Category Archives: Chief Justice

Judge David O carter, Obama not president, January 20, 2009, US Constitution, 20th Amendment, Joe Biden president, Obama not qualified, Chief Justice, John Roberts, US Supreme Court, Oath of office

To:

Judge David O. Carter

All judges, congressmen, state election officials

and citizens of the United States

From:

Citizen Wells

On January 19, 2009 I posted the following article regarding the constitutional requirements to be sworn in as President of the United states, POTUS. There is much confusion about this among citizens, congressmen and most scarily, judges. The key phrase below is:

This comes direct from the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.
“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;”

Here is the complete article. Read it carefully.

 

US Supreme Court
Chief Justice

John Roberts

and

President Elect

Barack Obama

 

According to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the
land, Barack Obama will not be President of the United
States at 12:00 noon on January 20, 2009. No Chief
Justice administering the oath of office, no oath sworn
by a “president elect” makes one president. There are 3
mandatory requirements to achieve a legal inauguration.

  • A qualified president elect.
  • Sufficient votes by the Electoral College.
  • Certification and count of Electoral College votes by
    Congress.

 

At noon on January 20, 2009, Joe Biden will be president
until a president shall be deemed qualified. This comes
direct from the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution.
“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;”

Further reading of the 20th Amendment reveals that Congress
may also determine if the vice-president is qualified. This
is part of the scenario of a constitutional crisis that
Philip J Berg and others have warned of. The language of
the 25th amendment includes options that may further heighten
the crisis level.

Amendment XX

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall
end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January,
of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article
had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall
then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every
year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of
January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

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.

 

Amendment XXV

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or
of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become
President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as
Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either
the principal officers of the executive departments or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the
President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not
in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to
assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.

 

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/obama-not-president-january-20-2009-us-constitution-20th-amendment-joe-biden-president-obama-not-qualified-chief-justice-john-roberts-us-supreme-court-oath-of-office/

Kerchner V Obama, Congress, October 25, 2009, Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo, The Real Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case Is On Its Way to the Higher Courts of Justice

Just in from Charles Kerchner of Kerchner V Obama, October 25, 2009.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
24 October 2009

“The ‘Real’ Kerchner v. Obama & Congress Case Is On Its Way to the Higher Courts of Justice”

An essay by Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the recent decision by federal Judge Simandle in the Kerchner v. Obama & Congress lawsuit.

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

I agree with my attorney, Mario Apuzzo.

The REAL case will soon be going to the higher courts on appeal, and then to Washington DC ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the case the higher courts will hear on the merits will not be the imaginary straw-man version the case that Judge Simandle presented in his Opinion this week. The REAL case is about a core, basic, black-letter written, verbatim clause in the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, as to who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of the military per our founders and framers of the Constitution. Our Constitution is the guarantor of our Liberty! We cannot let any part of it be ignored by a Usurper. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide this historic Article II case based on its merits, or our Constitutional Republic is history. And said history and “We the People” will record well and ultimately hold directly accountable those who are actively directly involved and also the enablers who are attempting to destroy our Constitution and Republic and participating in the cover-up. The facts and truth can only be sealed and hidden so long. Sooner or later the Obama fraud and cover-up will all be exposed. The truth will be told in a court of law and Obama and his enablers will be judged and held accountable for what they have done.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

From Mario Apuzzo’s article:

“A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications. As we have seen, the Court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is my hope that the public will take the time to read the Kerchner complaint/petition and the legal briefs that I filed supporting and opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss so that it can learn first hand what the Obama eligibility case is really about and draw an intelligent and informed decision on whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We are now working on filing our appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia which court we hope will decide our case dispassionately.”

Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo interview, October 16, 2009, Kerchner V Obama, et al, Lawsuit updates, MommaE blog radio

Just in from MommaE Blog Radio, October 16, 2009:

“Hi,
 
I just want to remind you that MommaE Radio Rebels is on tonight!  MARIO APUZZO AND CHARLES KERCHNER WILL BE THE GUESTS TONIGHT!  MARIO AND CHARLES WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THEIR CASE AND ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM THE CALLERS!     It will be open lines for call ins with any questions you have as well as comments!!  It should be a hot, rocking and interesting show!
 
PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR BLOGS OR WEB SITES AND ANY OTHER BLOGS OR WEB SITES THAT YOU ARE CONNECTED WITH AND SEND TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. 
 
