that the public will take the time to read the Kerchner complaint/petition and the legal briefs that I filed supporting and opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss so that it can learn first hand what the Obama eligibility case is really about and draw an intelligent and informed decision on whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We are now working on filing our appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia which court we hope will decide our case dispassionately.”
Attorney Mario Apuzzo called me a few minutes ago. Judge Simandle has granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. More on this later. Mario will post some initial comments in the blog but he still has to read the Judge’s decision in full. I also need to read the full decision. But we will definitely appeal.
Like in the Battle of Long Island in the Revolutionary War, we have lost a battle. But we have not lost the war. The real decision on this will ultimately be made by the U.S. Supreme Court on the real crux of this matter … which is a legal issue, i.e., the legal question of what is a Natural Born Citizen per Article II of our Constitution per original intent, and is Obama one. I say he is not. Read this as to why:
Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.
The Hon. Jerome B. Simandle of the Federal District Court in the District of New Jersey at 10:39 a.m., on October 21, 2009, filed his long-awaited opinion dismissing the Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. complaint/petition. In the complaint/petition, we allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. We also allege that even if he was so born, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of which makes him ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We also allege that Congress violated it constitutional duty under the Twentieth Amendment to adequately investigate and confirm whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an “injury in fact.” It added that plaintiffs’ alleged injury is “only a generally available grievance about government” and “is one they share with all United States citizens.” Finally, it said that plaintiffs’ “motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. . .”
By way of footnote, the Court said that even if the plaintiffs could show that the Court had Article III standing, they would not be able to show that the court should exercise jurisdiction because prudential standing concerns would prevent it from doing so.
Finally, the Court again in a footnote said that it cannot take jurisdiction of the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Congress has acted constitutionally in its confirmation of Obama for President because the matter is a “political question” which needs to be resolved by Congress. The Court said that there simply is no room for judicial review of political choices made by the Electoral College and the Congress when voting for and confirming the President. The Court added that the plaintiffs’ remedy against Congress may be achieved by voting at the polls.
It is important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because of jurisdiction and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous. Given the nature of the Court’s decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief.
As promised, plaintiffs will be filing an appeal of Judge Simandle’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In the case of constitutional issues We the People and/or the Constitution created by We the People are sovereign. The fundamental law of our nation, the Constitution, can only be changed by amending it by the process provided in that Constitution, not by a branch of the federal government usurping or ignoring it. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by itself and certainly not with a simple majority vote. It takes a vote of 2/3 the members of Congress to put forward such an amendment to the several states and ratification by 3/4 of the several states of our nation. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. All rights and power not given to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the several states and to the People. See the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights for the details on that fact. We the People created the federal government enabled by the founding document, the federal U.S. Constitution. The Congress or the President cannot arbitrarily ignore the U.S. Constitution and those branches of the federal government cannot hide behind sovereign immunity. For if they can the Constitution is then no longer the supreme law of the land and the Congress and the President have placed themselves above that supreme law. We would no longer be a nation of laws if the supreme law of the land can be ignored and not enforced by the whims of the simple political majority in control of Congress.
I believe that Article I, Section 6, clause 1 protects the individual Senators and Reps from arrest and/or charges due to their speech and debate. It does not grant sovereign immunity to the Congress as a whole or the Senate as a body or the House as a body to totally ignore the Constitution, the “fundamental law” as Vattel describes such laws, and the foundational law of our federal government and nation. The sovereign power in our Republic is “We the People” and the Constitution we established to limit the power of the Federal Government, and thus the Congress which is part of that. Thus the Congress as a body in our government is not sovereign and thus cannot have sovereign immunity regarding charges that it as a body did not do its constitutional duty and/or ignored parts of the constitution. Who or what is the USA. It is the several states and We the People and the Constitution. It is not the Congress and it is not the President. The Constitution is the supreme and sovereign law. Congress is not sovereign and neither is the President and thus they cannot use sovereign immunity to betray and undermine the constitution. If the Congress is sovereign, then Congress would be the ultimate power and even be above the constitution. That is not our system of government. And that is not what Vattel taught either and wrote about a republic with a written constitution. The elected officials are our representatives and we acquiesce to them to run the government as long as they obey the Constitution and not ignore any part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and that these elected representatives act in a way to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our patriot ancestors and many who have served since fought and died to obtain and keep for us. The written Constitution is supreme and sovereign as that contract was established by We the People acting through the several states. And it states it takes 3/4th of the several states via agreement of the People of those states speaking through their respective legislative body to change that sovereign law, the U.S. Constitution.
We the People are the sovereigns and the Constitution is the supreme, fundamental, sovereign law in our federal system. The President and Congress are not above the law. No executive order or statutory law passed by them is supreme to the Constitution and the inalienable rights of We the People. I did not swear an oath to defend a man or any particular person serving as the President or a piece land. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We the People retain the ancient right of the sovereign, which is us in our system, to bring a Quo Warranto charge against a usurper Putative President. And I did so in my lawsuit. Any order or law made by Congress or anyone else in our federal government which stands in the way of We the People’s inalienable right to protect our Constitution, which we created, from a usurper must fall. Those laws must fall by the wayside as subservient and that they are not applicable to blocking our inalienable rights and cannot be allowed to block the People getting answers in the federal courts to Constitutional questions. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so.
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.””
“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.”