Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. represents CDR Charles Kerchner and three other plaintiffs in the case Kerchner v. Obama & Congress

30 September 2010, 8:00 P.M. EDT

CONTACT: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Tel:  732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: apuzzo@erols.com

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit.

JAMESBURG, NJ – (Sept. 30, 2010) – Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC, on behalf of plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell  T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ.  Plaintiffs are challenging the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, which affirmed the dismissal by District Judge, Jerome  Simandle, sitting in the Federal District Court, Camden, NJ,  of plaintiffs’ lawsuit in which they charge that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has NOT conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is Article II,  Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and that he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born Citizen of the United States

Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother.  Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama’s father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident. Obama’s father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship. According to this lawsuit, Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiance and loyalty and is therefore  not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the President to have unity of citizenship and sole natural allegiance to the USA from the moment of birth, which Obama does not and cannot have. This was a national security issue to the founders and framers. Obama has multiple foreign allegiance claims on him because of his British citizenship which also converted to Kenyan citizenship at age 2.  Obama was also an Indonesian citizen as a youth when he was adopted or acknowledged by his Indonesian step-father when he married his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

The lawsuit seeks a trial on the merits to determine the true facts of Obama’s legal identity and exact citizenship status and to require 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.

The legal term of art, natural born citizen, is defined by the world renowned legal scholar, Emer de Vattel, in his pre-eminent legal treatise and enlightenment to the world of jurisprudence in the revolutionary period, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, and which was used by the founders by the Continental Congress during the 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 U.S. 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.

The original 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 courts have decided that it will not go to the merits and have dismissed the case using technical and procedural tactics to keep the Plaintiffs from getting to the merits of the charges.

By the lower Courts finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the lower Courts were 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 conclusively 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. Being a born “Citizen of the United States” is a necessary part but is NOT sufficient to be an Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States”.  We have asked the relevant questions and provided for the U.S. Supreme Court in our Petition various reasons why it should accept this case and promptly resolves this constitutional crisis.

–more–

A copy of the Petition for the Writ of Certiorari may be viewed and downloaded at this site.

For a copy of the Petition and more information about the lawsuit see these links:

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-at-250-am-20Jan2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09Feb2009

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17748032/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Docket-Report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22556305/Docket-Report-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-U-S-3rd-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Philadelphia-PA

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

http://www.protectourliberty.org

For additional comments or information please contact Mario Apuzzo, Attorney at Law, 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, NJ, 08831, Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax:
732-521-3906, Email: Apuzzo@erols.com

60 Responses to "Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit"

  1. kittycat   Friday, October 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM

    I really don’t think this is quite true, 4freedom.

  2. 4freedom   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 7:39 PM

    The Hawai’i C.O.L.B. (now called Certification of Live Birth) is the only “birth certificate” that the state of Hawai’i issues to anyone since 2001. There is no official purpose, including the issuance of a US passport that cannot be accomplished with a Hawai’i C.O.L.B.

    Access to Barack Obama’s original, vault copy, long form birth certificate without his permission for its release can be accomplished via subpoena.
    Under HRS 338-18(b)(9) a vital record can be released to “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

  3. MichaelN   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM

    Check again.

    HRS338-13 DOES exclude a ‘part thereof’ which IS what a COLB is.

    4freedom says:
    Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 12:17 PM

    I just checked Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-13 and it does not say what you have claimed it says:
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm

  4. MichaelN   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 3:41 PM

    HRS338-13 excludes ‘part thereof’ which is what a COLB is, from being ‘considered for all purposes the same as the original’
    Here is the full text of the statute where I have marked (A), (B) & (C) as the THREE different certfied forms the HDoH ‘SHALL’ issue.

    My comments are in [ ]

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a

    (A)certified copy of any certificate, [ an image copy of the original] or

    (B)the contents of any certificate, [ALL the contents of the record] or

    (C)any part thereof.[ a COLB]

    (b) Copies of the [B]contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    .

