The thread in the original announcement post was getting too lengthy. Therefore, I have started a new discussion thread for Kerchner v Obama with this posting. Please use this thread to ask questions or post comments about Kerchner v Obama. For your convenience, I have provided a link below to the Amended Complaint posted at SCRIBD.com. There you can read and download it to aid in discussing the case.
Case Doc Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/
Now for some new rules. Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in the case threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this case. Unsubstantiated statements which I determine are false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts of this case, repetitive, argumentative, personal attacks, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics of the case as to my planned tactics or strategies for pursuing this case. That will be only be revealed at the appropriate time in subsequent court filings and in the hearings or trial. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on this case, it may be several hours to 1/2 a day at times before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Thank you for your kind consideration of the purpose of the blog posts about Kerchner v Obama and for your comments.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
For your convenience, here is the access link to the Amended Complaint to the original Complaint which I electronically filed on January 20, 2009, at about 3:00 a.m. Today, I uploaded the document to Scribd.com. You can read, print, and download a personal copy of the complaint as amended from this site.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
On early Tuesday morning, January 20, 2009, at about 3:00 a.m., I electronically filed a Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto on behalf of my clients, Mr. Kerchner, Mr. Patterson, Mr. LeNormand, and Mr. Nelsen, against defendants, Barack Hussein Obama II, United States of America, United States Congress, United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, Richard B. Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi. I filed the complaint in the Federal District Court of New Jersey and is now pending in Camden. It bears Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00253. The complaint seeks to learn the truth about whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. On January 21, 2009, I filed an Amended Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto. The Complaint and the Amended Complaint can be accessed and viewed at the District Court of New Jersey and Pacer web site. I will also be uploading a copy of the documents at this blog site as soon as possible so that they may be more easily viewed.
The defendants have not yet been served. I am now in the process of requesting that the Court issue to me the summonses so that I can then serve as soon as possible the Summons and Amended Complaint on the defendants.
As you know, the courts have refused to reach the underlying merits of the many lawsuits that have been filed on the question of whether Mr. Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Since no case such as this one has ever been filed in the history of our nation, this case would be precedent setting. My clients and I hope that we will get a court to reach the underlying merits of this question so that the American people will be assured that Mr. Obama is their legitimate President and not an usurper. I will appreciate whatever comments anyone has on the procedural posture and underlying merits of this lawsuit.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Article II “natural born Citizen” is a word of art. In our quest to determine what it means when applied to a candidate’s eligibility to be President, we have to consider the particular context or knowledge environment out of which it originated. That means that we have to go back to the context and political and social environment in which the Founders and Framers found themselves. In this endeavor, we must first recognize that the term is found in our Constitution, a document that cannot be so simply changed because of the changing winds of political opinion. Next, we must look to the surrounding political and social circumstances with which the Framers were faced.
During the founding, “natural born Citizen” meant the same thing as “native born citizen.” It is only in later years that the the term “native born citizen” came to mean a child born in the United States without any reference to the citizenship of his or her parents. The term was so used to distinguish a born citizen from a naturalized citizen. But use of the word “native” in this sense caused it to no longer mean the same thing as “natural born Citizen.” In this modern context, “natural born Citizen” means much more than “native born citizen,” for the former also has a connection to the child’s parents and not just to the soil on which the child was born. The connection to the parents is of utmost importance because a child to a great degree “inherits” his/her values, condition, and allegiance from his/her parents. Knowing who a child’s parents are tells us a great deal (of course not all) about the child in this connection. Put all together, this vital information helps the people to know who their would-be leader is and place their trust and national security in his hands. See Oxford English Dictionary for the definitions of “natural born” and “native born.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2160462/posts.
Finally, we must keep in mind that Article II only provides for threshold eligibility standards which are only the minimum requirements to be President. It does not make any further value judgments. Hence, once a would-be candidate satisfies the strict standard of what a “natural born Citizen” is, i.e., born on U.S. soil or its equivalent under military circumstances to two U.S. citizen parents who have acquired that status by birth or naturalization, it is still up to the people to vote for that individual based on their perception of what that candidate stands or does not stand for. In other words, there are no value judgments made by the people when it comes to a Presidential candidate’s Constitutional eligibility requirements, for the Constitution has already given the people what those requirements are. Once that candidate shows the people through objective, credible, and sufficient evidence that he/she meets those minimum Constitutional eligibility requirements, the rest is in the hands of the people.
© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 10, 2009
Amended on November 16, 2009
A would-be President in order to be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II of the Constitution has to be born on U.S. soil (or what is deemed equivalent under military circumstances) to two parents who were U.S. citizens (by birth or naturalization) at the time of his/her birth. Obama cannot be a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii (which is still in dispute) because, while he was born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, his father was a British citizen at the time of his birth. See E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations Sec. 212 (1758); July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution; Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.103,104); Naturalization Act of 1795 (1 Stat. 414) (children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States as opposed to natural born citizens); 14th Amendment; Rep. John Bingham of Ohio speech on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898); Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1938), aff’d 307 U.S. 325 (1939); restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org.
In defining what is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, we are attempting to define what the standard to be President of the United States is as envisioned by the Founders of our nation and the Framers of the Constitution who had just fought a revolutionary war against a foreign power. That standard has to be an exacting one. We are not talking about the requirements to hold any other political office, to be a judge, or to be an ordinary citizen. We are not referring to a citizen defined in the 14th Amendment or by a Congressional Act. The Founders in their wisdom recognized the importance of the highest office in this country and for national security reasons singled it out in Article II, limiting it to individuals who have no conflicts in allegiance to our nation. The President alone has great power which is not the case for any Senator, Representative, or Judge who may not act alone but rather acts as part of a collegial body. The President may act alone, despite surrounding himself with a Cabinet and other political advisors. A non-Article II U.S. citizen (born on U.S. soil regardless of parental citizenship status or naturalized [14th Amendment citizenship] or born abroad to one or two qualifying U.S. citizen parents [Congressional Act citizenship ] is eligible to serve as governor, senator, representative, judge, mayor, etc. but not President.
The question of what is a “natural born Citizen” must be answered not only with the thought of what is “fair,” “popular,” or “politically correct” in our immigrant America, but also with what makes sense from a self-survival standpoint. Perception of how safe our world is today is not relevant in this analysis. When analyzing the national self-survival factor, we have to assume the most extreme examples, existing not only in today’s world but also in that of the future. If there is any doubt on this issue, we must err on the side of national security and not on the side of a liberal philosophy espoused to please all people.
© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 8, 2009
Jamesburg, New Jersey