I look forward to seeing you all there!  Link, time and call in number for the show is below.
 
http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels
 
Call In # 347-237-4870
 
5:30 PM Pacific Time
 
6:30 PM Mountain Time
 
7:30 PM Central Time
 
8:30 PM Eastern Time
 
I hope to see you all.  Please join us in the Chat room!
  
MommaE”

 

A recent article by attorney Mario Apuzzo and information on Kerchner V Obama
“Why Should a Reputable Attorney Pursue the Obama Eligibility Issue?

I have been asked by one pro-Obama commentator on my blog who calls himself “kris” why a reputable attorney would pursue eligibility litigation against our putative President, Barack Obama.

In his argument, the commentator makes several correct statements. He is correct in stating that “Wong Kim Ark, while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen of the United States,’ simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.'”

He is also correct in stating that the Founders never defined in the Constitution what a “natural born Citizen” is. What the commentator does not state is that the Founders believed in a Creator, who to provide order and justice, gave society natural law. That natural law manifested itself in the minds and hearts of men. What society was, who its members were, and what the ends of society were to be were all revealed through that natural law. Hence, there was no reason or motivation for them to write down what a “Citizen” or “natural born Citizen” was. Given the task of creating a new society after having won a revolution, for them it was intuitive that a “citizen” was a member of the new society and the children of the first citizens would in the future be the society’s “natural born citizens.” They also provided for others to join the new society in the future through naturalization and the children of those so joining the society would also be “natural born citizens.””

Read more:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-should-reputable-attorney-pursue.html

Natural Born Citizen, US Constitution, Kerchner update, August 6, 2009, Founding Fathers, Obama not natural born citizen

I received this update from Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit.

From attorney Mario Apuzzo:

“Thursday, August 6, 2009

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “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. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in his, The Law of Nations (1758), a “citizen” is a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a native or indigenes or “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).

The original definition of “natural born Citizen” gives our Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other foreign citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. Having all other means of acquiring other foreign citizenships or allegiances cut off is unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth. Additionally, by requiring the child’s parents to be U.S. citizens best assures that those parents most likely will have absorbed American customs and values which, in turn, they will transmit to their child.

The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President does not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty. It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President. Knowing the President is a “natural born Citizen,” the American people will trust their President with their lives. Finally, such a President can expect that the military will give him or her full trust and obedience.

When President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. This ineligibility has absolutely nothing to do with his race or class but all to do with his being born with multiple citizenships and allegiances and not satisfying the strict eligibility requirements of Article II. If someone believes that today the “natural born Citizen” clause no longer serves any useful purpose, then the proper way to change or abandon it is by way of constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, not by usurpation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.”

Read more about the lawsuit here:

Washington Times, July 20, 2009, Charles Kerchner, Weekly edition ad, Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject, Kerchner v Obama

From Charles Kerchner of the Kerchner V Obama lawsuit, a new ad placed in the weekly edition of the Washington Times for July 20, 2009:

“The below linked advertorial is running tomorrow in the Washington Times National Weekly edition on page 9.  Introduced to the readers of that national newspaper with this issue is an additional key point about Obama and one more of his many flaws in his exact citizenship status, i.e., that:

“Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject”.

And of course, as a British Subject at birth, Obama is not eligible to be President and the Commander-in-Chief of our military forces since he is not, and never can be, a “natural born citizen” of the USA as is required under Article II of our Constitution, per the intent of the founders of our nation and framers and legal scholars of our Constitution such as Franklin, Jay, and Washington, and per legal constitutional standards.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17478578/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-Advertorial-in-20090720-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-9

If you can, please give some coverage of this new key point in this newer version of the advertorials I have been running, i.e., that Obama was born a British Subject when born in 1961 no matter where he was born. His father was a British Subject and thus under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama was a British Subject at birth too.

While we who have been fighting this battle may clearly know and understand that point, most in America do not, nor do they understand the importance of that point as to natural born citizenship status under Article II of our Constitution, to constitutional standards.

Also if you can, please point out that if your readers wish to see more of this type of advertising in a national newspaper on the issue of Obama’s citizenship flaws, that they can now help the cause and contribute to funding the advertorials at:  http://www.protectourliberty.org/  I thank all the patriots who have contributed to-date to make this latest advertorial insertion possible. With help, more will be done.  Thank you.”

