http://www.scribd.com/doc/21726825/KERCHNER-v-OBAMA-43-NOTICE-OF-APPEAL-as-to-41-RECAP-Opinion-42-Order-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-by-CHARLES-F-KERCHNER-JR-LOWELL-T-PATTERSON-DARRE
Kerchner Appeals!
October 27, 2009 by John Charlton
NATIONAL SECURITY DEMANDS A HEARING ON THE MERITS!
by John Charlton
(Oct. 27, 2009) — Attorney Mario Apuzzo, esq., announced this afternoon at 2:45 PM ET that the Plaintiffs in Kerchner et al. v. Obama & Congress et al.. have appealed their case to the 3rd Circuit Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiffs in the case are Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., of Lehigh County, PA; Lowell T. Patterson, of Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, of Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ.
Mario Apuzzo, esq.
The Appeal challenges the recent ruling of Judge Jerome B. Simandle, of the Federal District Court, in Camden, New Jersy, who recently dismissed the case which was brought against Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetero and the U.S. Congress., to force them to prove that he is constitutionally eligible to serve as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military, as an Article II “natural born citizen.”
The suit specifically sought the publication of his original, vital records proving his citizenship and “natural born” citizenship status.
As many Americans already know, the Plaintiffs recognized that Obama was born a British Subject to a British Subject father; they further contended that Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day since he has never renounced it.
Nevertheless his dual citizenship at birth renders him ineligible for office, since, as Apuzzo’s news release says:
The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the President have sole allegiance to the USA at birth, which Obama does not have. Obama has multiple foreign allegiance claims on him because of his British birth. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen or immigrant to the USA.
The lawsuit seeks a trial on the merits to determine the true facts of Obama’s legal identity and exact citizenship status and requiring Obama to prove to the courts that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which states:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In his press release Attorney Apuzzo explained this important Constitutional issue:
The legal term of art, natural born citizen, is defined by the world renowned legal scholar Emmerich de Vattel in his pre-eminent legal treatise and enlightenment to the world of jurisprudence in the Revolutionary period, The Law of Nations and Natural Law, published in 1758, and which was used by the
founders during the Continental Congress formation of our country and by the framers of our U.S. Constitution, and whose definition of natural born Citizen is incorporated in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Vattel and U.S. Supreme Court decisions agree that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country. Obama’s father was not a citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA. Thus Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.
Finally Attorny Apuzzo described briefly the history of the case, and the ruling of Simandle:
The lawsuit was filed early in the morning of January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn in. The case was dragged out by delays by the government in addressing the case and deciding on whether the case would proceed to a fact finding trial on the merits or not. The court has decided that it will not go to the merits and has dismissed the case using technical and procedural tactics to keep the Plaintiffs from getting to the merits of the charges.
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.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo can be reached at his blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
3 Responses
I believe that one or both of Orly Taitz’s cases now WILL be heard (most likely Keyes v. Obama firstly) — in part due to the Kerchner case.
Orly’s two cases (Fed District Cts. in CA and GA) are pivotally different from Kerchner (Fed District Ct. in NJ). It is no coincidence that Kerchner was dismissed — after waiting many months — right after the the two Orly cases successfully provided avenues to get Obama to account in a way which would NOT throw the courts and nation into constitutional crisis — the big fear of the federal courts (re political question etc.).
Judge Land (Orly penalty) case is currently all about Orly merely showing her case not frivolous (premised on need not to chill the rest of Americans from addressing their constitution). Checkmate against Obama!
Likewise, Judge Carter (Keyes) case does not have to deal with the constitutional nightmare of ousting Obama, that is, merely recovery of damages in fraud tort (even nominal) by Candidate Keyes against “Candidate” (not “President”) Obama will do the job — since Congress and the Dems would be politically compelled to oust Obama. Again, checkmate against Obama!