  5. Bob1943   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 12:20 PM

    Quote from Harry H:

    “So please, Pixel Patriot, read Mario Apuzzo’s petition to the Supreme Court and realize that the birth cert IS INDEED the issue, in part.”

    I agree, if the Constitution wasn’t being trashed there would be no need for the BC. However, many Americans whose eyes glaze over at the mention of “natural born citizen” will take notice of proof of Barry not being born in the USA, most likely in Kenya.

    Both natural born citizenship and Obama’s real long-form birth certificate are very important, as are the “what if’s” of Barry’s apparent adoption by Lolo Soetoro, and the Indonesian citizenship listed on his school records from Indonesia.

  6. 4freedom   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 12:17 PM

    I just checked Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-13 and it does not say what you have claimed it says:
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm

  7. Harry H   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 11:17 AM

    Oh, in my most recent comment I failed to address another Pixel Patriot fallacy: “Remember, the BC is not the issue; it is the dual nationalities which Obama publicly admitted to before the election,” PPatriot said. We have to learn to count to two here. There are TWO basic requirements to be a natural born Citizen that are in play re Obama:

    1. Born in America.
    2. Have an American father.

    Yes, by his own admission Obama fails to meet #2, but so far that has not been sufficient to get Obama out of the White House. So let us press the issue of #1: where is the birth certificate? Answer: Kenya, as indicated by many sources including the birth cert obtained by Lucas Smith. Not only is the birth cert so powerful that by itself it could prove Obama an alien, which even the least informed of the populace could understand, but if authenticated by Congress it would force Obama to resign or compel Congress to declare him to be unqualified.

    So please, Pixel Patriot, read Mario Apuzzo’s petition to the Supreme Court and realize that the birth cert IS INDEED the issue, in part.

  8. Harry H   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 10:44 AM

    Pixel Patriot seems determined to ignore or misrepresent my argument (Oct. 1, 12:45 p.m.) for making Sarah Palin Acting President in 2010. He cannot seem to grasp what I stated in my previous reply to his diversionary rhetoric about Palin’s political demerits. I was not talking about 2012 at all, and I did not address Palin’s politics at all.

    To repeat: ” Please note that I was not talking about electing Palin to that post but about her being made acting president by Congress pursuant to Amendment 20, Section 3.”

    My premise was that we need not sit wringing our hands while waiting for the lethargic wheels of justice to turn in our favor at the Supreme Court. Nor do we have to seek impeachment. We need to seek congressional hearings ASAP, which, if Obama were found to be an alien, as I believe the evidence indicates he is, would virtually compel Congress to declare Obama to be constitutionally unqualified for office, thereby bringing Amend. 20, Sec. 3 to the fore. At that point the logical person for acting prez would be Palin, for reasons I explained earlier.

    My argument had nothing to do with political calculations for or against Sarah Palin. However, I do agree with Pixel Patriot that ideally Palin should have done more to openly challenge Obama’s eligibility, though she would have been crucified in the media for doing so. She could have filed a Quo Warranto petition in the D.C. District Court long ago–and still could, the time is ripe–since she would have an office in the White House right now if not for Obama’s fraudulent election. McCain couldn’t file QW because his own eligibility is questionable. In lieu of filing her own QW, Palin could have joined a lawsuit as PPatriot says, but she is a politician and probably decided that it was not politically expedient for her to go up against BO in court at the time.

    But let us give Palin credit for speaking up last fall by saying that she thought it was legitimate to question Obama’s eligibility. That is a country mile farther than McCain or Huckabee or Romney has been willing to go. We could do a whole lot worse than Sarah Palin for president in 2012 and for ACTING PRESIDENT IN 2010.

  9. Pixel Patriot   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 3:34 AM

    Harry H says:
    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 11:49 PM
    Pixel Patriot, when I said “credentials” I was speaking in the context of constitutional qualifications, specifically eligibility. What is debatable about Sarah Palin’s eligibility for the presidency?

