Category Archives: amended complaint

Kerchner v Obama, Update, March 23, 2010, Appeal Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument, Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo

Kerchner v Obama, Update, March 23, 2010

I received this a few hours ago from Charles Kerchner, lead plantiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress.

“Kerchner v Obama 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 Appeal Reply Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief-22-Mar-2010
Request for Oral Argument: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28781505/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Request-for-Oral-Argument
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 23, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Philip J Berg, Update, February 18, 2010, Birth Certificate March on Washington, Berg to Attend CPAC 2010 in Washington, DC 2/18 to 2/20, Obama eligibility, Berg v Obama

From Philip J Berg, February 18, 2010.

For Immediate Release:  – 02/18/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Berg to Attend CPAC 2010 in Washington, DC 2/18 to 2/20
* * *
Berg States that Announcement of
“Birth Certificate March on Washington”
to Demand Obama Resign
forced Obama to address the issue at
National Prayer Breakfast
* * *
Date for March to be Announced Soon
and
Urgent Need for Funds
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/18/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States stated that “WE THE PEOPLE” by and through Philip J. Berg and Obamacrimes.com forced Obama to address the issue at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, February 4, 2009 !   Obama, in part of his speech referred for the first time since the question of his being “Constitutionally eligible” stated,
“But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, [pause] for that matter,my citizenship.“ [Laughter and applause.] [emphasis added]
Berg said, “I knew that if we continued our efforts, those of obamacrimes.com, to expose Obama not being ‘Constitutionally eligible’ to be President, as this is the greatest ‘HOAX’ in the history of our country, that being over 230 years and the fact that Obama’s actions are a fraud !”
The actual words stated by Obama:

“Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable; understanding, as President [Kennedy] said, that “civility is not a sign of weakness.” Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right.  Michelle will testify to that“. [Laughter.]
“But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, [pause] for that matter, my citizenship.” [Laughter and applause.] [emphasis added]
Berg said, “WOW, it is about time !  This is great. Our announcement of the ‘Birth Certificate March on Washington’ demanding Obama resign as President as he is ‘Constitutionally ineligible’ to be President was the Press Release that caused Obama to react.”

Berg stated, “Because of the response to date, shortly, we will announce the date for the “Birth Certificate March on Washington.”
Further, “We need Funds ASAP to be able to publicize the March and start to arrange specifics for the ‘Birth Certificate March on Washington.’  Go to obamacrimes.com to make your contribution.”
Berg is requesting all citizens of the United States to email, fax or mail a “copy” of their Birth Certificate that will be presented to Obama demanding that Obama resign because he has failed to produce his long form [vault] Birth Certificate and other citizenship documents [Obama, an Indonesian Citizen ?] to show he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President.  Please redact any personal information that you wish.
Berg related an email he received.  A woman from Texas told me she registered her thirteen [13] year old nephew for school.  When registration was finished, her nephew asked the Principal, “Can I ask you a question?”  The Principal said, “Yes.”  Her nephew said, “How come I had to show my Birth Certificate to register for school, but Obama did not have to show his to be President ?”
Berg said, “That email motivated me to continue to expose Obama for the fraud he is !”
Berg continued, “Since the Courts are taking their time to get to the point of allowing ‘Discovery,’ it is time to motivate the citizens of the United States for a ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to expose the ‘HOAX’ of Obama, the biggest ‘HOAX’ in the history of our country, in over 230 years !”
Berg wants people to email, fax or mail a copy of their Birth Certificate to:
Email = philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Fax     = (610) 834-7659
Mail    = Obamacrimes
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Berg said, “Then, we will be preparing them to deliver to Obama demanding that he resign from the Office of President as he has not proven that he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President and that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia.
I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the 3.2 million men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution with our ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to prove that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”
Berg continued, “I still have cases pending in the Federal Courts.  Go to obamacrimes.com to see the status of each case.”
Berg concluded, “I will be attending the CPAC 2010 Convention in Washington, DC from Thursday, 2/18 to Saturday, 2/20 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.  The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will be helpful for me to spread the message that Obama is a fraud, a phony and Obama has put forth the biggest ‘HOAX’ in the history of our great nation,”
Phil Berg will be available for Press Interviews at CPAC 2010 – Contact Phil at cell (610) 662-3005.
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com

Glenn Beck, call me, Citizen Wells, I am still waiting on a call

US Constitution for dummies, Presidential eligibility, Accountability, Glenn Beck, Obots, Drug users, Kerchner v Obama, Obama avoids presenting records with attorneys help

Why has Obama employed a legion of private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Yesterday, February 13, 2010, the Citizen Wells blog provided an update on the Charles Kerchner v Obama and Congress lawsuit.