Were either and/or both Orly cases to move forward (standing is ALL that’s needed since it’s SLAM DUNK that Const Art. 2 requires two citizen parents for POTUS eligibility), it’s all over for Obama, because politically his remaining in the Whitehouse, again, would be completely untenable even for the Dems and Congress.
For example, were Orly to file for Motion for Summary Judgment, premised even on all facts in dispute going for Obama — noting that Obama has declared to the world in what is an admission against interest, that his dad was Kenyan/British citizen on Baby O’s birth — the Courts can take the case without ever having to deal with discovery on the sole legal issue of meaning/applicabability of Const. Art. 2.
This leaves Team Obama really with its last remaining legal argument (noting that Fed. Ct. can get pendant jurisdiction over Keyes’ tort action):
Const. Art 2. “natural born citizen” = “citizen by birth”
Const. Art 2. “citizen” = “citizen by naturalization”
Nice try, but no cigar!
… especially since all the fuss about McCain and the Senate Resolution would be shown.
So, I say take heart — and if I’m wrong that’s the current end of our Constitutional Republic (and could mean the second American Revolution since all other means have been turned back by a Government currently under unconstitutional coup d’etat).
I truly sympathize with Judge Carter, and our prayers should be with him, as he says he reads the internet and is aware of these factors (including the possible RICO implications recently filed by Orly and ongoing scrubbing of Obama-foreign born refernces in the Honolulu Advertiser just last week before our very eyes — and during the pendency of Stay on Discovery (apparently being exploited by the “Government” and Dept. of ‘Justice’, no less).
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/department-of-justice-messed-up-when-they-filed-notice-of-simandles-ruling/
Department of Justice “Messed up”, when they filed Notice of Simandle’s Ruling
October 27, 2009 by John Charlton
LEAD PLAINTIFF IN KERCHNER VS. OBAMA SAYS HIS CASE SUPPORTS PLAINTIFFS IN BARNETT VS. OBAMA
by John Charlton
(Oct. 27, 2009) — During the last 14 months, American citizens motivated by their desire to see the Constitution upheld as the Supreme Law of the Land, have undertaken many disparate and individual actions to demand proof that Barack Hussein Obama met the constitutional requirements of the office for which he ran.
Two such actions are the cases of Kerchner vs. Obama, in New Jersey Federal Court, and Barnett vs. Obama in California Federal Court. The former case was dismissed, when Judge Jerome B. Simandle denied the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit, and jurisdiction to rule in the matter; the latter awaits Judge David O. Carter’s decision on the Motion to Dimiss submitted by the Department of Justice attorneys defending Obama in that case.
Today, Commander Charles F. Kechner, Jr., U.S. Nav., Retired, who has already indicated that he will appeal Simandle’s decision, issued a public statement in support of the plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama.
Which statement reads as follows:
27 October 2009
The DOJ May Have Messed Up In Filing the Last Minute “Judicial Notice” of the Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case Decision into the Barnett/Keyes v Obama Case File
The Department of Justice (DOJ) who is unconstitutionally defending the usurper Obama when it should be defending the Constitution and “We the People” instead may have inadvertently messed up their constitutionally indefensible position and helped the People and the Constitution by filing the Judicial Notice of the Kerchner case decision into the Barnett/Keyes v Obama case. By filing that lame, unconstitutional ruling that Judge Simandle made in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case, and by calling Judge Carter’s attention to that ruling and the Kerchner case in NJ, it possibly opens up the ability and likelihood that Judge Carter may read all the pleadings in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case to understand that case.
And doing so may educate him immensely on the Constitution and U.S. history and U.S. Supreme Court case law on the definition of natural born citizenship.
Despite the lame, unconstitutional decision of Judge Simandle in NJ, if Judge Carter does read all the pleadings of Kerchner v Obama & Congress, the pleadings and legal briefs of Attorney Mario Apuzzo in the Kerchner case does a masterful and extremely good job of laying out clearly and succinctly the natural born citizenship issues and flaws of Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court case law that shows definitively that Vattel’s Law of Nations and Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen” is the correct one and that definition became the federal common law by the high court’s literal incorporation of that definition into several U.S. Supreme Court cases, including the Venus decision in 1814 and the Minor v Happersett decision in 1874.