    Harry,
    Granted she probably does meet the Art II Sect 1 Clause 5 requirements, but who is to say…her, you, the MSM? What if she decides to run for POTUS in 2012 and submits an online digital copy of a scanned image of a COLB? What if that submission is rejected by her SOS and she then submits a long form birth certificate (“accepted” and not just “filed”) but it is past the cut-off date established in the requisite guidelines for candidates? Unless she can overturn the decision in any appeals process she would “fail to qualify”. All we are looking for is a fair even playing field.

    Not all states have an even playing field:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMt-Rr7v8zU

    In my opinion, Sarah Palin has put a higher priority on her “electability” than her support for upholding her oath as a Governor where she swore to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” She either knows (or should) that Obama is a Usurper and is not daily vehemently calling for action and remedy. She should have signed on as a plaintiff seeking redress for Obama’s ineligibility and also refused all media appearances unless and until she can speak about this on television and radio to the American people. Likewise, Mike Huckabee is on record saying Obama is a citizen and born in Hawaii. For this Huckabee is either complicit in covering for Obama’s crimes via silence or too incomprehensibly negligent to be a candidate for the office of the POTUS and not have a legal research team to definitively determine his opponents’ eligibility when in question as obvious as it was. Remember, the BC is not the issue; it is the dual nationalities which Obama publicly admitted to before the election.

  10. MichaelN   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 3:29 AM

    In English ‘common law’ the ORDINARY subjects (aka citizens in USA) were CALLED ‘natural born subjects’.
    English ‘natural born subjects’ are the equivalent to US 14th Amendment ‘citizens’ (nothing to do with Article II ‘natural born Citizen’
    The English ‘natural born subjects’ were NOT eligible for the highest office of England.
    The US ‘natural born Citizen’ IS eligible for highest office of USA.
    The highest office of England is sovereign, and the eligibility for highest office in England is due to the status of the parents (jus sanguinis)
    Similarly the in the constitutional republic of United States of America, founded on the US Constitution, it sets the CITIZENS as sovereign.
    Consistent with English ‘common law’, the USA draws those eligible for highest office from the sovereign ‘Citizens’, i.e.. Citizen parents.

  11. MichaelN   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 1:02 AM

    English ‘common law’ per Calvin’s case The STATUS DE NATIS ULTRA MARE, relates to establishment of English ‘natural born subject’, none of whom are eligible for highest office in England.
    The highest office in England (the sovereign) relies on jus sanguinis & has NOTHING to do with jus soli.
    A n English ‘natural born subject’ is NOT ELIGIBLE to be sovereign.
    Sovereign of England can only be of the parents (jus sanguinis)
    Because the US Constitution sets the PEOPLE as sovereign, it provides for the those who are to be eligible for highest office in the land (POTUS) to be from sovereign parents i.e. CITIZEN parents.

    Regarding the Hawaiian COLB, Hawaiian Statute 338-13 excludes ‘part thereof’ (a COLB) from being ‘considered for all purposes the same as the original’.

    According to HRS 338-13, a certificate with ‘ALL the contents’ is required, for that certificate to be used as a birth certificate.

    Hence a COLB is not sufficient & is merely a certification of some details that have been filed & are on HDoH records that may have been submitted to HDoH from a relative of the one born, without official verification of those details.

    Hence Obama’s COLB shows that the information was ‘filed’ but has yet to be ‘accepted’ because the information that was filed has not been officially verified.

    There are COLBs of other people that have ‘accepted’, but Obama’s only shows ‘filed’

  12. Hugh   Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 12:08 AM

    To Chance at 10/01/10 at 2:06 PM:

    Both married parents are only required to be citizens before the birth of their child for the child to be a natural born citizen. I cite Perkins vs Elg case. Both Swedish-born parents of Miss Elg has naturalized before Miss Elg’s birth. That fact is stated within the question to be decided before the Court.

