Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

July 20, 2010

The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to 3rd Circuit – Attorney Apuzzo Files his Response to the Show Cause Order

The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to Third Circuit – Attorney Apuzzo Files his Response to the Court’s Order that he Show Cause Why the Court Should Not Impose Defendants’ Damages and Costs Against Him

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34567772/03-09-4209-Appeal-Atty-Apuzzo-Files-Kerchner-Response-to-Court-s-Show-Cause-Order-for-Damages-Costs

Posted by:
Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
July 19, 2010
###

Advertisements

June 30, 2010

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Receives Kerchner v. Obama/Congress for Decision

As I have already reported, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (retired), Lowell T. Paterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., have filed a legal action against Barack H. Obama II, in both his private and public capacity as putative President of the United States. They have included claims against Congress, former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

First, they argue that the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of a “natural born Citizen” may be found in the law of nations as commented on by Emer de Vattel in his highly influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1758 French edition, 1759 first English edition) and not in the inapplicable English common law. The Framers adopted the “Law of Nations” as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States” but did not so adopt the English common law. We also know that under Article VI, the “Laws of the United States” which are made in pursuance of the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the law of nations, a “natural born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents, meaning both mother and father. Vattel, Sections 212-33. The Kerchner plaintiffs maintain that under the law of nations, Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the military because, being born with conflicting allegiance to Great Britain which he inherited from his non-United States citizen father and possibly to the United States if he was born in Hawaii as he claims but has not shown, he cannot meet the Founders’ and Framers’ constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which requires the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth only to the United States which status is acquired at birth only if the child is born in the United States (or its equivalent) to a citizen mother and father.

Second, they also argue that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was in fact born in Hawaii or any other place in the United States and that even if he were born in the United States, at most he is a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” At the time the Framers adopted the Constitution, they allowed persons who were “citizens of the United States” to be President, provided that they had that status as of the time the Constitution was adopted which we know was 1787. If a child did not have that status at that time, the Framers required that a would-be President be a “natural born Citizen.” There is no denying from a simple reading of its text that the Fourteenth Amendment only grants to individuals, who can acquire by either birth or naturalization in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the equal status of a “citizen of the United States.” The amendment makes no mention of a “natural born Citizen” and surely would not by implication equate a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen” since the Framers in Article II were careful to make a distinction between the two types of citizens and we must give meaning to the words the Framers so chose and a naturalized citizen can be a “citizen of the United States” but cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Amendment only defined the Framers’ “citizen of the United States,” which status created doubts throughout our history but did not define the Framers’ “natural born Citizen” which never created any doubts as to its meaning and therefore needed no clarification through any constitutional amendment.

Hence, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he would fall under the Framers’ “citizen of the United States” status as later defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. But being a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment in 1961 is not sufficient to establish eligibility under Article II which now requires that Obama be a “natural born Citizen.” There is also no denying that being born in 1961, Obama was not a “citizen of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1787. Hence, to be eligible to be President, he must be a “natural born Citizen.” But if Obama was born in Hawaii which we know was to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, he would be a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment but not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. So even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he would not be eligible to be President under Article II.

I have already reported that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia decided it did not need oral arguments on the Kerchner appeal to that Court and that the Court would receive the case on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 for decision on the briefs. I have also been informed that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman. See the latest 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Summary Docket for this case here.

Now we have to wait for the Court to render its decision. We do not know how long it will take to do so. We can only presume that the Court is aware of the critical importance of this issue and that my clients need to know as soon as possible where they stand. Hence, I believe that we can expect that the Court will provide us with its decision in the not too distant future.

If the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner case, the case will most likely return to that lower court for discovery and trial. On the other hand, if the Court affirms the lower court because of standing and/or political question, we will then file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will in any event provide the final judicial word on Obama’s eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 30, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
###

The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to Third Circuit ‘Submitted for Decision’ 29 June 2010 on the Written Briefs with No Oral Argument

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia PA decided to not allow any Oral Argument on the Kerchner v Obama & Congress appeal to that Court. The case was officially “submitted for decision” on the written briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence at the courthouse was not required.

The U.S. Third Circuit Panel of the Court that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.  See the latest Appeal Court Docket entry here.

As we know in the lower court, the Federal District Court, Judge Simandle granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs thus appealed that decision to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Legally, 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 the facts 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 citizenship and conflicting allegiances if he was actually born in the U.S., or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown the facts 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 in Camden NJ or to the Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed in the written briefs presented to both courts. 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.

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 in Camden NJ for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, thus denying our appeal, we will then be filing a Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word on this matter in any event.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo will likely post a statement on this matter later.

Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
June 30, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
###

June 15, 2010

The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today electronically 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.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 15, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
###

March 23, 2010

Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal Reply Brief and Oral Argument Request Filed

I have completed filing the Kerchner Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument. These documents may be accessed at the indicated links. All parties have completed filing all briefs and now we just need a decision from the Court. We will now wait and see if the Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants my request for oral argument and if so when the oral argument will be. If oral argument is granted, it will take place at the United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The courthouse is located right across the street from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.

I want to thank all of my supporters on this blog and all those who visit here to find out what is going on with the Obama eligibility issue.

I will be posting more essays on natural law, the law of nations, Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers, the Courts, and the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause.

Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal Latest Filings:
Appellant’s Reply Brief — http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief
Oral Argument Request — http://www.scribd.com/doc/28781505/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Request-for-Oral-Argument

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 23, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.