Sincerely,

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Kerchner V Obama, lawsuit, July 13, 2009, Washington Times, Mario Apuzzo, Obama not natural born citizen

** See update from Charles Kerchner below **

Look for this ad in the Washington Times on Monday, July 13, 2009, regarding the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit filed by attorney Mario Apuzzo.

Kerchner090713WashTimes

Here is the text of the ad:

 

Obama is NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen and therefore is NOT Eligible to be President

 
The President and CINC of the USA Must be a .Natural Born. Citizen . U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
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
Obama’s Father Was
Not a U.S. Citizen, nor
Was He an Immigrant
to the USA, nor Was
He Even a Permanent
Resident of the USA
The Law of
Nations,Vattel, 1758,
Chapter 19, Section 212:
.natural-born citizens, are
those born in the country,
of parents who are citizens.
Article II .Natural Born Citizen. Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth
Article II of our Constitution has a lot
to say about how a would-be President
is born. .Natural born Citizen. status
requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also
birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens
by birth or naturalization. This unity of
jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent)
in the child at the time of birth assures
that the child is born with sole allegiance
(obligation of delity and obedience to
government in consideration for protection
that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49
F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to
the United States and that no other nation
can lay any claim to the child.s (later an
adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed,
under such birth circumstances, no other
nation can legally or morally demand
any military or political obligations from
that person. The child, as he/she grows,
will also have a better chance of not
psychologically struggling with conicted
allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.
Unity of citizenship is based on the
teachings of the law of nature (natural law)
and the law of nations, as conrmed by
ancient Greek and Roman law; American,
European, and English constitutions,
common and civil law, and statutes; and
Vattel.s, The Law of Nations, all of which
the Founding Fathers read and understood.
These sources have taught civilizations
from time immemorial that a person
gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore
attachment for a nation from either being
born on the soil of the community dening
that nation or from being born to parents
who were also born on that same soil
or who naturalized as though they were
born on that soil. It is only by combining
at birth in the child both means to inherit
these two sources of citizenship that the
child by nature and therefore also by
law is born with only one allegiance and
loyalty to and consequently attachment
for only the United States.

 
Our Constitution requires unity of U.S.
citizenship from birth only for the Ofce
of President and Commander in Chief of
the Military, given the unique nature of
the position, a position that empowers
one person to decide whether our national
survival requires the destruction of or a
nuclear attack on or some less military
measure against another nation or group.
It is required of the President because such
a status gives the American people the
best Constitutional chance that a wouldbe
President will not have any foreign
inuences which because of conict of
conscience can most certainly taint his/
her critical decisions made when leading
the nation. Hence, the special status is
a Constitutional eligibility requirement
to be President and thereby to be vested
with the sole power to decide the fate
and survival of the American people.
Of course, the status, being a minimum
Constitutional requirement, does not
guarantee that a would-be President will
have love and fealty only for the United
States. Therefore, the nal informed and
intelligent decision on who the President
will be is left to the voters, the Electors,
and Congress at the Joint Session, to
whom hopefully responsible media and
political institutions will have provided
all the necessary vetting information
concerning the candidate.s character and
qualications to be President.
Through historical development, unity of
citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is
not required for U.S. born citizen Senators,
Representatives, and regular citizens under
the 14th Amendment and Congressional
enactments. In contradiction and which
conrms the Founding Fathers. meaning
of what a .natural born Citizen. is,
naturalized citizens, since 1795, before
becoming such must swear an oath that
they renounce all other allegiances to
other nations. During the Washington

 
Administration, the First Congress
passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in
which it provided that new citizens take
a solemn oath to support the Constitution
and .renounce. all .allegiance. to
their former political regimes. This is
during the time that most of the Framers
were alive and still actively involved in
guiding and forming the new national
government and Constitutional Republic.
Today, we still require that an alien upon
being naturalized must give an oath that
he/she renounces all former allegiances
and that he/she will .support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.. Hence, allegiance
is not simply a thing of the past but very
much with us today. It is important to
also understand that naturalization takes
an alien back to the moment of birth and
by law changes that alien.s birth status.
In other words, naturalization, which by
legal denition requires sole allegiance to
the United States, re-creates the individual
as though he were a born Citizen but only
does it by law and not by nature. This
is the reason that the 14th Amendment
considers a naturalized person to be a
.citizen. of the United States and not
a .natural born Citizen. of the United
States. This recreation of birth status
through naturalization which also existed
under English common law also probably
explains why John Jay underlined the
word .born. when he recommended to
General Washington that only a .natural
born Citizen. (as to say born in fact, by
nature, and not by law) be allowed to
be President. Consequently, naturalized
citizens stand on an equal footing with
born Citizens (who are so recognized and
conrmed by the 14th Amendment or by
an Act of Congress and who can be but
not necessarily are also .natural born
Citizens.) except that they cannot be
President or Vice President, for they were