  13. Sam Sewell   Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM

    Impeachment isn’t an issue:

    Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

  14. jtx   Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 3:57 PM

    Kagan and Sotomayor both have been asked by the Petition to be recused – and for good legal reasons specified therein.

  15. AuntieMadder   Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 3:56 PM

    Right. There were those with “hands-on” involvement and those who knew at the time but said nothing then or since. Those who didn’t know then must surely know now. Even those who are too stupid to understand what a natural born citizen is and why Oilbama can’t be one know that citizens have questions that should be answered but can’t be because he has, by Executive Order, sealed his personal records.

    In short, there’s not one politician, particularly among those on Capitol Hill, who is innocent; each and every one is a participant in this scam, even if they only participated by saying nothing.

    “Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.” – Thomas Mann

  16. AuntieMadder   Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 3:45 PM

    Actually, they should have done their job properly and honestly and vetted him during or even before the primaries.

  17. A.   Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 11:47 AM

    If the news media did their job properly and honestly wherein they discussed from Obama’s FIRST DAY in office the FACT that he is NOT ELIGIBLE to BE President, let alone a Senator, America would NOT be in the MESS we are in now.
    ++++++++++++++++WHAT IS THE MEDIA AFRAID OF??? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Does it have to do with BEING SCARED (of riots) to discuss the LEGAL FACTS that Obama is INELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT? The LAW is the law. Aside from Obama’s probable Kenyan birth, his father was NOT an American citizen which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Obama to be President (or even a Senator).
    Read the book: OBAMA – INELIGIBLE TO SERVE – LIES, CRIMES AND DEADLY AMBITION” to get the LEGAL FACTS and PROOF that Obama is not Eligible and WILL be REMOVED from office, under the Constitution. (Amazon, Abebooks, Alibris online — easy to order).

  18. Tom the veteran   Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 9:45 AM

    There’s no way Kagan can serve on the Supreme Court to hear the Obama eligibility case. As Solicitor General she was able to deflect every case that was presented; therefore, she must recuse herself. Sotomayor may also have to recuse herself since she was appointed by Obama and owes him!

    This long-legged-mack-daddy is go’n down, hopefully sooner than later!

    For God and Country

  19. Garacka   Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 9:01 AM

    I understand the evident lack of principle by many politicians on this issue, but I think there is some nuance to how you evaluate them. There are several groups:

    a) Those who were knowledgeable of the NBC definition and actively obscured on it such as Pelosi and others in the DNC and the S.R 511 resolution folks Claire McCaskill (D-MOi), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Barack Obama (D-IL) Tom Coburn (R-OK), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), James Webb (D-VA). (Also McCain) (These are the worst).

    b) Those who knew, weren’t actively involved, but still supported it. Only a degree separates them from the para (a) folks above.

    c) Next are those who were uncertain and thus were able to rationalize on the basis that only the Court can clarify. Given the uncertainty of Court opinions, the political risk was much too high especially with the messiah rapture of too many of the electorate. This group later splits into subgroups:

    i) Those who remain uncertain.

    ii) Those who then read up on the research and finely written suits of Donofrio and Apuzzo and others and became convinced, but now consider that they have no role now while the Courts are in play.

    iii) Those who then read up on the research and finely written suits of Donofrio and Apuzzo and others and became convinced, and are quietly strategizing for Congressional action. (I think Palin could fit here as I think she has a very good strategic understanding and does now understand this issue. The wild card with her is whether she knew about the McCain NBC lawsuits which were over with before she was picked)

    iv) Those who read up on the research and are publicly stating their position.

  20. Thomas Morato   Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 7:41 AM

    God help US if this case is actually heard for WE are going to need all the help we can get. Perhaps this is the knife-in-the-back to our Constitution from progressives from the onset.

    Lets pray that the headline does NOT read… “US Supreme Court Rules BHO A Natural Born Citizen.”

  21. thinkwell   Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 12:42 AM

    Impressive use of language. Not an extra bit of substance left out and not an extra bit of rhetoric left in.