“Obama and Congress Request and Obtain an Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal.”

“As Lead Plaintiff in this case it looks to me like the Defendants are having great difficulty finding a way to knock down the constitutional, historical, and legal arguments made by Attorney Mario Apuzzo in the Appellant’s Opening Brief to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals filed in Philadelphia PA, the city where our U.S. Constitution was written in 1787.”

Kerchner v Obama update

The Post & Email provides some background
“Kerchner case will test Third Circuit court’s adherence to the Constitution”
“Recently the attorneys representing Barack Hussein Obama and the U.S. Congress have admitted the formidability of the arguments mustered against their clients by requesting an extension on the deadline to file their reply.  The court set that, now, for March 8.  Apuzzo will then have two weeks to file his reply, defending his brief against their counter-arguments.
Without a doubt, Obama’s attorneys will not be able to muster a defense without a direct attack on the very U.S. Constitution and the rights protected by it which are the basis of the case.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/14/kerchner-case-will-test-third-circuit-courts-adherence-to-the-constitution/

Today, we present:

US Constitution

Presidential eligibility

Accountability

   For

Dummies

Glenn Beck

Obots

Drug users

Left wing wackos

 

If you fall into one of the categories above or you can’t follow all of those messy or complicated constituional issues above, this is for you.
From the original Kerchner v Obama and Congress lawsuit.

“53. Obama has refused all efforts to have him release the following documents,
relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records,
Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard
College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate
records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of the
original, long form, Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate), Harvard Law Review
articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry
immigration records covering all of Obama’s travels out of the United States; passports;
and record of baptism, if any;”

Read more about this here:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/02/obama-and-congress-request-and-obtain.html

Let’s pretend for a moment, for the group above, that the birth certificate and natural born questions above are not relevant (you would have to be a complete idiot to believe that). Who would spend enormous sums of money and employ many attorneys to avoid revealing college records unless they had something to hide.

From the docket of the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit.

“02/12/2010
1 pg, 83.15 KB
ECF FILER: Letter from Dick Cheney, Congress of US, House Represenatives,
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, US Senate and USA confirming extension of time
pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 31.4 with service on opposing counsel. Service
date 02/12/2010. (EF)”

Attorneys representing Obama, et al.

“BARACK OBAMA, President Elect of the United
States of America, President of the United States if
America if Sworn In, and Individually
Defendant – Appellee
Eric Fleisig-Greene, Esq.
Direct: 202-514-4815
Email: eric.fleisig-greene@usdoj.gov
[COR NTC Federal government]
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
Room 7214
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0000″

“Elizabeth A. Pascal, Esq.
Direct: 856-757-5105
Email: Elizabeth.Pascal@usdoj.gov
Fax: 856-968-4874
[Federal government]
Office of United States Attorney
Camden Federal Building & Courthouse
401 Market Street
P.O. Box 2098, 4th Floor
Camden, NJ 08101-0000″

Even you all can figure this one out. Obama is hiding his records and the taxpayers are paying for his defense.

Glenn Beck, I emailed and left voice messages with a cell phone number you can call if you have any questions or if anything here appears incorrect.

Glenn, I am still waiting for the phone call.

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, February 13 2010, Charles Kerchner lead plaintiff, Mario Apuzzo attorney, Obama and Congress Request and Obtain an Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief

From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress, last night, February 12. 2010.

“For Immediate Release – 12 February 2010

Obama and Congress Request and Obtain an Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/02/obama-and-congress-request-and-obtain.html

As Lead Plaintiff in this case it looks to me like the Defendants are having great difficulty finding a way to knock down the constitutional, historical, and legal arguments made by Attorney Mario Apuzzo in the Appellant’s Opening Brief to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals filed in Philadelphia PA, the city where our U.S. Constitution was written in 1787.

The truth about Obama’s constitutional ineligibility for the office he sits in, and the fundamental law of our nation, the U.S. Constitution, will win the day in the end.

It is only a matter of time before the fraud of Obama in the 2008 election will be revealed. And because of that the progressives are trying to run out the clock to keep him in office as the putative president as long as possible. But in my opinion Obama’s days of deceit and fraudulently occupying the Oval Office are numbered.”