 
born with an allegiance not owing to the
United States and acquire that allegiance
only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized
citizen, even though having sole allegiance
to the United States, is not Constitutionally
eligible to be President, we cannot expect
any less of someone who we are willing
to declare so Constitutionally eligible.
The Founding Fathers emphasized
that, for the sake of the survival of the
Constitutional Republic, the Ofce of
President and Commander in Chief of the
Military be free of foreign inuence and
intrigue. It is the .natural born Citizen.
clause that gives the American people the
best ghting chance to keep it that way for
generations to come. American people do
not have the Constitutional right to have
any certain person be President. But for the
reasons stated above, minimally they do
have a Constitutional right to protect their
liberty by knowing and assuring that their
President is Constitutionally eligible and
qualied to hold the Ofce of President
and Commander in Chief of the Military.

 
. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Obama is not Article II Constitutionally
eligible to be President. Q.E.D.
. Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lead Plaintiff
Commander USNR Retired

 

If you would like to help with
this lawsuit, please contact
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo@erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900
FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Paid for by: Concerned Americans contributing at ProtectOurLiberty.org in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit.

 

** Update and clarification from Charles Kerchner 7/13/09 **

“To clarify and help people find the correct newspaper in print, you may wish to change the headline to read, “Washington Times National Weekly edition”, instead of just using the name Washington Times.  Some may think it is in the daily paper which it is not, and buy the wrong paper.  I chose the National Weekly edition since it reaches all the movers and shakers nationwide.  It is sold in major book store news stands.  It also has about 100,000 paid subscribers nationwide who in general are the very political aware people in this country. It is also read by leading conservative writers and spokes people on radio and TV.  I hope it stirs things up in DC.”

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lehigh Valley PA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Kerchner v Obama, attorney Mario Apuzzo, July 4, 2009, US Constitution, standing, immunity, Obama not eligible, Obama is a dictator, Youtube video

Barack Obama is not president of the US

Why?

Obama is not a natural born citizen

Obama is a usurper and a dictator

Obama took the office of the presidency of the United States by lies, deception and tactics resembling those of a dictator. Obama was not vetted by the DNC, any state elections office or the United States Congress. No judge that has been presented with the alarming evidence against Obama and no evidence to support his eligibility has done the job they swore to do. Uphold the US Constitution.

Mario Apuzzo filed a lawsuit on February 2, 2009, representing Charles Kerchner and others against Barack Obama, et al. Here are some excerpts from the lawsuit:

“Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. He served 33 years in the U.S. Naval Reserves as both a Commissioned Officer and an Enlisted person.”

“It is plaintiff’s duty to support and defend the United States Constitution pursuant to that oath. Additionally, while currently not statutorily subject to recall, by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency, the President and/or Congress could order people in plaintiff’s status of service to be recalled. Should plaintiff be recalled to active duty, he would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in
fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.”

“To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has investigated or held hearings and verified that Obama ever established and proved conclusively that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

The defendants have requested more time and received it. Their latest ploy alleges that the plaintiffs have no standing and that the defendants have immunity. On June 28, 2009, Charles Kurchner and Mario Apuzzo were interviewed on the Chalice radio show. This video includes some clips from the audio and some documents from the legal wrangling.

Listen to the entire Apuzzo and Kerchener audio beginning approx at 82:00 minutes:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/06/29/The-Chalice-Show.mp3?guid=1ca3a577-5720-4bd9-96f1-9b68f7b2027d

View the court documents at Mario Apuzzo’s website:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Listen to the Chalice show here:

http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.com/

Clarification of original filing timeline (provided by commenter ramjet767)

“To the Editor:

Just noticed another important point both in your article and in the accompanying YouTube video description paragraph and in the video itself on a slide.  The Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit was filed very early in the morning of 20 Jan 2009, 9+ hours before he was sworn in, not in February.  It was later amended twice with the latest amendment, the 2nd Amended Complaint being filed on 9 Feb 2009.  See the copy of the 2nd Amended Case filing document headline which clarifies that the original suit was filed on 20 Jan 2009. You can see that in the headline at this link:”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

Steven Lee Craig, Obama lawsuit, June 22, 2009, Motion Declaratory Judgement, Natural born citizen

From Steven Lee Craig:

“These are the operative filings to the merits, there are othe Docs of process.