  22. Harry H   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 11:49 PM

    Pixel Patriot, when I said “credentials” I was speaking in the context of constitutional qualifications, specifically eligibility. What is debatable about Sarah Palin’s eligibility for the presidency?

    And as correct and admirable as Alan Keyes may be, he was not on the ticket of either major party in what is still a two-party system. There is zero chance that Congress would make Keyes our acting president. Please note that I was not talking about electing Palin to that post but about her being made acting president by Congress pursuant to Amendment 20, Section 3.

  23. plain jane   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 10:29 PM

    Yes, I really believe in the power of prayer. Not to say I believe we should fall down and do nothing, leaving it all in God’s hands, but I do believe that you keep the proper perspective thru prayer.

  24. Texoma   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 10:14 PM

    That is not quite correct. Both parents do not have to be natural born citizens — they just have to be citizens, and this includes naturalized citizens. This is evidenced by the 1939 Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg. Elg was born in NY to parents who had naturalized the year before her birth. The Supreme Court affirmed that Elg was a natural born citizen.

  25. Tim   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 10:04 PM

    Elena Kagan takes her place on high court bench

    Asked if she is ready for Monday, Kagan said, “All set.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9IJ4EN80&show_article=1

  26. Cincinnatus Dogood   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM

    The Chief Justice of the Supremes presides before the Senate during impeachment.

  27. Tim   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:47 PM

    Do you really think this case is going anywhere? Think again!

    JUDGE KAGAN REPRESENTED OBAMA IN ALL THE PETITIONS TO PROVE HIS CITIZENSHIP!!!! NOW SHE MAY HELP TO RULE ON THEM.

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/10/guess-who-obamas-lawyer-is-for.html

  28. Pixel Patriot   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 8:50 PM

    Harry H says:
    Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

    “Sarah Palin would be the logical choice, since she alone from the election ballots is clearly qualified for the office. Biden should be disqualifed because his tenure depends on the fraudulent Obama, whose fraud Bided has aided and abetted. McCain’s nbc status is debatable. We need a president whose credentials are NOT debatable, hence Palin.”

    Palin’s credentials are most definitely debatable and she was NOT the only one qualified for office!

    Harry, I suggest you get up to speed on Alan Keyes:

    Former Ambassador Alan L. Keyes (Maryland)
    “Dr. Alan Keyes, a social conservative who has been a bombastic TV and radio show host, made a GOP third run for President in 2008. However, he quit the GOP in March 2008 and announced he was continuing his candidacy under the banner of the arch-conservative Constitution Party. Keyes previously lost runs for the GOP Presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000, for US Senate in Maryland in 1988 and 1992, and for US Senate in Illinois in 2004. Keyes — who holds a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard and was initially a US Foreign Service Officer — served in the Reagan Administration as US Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (1983-85) and Assistant US Secretary of State (1985-87). Since then, Keyes has been involved with a variety of conservative causes and these days maintains his own leadership PAC.

    Wiki – Keyes filed a lawsuit on November 14, 2008 against the California Secretary of State, then-President-elect Barack Obama, then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden, and California’s 55 Democratic electors,[95][96] seeking to challenge Obama’s eligibility for the US Presidency. The suit requests that Obama provide documentation that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.

    Following Obama’s inauguration, Keyes denied he had been constitutionally inaugurated, refused to call him president, and called him an “usurper” and a “radical communist”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UmNlnPUo5Q
    ____________________________

    I used to equate Palin to “government accountability”. Was I ever wrong! She has completely acquiesced and will not speak out about the eligibility issue. Look folks, we can’t now nor ever pick and choose which laws in the Constitution we will obey and which we will ignore!
    The reason the vast majority of the electorate are not aware of Dr. Keyes, is because the MSM didn’t want you to know about him. I will NEVER vote Palin. I couldn’t in good conscience do so. SHE HAS TOP TIER STANDING, even though the courts are so far refusing to recognize it; none the less she never signed on as a plaintiff on any of the plethora of court cases to stand up for us, “We The People”. Honor and respect must be earned, and however much she had is long gone. Just like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, no matter how much good you think they are doing; they should be held accountable for their silence in our time of need.

