Spread the love


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.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo, esq.
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/

Join the Conversation

No comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. 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).

  2. I have a lot of faith in Mario Apuzzo’s ability to present a convincing case if he is ever permitted a fair hearing, and America deserves to have this issue argued in an impartial court, with both sides presenting their best evidence for a trial of truth.

    If Judge Carter mistakenly follows in Simandle’s footsteps, attorneys Taitz and Kreep are sure to appeal just as Apuzzo has, and Leo Donofrio may yet enter the fray.

    It ain’t over, folks, until Obuma goes away.

  3. Well stated. Excellent. Let’s hope the judge’s at the Federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal still believe in their oath to support and defend the Constitution and the rule of law in this country. Obama has to prove he is eligible. Saying so via an internet image of questionable authenticity does not make it so. We want to see the original, typed, long-form real birth certificate showing the name of the hospital and the doctor who delivered him and witnesses to the birth. Not some computer image of a computer generated form with minimal data on it. Otherwise all we have is a false, fraudulent registration of a birth being placed in the Hawaiian birth system by Obama’s grandmother or mother bases on their testimony only and Obama was born somewhere else, likely in Kenya as reported in that 2004 Kenyan news story and many others in Africa. But only a fact finding trial in federal courts with the strict rules of evidence will get to the bottom of this. We the People demand it. The Constitution and Republic hangs in the balance. The courts must hear this case or one of the cases about Obama’s eligibility to be in the Oval Office, per the Constitution.