These Docs are pending at the 10th Circ 09-6082 and are part of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at Scotus 08-10817″

 

Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma   73115

Plaintiff

Vs.                                   

The United States of America

C/o U.S. Attorney

Washington, D.C.  

Defendant       

 

 

)

)
)
)
)
)   Case No. Civ-09-0343-F
)
)       
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

 

Motion

Declaratory Judgment

 

 

MOVANT HEREIN ASSERTS that the grievance of the Complaint is given rise by virtue of ‘exclusion and omission’ of definition and meaning of a term of consequence found within a Constitutional phrase by Act’s, Bill’s, Resolution’s, Proclamation’s or Judgement’s of the United States of America.

 

The fact’s being indisputable.

 

 

Cont;

MOVANT HEREIN ASSERTS that any ‘controversy’ as to the meaning of the subject phrase “Natural Born Citizen” is contrived, incomprehensible and frivolous.

 

MOVANT HEREIN ASSERTS that with and by the process of ‘distilling’ all forms of ‘Naturalization’, arising from any and all Act’s promulgated regarding Naturalization or from any and all Litigated Cases of same, the ‘natural born’ form of Citizenship is all that remains, naturally so; a person born within the jurisdiction of the United States of America of two (2) American Citizen parents who are without further Citizenship alienation and/or allegiance.

 

    THEREFORE MOVANT seeks Declaratory Judgment under the Rules.

 

By leave of the Court I do pray it be so Ordered.

 

 

 

 

Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis

 

_________________________

Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma  73115

(405) 670-1784

 

Steven Lee Craig, Obama lawsuit, June 22, 2009, Second amended complaint, Natural born citizen

 From Steven Lee Craig:

“These are the operative filings to the merits, there are othe Docs of process.

These Docs are pending at the 10th Circ 09-6082 and are part of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at Scotus 08-10817″

Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

Plaintiff

Vs.                                       

The United States of America

C/o U.S. Attorney

Washington, D.C.  

Defendant    

 

 

 

 

)

)

)
)
)
)
)    Case No. Civ-09-0343-F
)
)        
)
)
)    10th Circuit 09-6082
)
)
)
)

 

 

 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

 

NOW COMES, Steven Lee Craig, Claiming to be of Constitutionally recognized form of Citizenship known as Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America under the definition as found expressed in a published work of general use by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America in formulating many of the principles and specific Articles, Sections and Clauses found therein. That

 

Cont.;

publication being Emmerich de Vattel’s,  “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns”, and specifically;

BOOK I. OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES. CHAP. I. OF NATIONS OR SOVEREIGN STATES.§ 212. Citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on

 

Cont.;

 

their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

 

Claimant submits further evidence of the Framers considerations and intent regarding the differing forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution;

 

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols., 1833),  of Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, February 3, 1812 – September 10, 1845

 

Volume 3: § 1473.

“It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced

 

Cont.;

 

(for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy

 

Cont.;

 

within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.”

 

The entire text of the Chapter is included herein to show that Associate Justice Joseph Story touched upon many of the circumstances of Citizenship as they occur in the political and natural world and how they ought be regarded when making Uniform Laws

 

Cont.;

of Naturalization of which many are to be found in the full volumes of Vattel.

Specifically Claimant points to the parenthetical passage,

 “…for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct…”

 

in support of Claimants assertion of the intended definition of “natural born citizen”.

Whereas ALL first Citizens of the United States of America were necessarily Naturalized by the Ratification of the Constitution and therefore the exception allowing for those of that generation to be eligible for the Executive Office as Naturalized Citizens noting that, in the authors words, “will soon become wholly extinct”, thereby meaning that as that generation of First Citizens passed it would devolve to the Second Generation of those

 

Cont.;

Citizens to be the eligible Natural Born Citizens, this conforming with Vattel’s definition noted above and as also considered in the House of Representatives as found in;

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

[Elliot's debates,Volume4]Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.