  29. B. Johnson   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 7:24 PM

    Expose the Radical Communist Muslim Usurper so he can be removed to prison for treason & fraud with Pelosi & reid

  30. A pen   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 6:41 PM

    This is the final duty of Americans seeking redress from their government. Should the court refuse to hear it then we can say for certain we are under a despotic rule. Act two was long ago put into writing so we would know how to proceed. Basically we hold them in contempt and refuse to obey any law created by the government which runs counter to natural law, the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Better get used to no federal gifts since they are broke anyway and will steal every penny they can to continue to “redistribute wealth” to those who’ve no right to a dime of it but vote for the theft without one ounce of guilt. At one time these panhandlers were a pariah but now they are a voting block. That’s how sad we have become, crime pays.

  31. itry   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 4:29 PM

    Please explain exactly what happens now that this Petition has been filed. Do all the justices (except Kagan and Sotomayer) vote whether to hear it? Or does it just go now to one specific justice for him to decide whether to bring it before the whole group? If so, when will we know which justice has been chosen to make that decision?

  32. Birdy   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 3:04 PM

    The Supreme Court knows the outcome of the case. They know that Obama will be found ineligible if they take the case. That is why they are “evading” all such cases, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has stated. It’s pitiful where the United States has sunk to such a decadent level that even the Supreme Court ignores the Constitution for political purposes.

  33. peggy   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 2:19 PM

    YOU MEAN KAGAN THE SOLICITOR GENERAL WHO WAS ON THE OBAMA DEFENSE TEAM AGAINST THE BIRTHERS…. a kangaroo backwards ” is still an fdr kangaroo. put in place by an unconstitutional 17th amendment…..

  34. AuntieMadder   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 2:07 PM

    I’m not so sure about the two justices appointed by Oilbama because they were confirmed by the Senate. So, it’s not as if he, alone, placed them on the SCOTUS. He nominated them and then the Senate gave them the okay.

    I hope we get the chance to find out who’s right about this. And I hope that I’m wrong.

  35. Chance   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 2:06 PM

    No Megan. He didn’t get it. BOTH parents have to be natural born US citizens as well as the president himself to qualify. Same for VP. These are the only 2 positions where this rule applies in our gov.

  36. AuntieMadder   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 2:04 PM

    Churchill was wrong.

  37. noway2no   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 1:09 PM

    I believe in God’s ultimate control so the (really) big picture is looking good.

    However the charade that Roberts colluded in during the alleged swearing in and the unprecedented meeting with Barry by the Supremes before the inauguration gives me big pause regarding the court’s honor and commitment to our republic over political zeitgeist.

    Prayer. Prayer.

  38. Garacka   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM

    They also may not address any of that, under the view that they would have to wait for a lawsuit brought by some effected party. Health care would probably be 1st if it isn’t rejected 1st on other grounds of unconstitutionality.

  39. Garacka   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 1:02 PM

    I think they would approve funding bills, because they only have to be presented to the President, are initiated by Congress and there may not be a realistic fix for already distributed and spent funds.

    Non-funding bills might be rejected unless they had an effect that can’t be remedied.

    Executive orders and treaties should be easily rejected.

    Federal regulations may be approved, because the Senate endorsed the heads of the departments/agencies that issued them. Alternatively they could disapprove since the regulations were issued as part of their day to day efforts while under the supervision of the pseudo Chief Executive.

    Alternatively, they could reject everything under the view that Congress and a valid President could “re-pass” anything that they would need to, even past funding bills.

  40. Cincinnatus Dogood   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM

    Lets force the issue thru the house and get him impeached. This will bring it before the Senate. If Obama is not a NBC, the Chief Justice wil have to bring the case before the Supreme Court , because of the question of elegibilty they will have to rule on it before they impeach him. If he is not elegible to be POTUS he cannot be impeached. HE would have to be removed by disqualification a seperate process.