For every action there is a reaction. If you push a negative too hard it becomes a positive. The DOJ may have gone too far in trying to drive a final nail into the Barnett/Keyes v Obama case in CA and instead indirectly introduced some very strong, very cogently written arguments against their own DOJ position into their case from the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case pleadings in NJ as to why Obama cannot serve as President and Commander-in-Chief, since Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, and thus Obama is not a “natural born” Citizen and is a usurper in the Oval Office.
In addition to that going a “filing too far” by the DOJ, it also opened up an opportunity for the Plaintiff side to file their own Judicial Notice filing, i.e., the 2004 Kenyan newspaper article pointing out that it was quite well known to journalists in Kenya and other countries in Africa in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya. And this was long before Obama even considered running for President and the issue surfaced in the USA as to his reported Kenyan birth.
We will see how this turns out when Judge Carter rules. But it just may turn out that the last minute Judicial Notice inserted by the DOJ may back fire on the DOJ … all to the benefit of our Constitution and We the People. In God we Trust.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
One Response
There’s an additional very important point to make — as to why the Kerchner v. Obama dismissal is actually beneficial to Barnett (Keyes) v. Obama. During the Oct 5 Barnett/Keyes hearing, Judge Carter queried Orly Taitz specifically as to why her case was not filed before Congress tallied the electoral votes in early January or directed to Congressional actions or countering Congress.
Well, Kerchner’s dismissal (albeit the merits against Obama can be entirely valid and even taken as entirely valid) said the court found plaintiffs like Kerchner AGAINST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTION HAD NO STANDING ON THAT — UNLIKE KEYES WHO HAS STANDING IN TORT-FRAUD AGAINST “CANDIDATE” (NOT ‘PRESIDENT’) OBAMA! — so per the Kerchner dismissal, since going against Congressional inaction gave no standing, the issue of not proceeding before Congress acted would have afforded Orly Taitz’s plaintiffs in the position of Kerchner no avenue or relief — all the more reason why standing MUST BE GRANTED at least now (in Barnett/Keyes) OR THERE COULD NEVER BE ANY CASE OF ANY STANDING WHATSOEVER.
Discovery list
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education
Subject: HUGE NEWS! Fed. Judge Carter sets Trial Date for Obama's Eligibility!!!
The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010, just 4 1/2 months from now!
I and many other concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing today in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people.
Judge David Carter refused to hear Obama's request for dismissal today, instead setting a hearing date for Oct. 5, since Obama's attorneys had just filed the motion on Friday. He indicated there was almost no chance that this case would be dismissed. Obama is arguing this lawsuit was filed in the wrong court if you can believe that. I guess Obama would prefer a "kangaroo court" instead of a Federal court! Assuming Judge Carter denies Obama's motion for dismissal, he will likely then order expedited discovery which will force Obama to release his birth certificate in a timely manner (if he has one).
The judge, who is a former U.S. Marine, repeated several times that this is a very serious case which must be resolved quickly so that the troops know that their Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position and issue lawful orders to our military in this time of war. He basically said Obama must prove his eligibility to the court! He said Americans deserve to know the truth about their President!
The two U.S. Attorneys representing Barack Obama tried everything they could to sway the judge that this case was frivolous, but Carter would have none of it and cut them off several times. Obama's attorneys left the courtroom after about the 90 minute hearing looking defeated and nervous.
Great day in America for the U.S. Constitution!!! The truth about Barack Obama's eligibility will be known fairly soon - Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!
Video from the press conference after the hearing coming soon. Congratulations to plaintiffs attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a great job and won some huge victories today. She was fearless!
Jeff Schwilk, Founder
www.SanDiegoMinutemen.com
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109242
A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama's eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.
In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.
No comments:
Post a Comment