House of Representatives, February, 1813.

 

Mr. ARCHER. “The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning

 

Cont.;

 

which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.

 

In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.”

 

 

 

 

Cont.;

 

Claimant asserts that the “genus” mentioned in the first paragraph is referring to the First Naturalized Citizens as being the natural born citizens and that the “species” are the thereafter naturalized citizens who, with time and circumstance, beget their own natural born citizens, increasing the ‘genus’, in keeping with the political and natural world. In the second paragraph Mr. Archer acknowledges that the Congress has no mandate to ‘abridge’ the authority of Article II Section I Clause V and thereby the inability of the Congress to politically ‘limit’ nature in the performance of the mandate to promulgate laws of naturalization. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment or the Nineteenth Amendment abridged, nullified or amended Article II Section I Clause V, neither do their words say so nor do their words require it. In the former case the

 

Cont.;

source of future natural born citizens was increased and in the latter the source of conferring citizenship, which had been wholly of the father, was then split equally amongst the two parents.

The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote,

 

“…[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen,'”

 

Therein is read, “Parents”, being plural and after the Nineteenth Amendment, with each “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”, which implies domestic domicile and being naturalized or otherwise, for how else could the conditions and circumstances be examined.

 

Cont.;

That the source of the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ is found in the Constitutional Articles concerning the executive offices of the Government does not exclude it or diminish it in the concerns of the general population but rather elevates it to the most fundamental concerns of our Citizenry’s national allegiance, pride and protection of the nations sovereignty. The first duty of the Government and the Citizens thereof is to ‘Preserve, Protect and Defend’ the Constitution of the United States of America. That the Government is ‘of the People, by the People and for the People’ it can not be denied and must be hoped that those People with the greatest understanding, the greatest regard, the greatest interest, and the greatest allegiance to the Nation are those who

 

 

Cont.;

have longest been bound and blessed by the liberties shared as contemplated by Vattel;

“…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it…”

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 

1.  This case involves diversity of citizenship and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1343  (a)(4), and/or, § 1346 (a)(2), and/or § 1357

2. This case further arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

 

Cont.;

3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3).

The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress.

 

Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation.

 

III. PARTIES

 

4. Plaintiff,    Steven Lee Craig

                 1309 Hisel Rd.

                 Del City, OK 73115

 

10. Defendant,   The United States of America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cont.;

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUION

 

 

Claimant incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations as if set forth herein at length.

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, have failed to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments thereto in overt acts of lack of defense of the definition of Natural Born Citizen as a specific form of Citizenship acknowledged within the Constitution and the preservation of the original intent of its usage in the Constitution

 

Cont.;

and its protection in its relation to the term of Citizen(s), found within the same Article of the Constitution and elsewhere, thereby violating Claimants Ninth and Tenth Amendment Rights of equal protection.

 

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 pg 174;

 

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……”

 

Elk Grove Unified School District et al v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

Justice O’Connor, concurring in the opinion;

 

“There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution — no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them”.

 

 

Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479

 

“The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are

 

Cont.;

additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . .

 

Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment.

 

Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”

 

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).

 

“While the Tenth Amendment has been characterized as a ‘truism,” stating merely that ‘all is retained which has not been surrendered,’ [citing Darby], it is not without significance.

 

 

 

Cont.;

Although the Tenth Amendment has seldom been used to assert and/or exert a personal reserved power the Claimant, nevertheless, asserts the ‘reserved power’, individually as one of the People, granted by the Tenth Amendment for retaining that which has not been surrendered; that being the Constitutionally recognized circumstance, of the political and of nature, that confers the naturalness of a natural born citizen.

Claimant alleges said lack of definition of Natural Born Citizen violates Claimants Fifth Amendment Rights of Due Process of the Law in that the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution and enunciated as a form of American Citizenship, natural born citizen, having not been duly codified as have the numerous Laws promulgated that provide for the

 

Cont.;

Naturalizing of new Citizens, thereby deprives and denies the Claimant of his rights and privileges of claiming the natural inheritance as a Citizen born of multiple generations of Citizens as contemplated by the distinctions of Citizenship within the Constitution.

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust and in the performance of their mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization have been discriminatory in that the form of Citizenship, natural born citizen, has been ‘excluded and omitted’ while every circumstance, situation, happenstance, possibility and probability of Naturalization of new Citizens has been and continues to be Codified and / or adjudicated.