  41. Garacka   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:49 PM

    The very last piece of their appeal just before the simple conclusion on page 36 asks that they recuse themselves:

    ” VI. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan should recuse themselves from having any involvement in this case

    We respectfully request that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a) and (b)(4), Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan should recuse themselves from having any involvement or deciding any issues in petitioners’ petition to the Supreme Court in which they are challenging the legitimacy of putative President Obama, the government official who appointed them to their offices. The validity of their appointments can be questioned should Mr. Obama be found not eligible to be President which could cause them to lose their appointment in which they have a financial interest. “

  42. ObamaReleaseYourRecords   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM

    High-profile cases fill Supreme Court docket – Kagan recused from many –

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/30/high-profile-cases-fill-supreme-court-docket/

  43. Harry H   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

    In reading Apuzzo’s petition to the Supreme Court, I was stumped by this section on page 30: “. . . Obama’s title to the Presidency is void ab initio and should therefore never have vested in him from the beginning. Rather, Congress can resort to its powers under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to remove the putative sitting President from office when he is unable to constitutionally exercise his executive powers. Obama’s inability to hold the Office of President because he is not an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is his lack of constitutional authority to do so.”

    That requires the vice president and a majority of cabinet officers to provide a written declaration to Congress that Obama suffers a constitutional disability (ineligibility) and is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” But the VP and cabinet members are Obama’s own hand-picked people, so I would sooner expect a declaration of inability from Obama himself than from the VP and cabinet. And neither of these seem likely unless Congress first declares that Obama does not qualify for office.

    I realize that Section 3 of Amendment 20 was primarily aimed at the period before a prez takes office, but it clearly authorizes Congress to qualify a president-elect. Congress was derelict in its duty to qualify Obama after he was elected, but that does not necessarily mean it forfeited its authority to do so. There is also a big “OR” in Section 3 that could justify Congress exercising its qualifying authority over Obama precisely because, as Apuzzo’s petition above notes, “. . . Obama’s title to the Presidency is void ab initio and should therefore never have vested in him from the beginning.” Moreover, since Obama’s title is void ab initio, his status is really only that of a president-elect and as such is clearly subject to disqualification per Amend. 20.

    So, while hoping for the best from the Supreme Court, we should not slack in seeking redress from Congress. Either immediately after the November elections or in January, congressional committees should begin hearings on Obama’s eligibility. If Obama is found to be an alien, Congress could quickly declare him to be unqualified and appoint an acting president.

    Sarah Palin would be the logical choice, since she alone from the election ballots is clearly qualified for the office. Biden should be disqualifed because his tenure depends on the fraudulent Obama, whose fraud Bided has aided and abetted. McCain’s nbc status is debatable. We need a president whose credentials are NOT debatable, hence Palin.

  44. Garacka   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

    The singularly unique aspect to this case versus all the others is that it was filed in that magic period between Congressional certification of the electoral college votes and the swearing in.

    The Supremes are not stupid and they could (I’m hoping) look at this as a great positive opportunity to provide clarification because it hit the sweet spot on the time line.

    Alternatively, if they don’t look at this as a positive opportunity, they could view this as a necessity to avoid their individual histories as becoming marred by a label of cowards and traitors.

    The fact that they “only” have to pass it to Congress for appropriate action should allow them to deflect some of their cowardice.

  45. ObamaReleaseYourRecords   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM

    If you read page 51 of the Apuzzo filing (http://www.scribd.com/doc/38507779/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Pelosi-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-9-30-2010) you would see it states;

    We respectfully request that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 (a) and (b), Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan should recuse themselves from having any involvement or deciding any issues in petitioners’ petition to the Supreme Court in which they are challenging the legitimacy of the putative President Obama, the government official who appointed them to their offices. The validity of their appointments can be questioned should Mr. Obama be found not eligible to be President which could cause them to lose their appointment in which they have a financial interest.