 

Cont.;

Claimant alleges that unequal treatment has occurred against the Claimants intrinsic personal property guaranteed by the Ratification of the Constitution by the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust in performance of its mandate to make uniform the Laws of Naturalization, by the “exclusion and omission” of the definition and acknowledgement of that citizenship known as natural born citizen within any and all the Acts, Bills, Laws, Rules and / or Regulations hereto promulgated regarding Citizenship and Naturalization.

Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939)

“The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality which will enable it to perform its function in laying down policies and establishing standards while leaving to

 

Cont.;

 

selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the Legislature is to apply. Without capacity to give authorizations of that sort, we should have the anomaly of a legislative power which in many circumstances calling for its exertion would be but a futility.”

 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting. (re: 14th Amendment)

 

“Nobody can deny that the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition, and I cannot think that any safeguard surrounding it was intended to be thrown down by the amendment.”

 

Claimant alleges that, upon recounting the 222 years of Legislation regarding Citizenship and Naturalization it amounts to a gross negligence of the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise

 

Cont.;

engaged in the publics trust, in the performance of the mandates to Legislate and then delegate administrations the Legislated Laws making Naturalization uniform without looking to the Constitutional forms of Citizenship found within the Constitution its self, Article II Section I Clause V, and the intent of the distinctions thereof, thereby denying Claimant of his rights and privileges of the American form of Citizenship, natural born Citizen, without due process and with discriminatory Un-Uniform promulgation of Naturalization Laws.

Perez v. Brownell 356 U.S. 44

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

“…By the early 1930’s, the American law on nationality, including naturalization and denationalization, was expressed in a large number of provisions scattered throughout the statute books. Some of the specific laws enacted at different times

 

 

Cont.;

seemed inconsistent with others, some problems of growing importance had emerged

that Congress had left unheeded. At the request of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, see 86 Cong.Rec. 11943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established a Committee composed of the Secretary of State, [p53] the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor to review the nationality laws of the United States, to recommend revisions and to codify the nationality laws into one comprehensive statute for submission to Congress; he expressed particular concern about “existing discriminations” in the law. Exec.Order No. 6115, Apr. 25, 1933…”

 

Claimant alleges that the United States of America and, specifically, the Representatives elected, appointed or otherwise engaged in the publics trust, in having violated Claimants Fourth Amendment Rights by extension have violated Claimants Eighth Amendment Rights against cruel and unusual punishment in that denying Claimant of that natural portion of Claimants American Constitutionally Guaranteed Citizenship Rights and

Cont.;

Privileges have imposed upon Claimant a penalty of separation from the Constitution and the internalized allegiance derived from the Claimants asserted definition of ‘natural born citizen”.

Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86

We believe, as did Chief Judge Clark in the court below, [n33] that use of denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is, instead, the total destruction of the individual’s status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development. The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself. While any one country may accord him some rights and, presumably, as long as he remained in this country, he would enjoy the limited rights of an alien, no country need do so, because he is stateless. Furthermore, his enjoyment of even the limited rights of an alien might be subject to termination [p102] at any time by reason of deportation. [n34] In

short, the expatriate has lost the right to have rights.

 

Cont.;

This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands. It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies. [n35] It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious. [n36]

 

… When it appears that an Act of Congress conflicts with one of these provisions, we have no choice but to enforce the paramount commands of the Constitution. We are sworn to do no less. We cannot push back the limits of the Constitution merely to accommodate challenged legislation. We must apply those limits as the Constitution prescribes them, bearing in mind both the broad scope of legislative discretion and the ultimate responsibility of constitutional adjudication. We do well to approach this task cautiously, as all our predecessors have counseled. But the ordeal of judgment cannot be shirked. “

 

 

 

Cont.;

Denationalization, being a “punishment more primitive than torture,”, then is not denying that natural portion of citizenship, that portion which is required to make one eligible to the highest office of the land, no less than  a severing of generational ties and an involuntary amputation upon that Citizenship?

 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff request, on any one or all alligations, the same:

1.  An immediate Order of Declaratory Judgement expressing Courts Opinion of the Constitutional and Legal Definition of “Natural born Citizen”.