  46. PJPony   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

    Unfortunately, I agree. There is no one in government willing to challenge Obama on this issue. We are already living in a dictatorship…they just haven’t vocalized it yet. I don’t think it will be much longer until they do.

  47. Megan   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 11:18 AM

    Remember, too, that petitioning the Supreme Court does not guarantee the Court will actually choose to hear it. They can refuse to do so and throw it back as the House’s responsibility.

  48. Megan   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 11:09 AM

    Even Churchill got it about the requirement of eligibility when he told FDR that had his father been an American and his mother a British citizen and not the other way around, that he might have been President of the United States. Now, when Winston Churchill understood the U. S. Constitution, surely the Supreme Court Justices will also. God will smile when Obama’s deck-of-cards-house tumbles down. The Truth shall prevail.

  49. James   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 10:55 AM

    Clear and concise, the rule of Law cannot be, “usurped”. In every effect the Supreme Court must take this issue.

  50. Libertyagain   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 9:53 AM

    POTUS only needs open his records so we can embrace him. It’s that simple. Or is it? Wassup?

  51. hrmfc   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 8:46 AM

    Saint Michael the Archangel defend us in our battle against evil.

  52. Allen   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 8:00 AM

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is right on!

    Common sense knowledge: (1) natural child vs adopted child, acknowledges that the natural child is one whose parents are the biological parents. (2) died of natural causes, acknowledges that a person died of intrinsic biologic causes and not a cause based on soil (where they were living) or any other outside influenced cause.

    The same is true adding the word natural to “born citizen”, acknowledges that citizenship is attained through the biological parents in addition to the soil citizenship.

  53. KBB   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 2:22 AM

    “…And what about the two justices Obama has appointed?…Are they even legitimate themselves?…” ********** My guess is that nothing he’s done will be considered legitimate, including legislation, appointments of any kind, agreements with foreign entities, etc. We’ll even get back the bust of Winston Churchill. Also, I believe Biden, Clinton, Holder, all of them, will be declared to be illegally holding office.

  54. AuntieMadder   Friday, October 1, 2010 at 1:14 AM

    Similarly and for the same reasons, I’m hoping for the best but expecting nothing at all.

    Go, Kerchner and Apuzzo! No matter the outcome, we know you’ve given it your best and your all.

  55. Greg123   Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 11:20 PM

    There is absolutely no way they are going to take this case… unfortunately

  56. itry   Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 9:45 PM

    To which judge was this directed?

  57. jtx   Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 9:15 PM

    Wow!!! A truly dynamite read.

    Kudos and then some!!!

  58. Harry H   Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM

    It would be great if the Supremes would rule on this, but as the poet Marvell wrote, “. . . at my back I always hear Time’s winged chariot hurrying near.” And what about the two justices Obama has appointed? Will they recuse themselves? Are they even legitimate themselves?

    Godspeed to Mario Apuzzo–he and Charles Kerchner are heroes of the first order– but the nation groans now under a grievous wrong that needs to be corrected tomorrow, not next year or the year after that. If Democrats would just realize they have an albatross around their neck, Congress could start hearings sooner rather than later.

    And if the Joint Chiefs would just grasp the fact that they lack legitimate authority without a legitimate C-in-C, maybe they could muster the courage to ask Obama for his credentials as per the Constitution. But press on, Mario, press on.

  59. SallyAl   Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 8:21 PM

    I am praying but not holding out much hope. Not because I have doubts as to Mr. Apuzzo’s ability but because it appears to be a “conspiracy” when coupled with the LTC Lakin court martial which has been even less than a kangaroo court.

    March on the Pentagon and the Supreme Court anyone?

  60. Bob1943   Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 7:54 PM

    Good luck.

    I am glad that Justice Thomas is on video saying the SCOTUS is “evading” eligibility:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08

    We will now see if they continue to evade it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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