2.  Entry of Judgment

 

By leave of the Court I pray it be so ordered

 

 

 

 

 

Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis

 

_________________________

Steven Lee Craig

1309 Hisel Rd.

Del City, Oklahoma 73115

(405) 670-1784

James D Schneller, Obama lawsuit, Update, June 16, 2009, Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference, Acorn fraud

This was received from James D. Schneller regarding his lawsuit:

“Obama Suit Scheduled For Supreme Court Conference

Obama Fires U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !

 

Dear citizen who is horrified by events in Washington,
 
This is a news item that concerns our Supreme Court’s fourth chance to address the Obama birth certificate issue.  I wrote most of you in January, at a prior turning point.  Because you are a concerned citizen, you have to know about this, and I hope you’ll share it with your friends and family and pastor.  This is not a request for donation.
 
I have filed a supplementary brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in Case No. 08-9797 objecting to the failure of Barack Obama to file an answer, and requesting that the Supreme Court enable  newer evidence in the Obama birth issue.   The Supreme Court has set this case for a conference on June 18th.
 
I filed the appeal on April 6, 2009, asking reversal of denial of my petition for injunction filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in December of 2008.  That petition requested a delay of the tally by the Pennsylvania electoral college, because the ballots of the Pennsylvania electors had been unlawfully finalized despite the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s erroneous and fraudulent certifying of the ballot to all County officials, without any examination, nor investigation, of the eligibility and qualification of Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States. 
 
Why are all the cases in this issue filed by concerned citizens , rather than organizations ?  To my belief, many firms believe it to be futile, and most of the others have been warned against it. (see the article following this letter)  The fact that only citizens have sued does not mean that a Court, at some time or other, could decide to address this issue.
 
In my suit I am demanding that the Secretary of the Commonwealth perform his duty, as was required, by requiring Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen.  I claim that the Secretary had ample time to demand proofs from Obama in December, before the vote was certified and delivered to the Electoral College.
 
I also am objecting that the Pennsylvania election law makes the Office of the President of the United States exempt from the requirement that candidates file an affidavit swearing that they are eligible for office.  I’ve asked the Justices to declare that this 2006 amendment is arbitrary and unconstitutional.  (Anyone so inclined – please check your state’s election law for this type of amendment and email me any findings !)
 
I raise new material in the brief in order to encourage the Supreme Court to address the gaping absence of eligibility of our head of state:  
 
  – Obama’s recent, biased, dropping of the suit against certain Philadelphia Black Panther members for voter intimidation,
  – recent ill-conceived “stimulus” awards to ACORN and efforts to make ACORN a census participant,
  – recent White House efforts to create unprecedented levels of security around common documents that are normally available to the public.
  – national celebrations and official proclamations in the Nation of Kenya, on the basis of Obama’s  birthplace being there !  
  – the fact that the United States Attorney General avoided several opportunities to investigate substantial complaints presented against ACORN during the 2008 campaign, despite ample time and manpower available,
  – the White House’s unpredicted and unconstitutional policy of doubling the national debt, nationalizing  decrepit industries, and pardoning violent terrorists, despite the public’s not being made aware of this intent during the campaign.
  – the Homeland Security boondoggle alleging that veterans and pro-life citizens are extremists.
  – I also claim that Obama was required to answer my petition because he claims to hold the highest office in the land, and must therefore be open with the people rather than clandestine.  Since he didnt answer, he has in essence admitted to all of the allegations made against him.
 
There is much more, which is why I ask the Court to allow new evidence !  Just last week outrageous news happened :

 
Obama Fired the U.S. Whistleblower Who Uncovered $$ 75 Million ACORN-type fraud !
 
The patriots who are continuing to file suits and to blog, newsletter, and report the case against Obama for his clear cut illegal acts are greater in number now, and you may want to check some of the websites at intervals.  This story about huge government fraud is a news item carried by Judicial Watch, which is a respected watchdog organization, who recently began to actively cover Obama in respect to his constant illegal behavior.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/jun/obama-fires-ig-who-exposed-supporter-s-fraud
 
Help Make Prosecution Happen

Since the Supreme Court case is up for Court Conference on Thursday, I hope you’ll be able to offer prayers or a moment of silence, and to make serious talk at work and leisure, to impress all with the hard truth of our new government.  I firmly believe in an ability granted by the Creator, for America to rise, despite great odds, above this unnatural situation, and to redirect our Republic onto a positive and moral path, rather than a descent to oblivion.”

“James D. Schneller”