From attorney Mario Apuzzo:

“Friday, February 12, 2010
Obama and Congress Request and Obtain Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner Appeal
On January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants’ Opening Brief in the appeal of Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that the New Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obama’s alleged eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents a non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the Founder’s and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Obama’s father was only a temporary visitor to the United States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen. Not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008) or through other contemporaneous and objective documentation. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept him as a “natural born Citizen.”

The defendants had 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Defendants have requested and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file their brief. The Court has granted them until March 8, 2010 to file it. After that filing, I will then have a chance to file a reply brief within the next 14 days.

You may obtain a copy of my brief at this site . We will be posting here the defendants’ opposition brief after it is filed along with my reply brief. I hope that many of you will take the time to read these briefs so that you may learn first hand what the legal issues and arguments are regarding whether the plaintiffs have standing and/or are precluded by the political question doctrine to challenge Obama on his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, and what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 12, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

If you can, help the cause.
CDR Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Posted by Puzo1 at 4:56 PM   “

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/02/obama-and-congress-request-and-obtain.html

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan, Update, February 11 2010, Lawsuit, Obama not eligible, North Carolina Board of Elections, NC Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall

From Lt. Col Donald Sullivan, February 9, 2010.

FYI – Following are the comments I made verbatim to the court in my last hearing on the Obama eligibility matter.  The hearing was held in Superior Court in Roxboro, NC, on January 4, 2010, at 2:00.  I have attached the motion to amend which was the subject of the hearing and the documents indicated below.  The judge denied the motion, and I objected on constitutional grounds.  I am not planning to appeal.  That is bad news for Obama.  In my opinion, the movement to unseat Obama due to his citizenship may be the only thing keeping him alive.  When the last two cases go away, there will be no other way to get rid of this imposter than the old fashioned way.  I, for one, hope that does not happen. 
If any of you have any ideas for an appeal, I would like to hear them.  Otherwise, this is the end of the road on this subject for me.  The United States is on a dead-end road as far as I am concerned.  In a conversation today with the opposing counsel for the State of NC, I was told that it didn’t look like there was any way for the court to get jurisdiction over this matter such that an order could be issued to accomplish what I was after.  I told her that I agreed with that assessment if the court continues to disregard its constitutional authority and its oath to support and maintain the constitution.  I could almost hear her sigh on the other end of the line.
It is worthy of note that this case was not dismissed for lack of standing, as were so many others.  It would appear the “class action” status cured that.  It’s just too bad we can’t find a constitutional judge. 
DS
 
**************************************8
My comments to the court – Sullivan v. NC Board of Education, Wake County File #08CVS21393, Motion to Amend, Vacate or Alter Order (attached), Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith, III, presiding:
 
Good afternoon, Your Honor, and thank you for hearing this motion to vacate your order in this matter today.  Can I presume that you are familiar with my motion?  First let me remind the court that I am here specially and not generally.  I am not an attorney, nor have I been schooled in the practice of law.  I ask the court to consider the substance of my pleadings and arguments and not the form; as the filings of a litigant acting on his own behalf, such as myself, are not to be held to the same stringent standards as those of a practicing lawyer, pursuant to Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519.  I appear at law and not of law. I don’t call myself a “Birther”.  I call myself a “constitutionalist”. Without the Constitution, there is no lawful State or federal government.  The Constitution of NC at Art. 1, Sec.5, requires us to follow the federal Constitution.  The federal Constitution requires the office of President be held a natural born citizen at Article II, Section 1, Cl. 6.  The key question before us today is the status of  Barack Obama’s citizenship and whether or not this case can go forward to challenge it.
 
1.                   First, due to the ruling by Judge Cobb this past December in a prior case, I move to voluntarily dismiss the Secretary of State as a defendant, res judicata.
2.                   Presentation of “Born in the USA” – Wong Kim Ark – Three types of citizenship (attached).
3.                   My motion today is based upon new evidence not available to me in our earlier hearing. (Introduce and present exhibits A, B, C, and D as described in the motion.
4.                   I believe the evidence I have introduced today and previously presents a prima facie case that Obama is not eligible for the office of President and was not a viable candidate in the first place.
5.                   Discuss INS affidavit attached to original complaint, my interview with the Secret Service, and “Unintended Consequences”.
6.                   “Overwhelmed by events and by Time”.  I became concerned that our government was no longer bound by the chains of the Constitution many years ago.  But after my hearing before Judge Jim Fox in federal court on March 21, 2003, I knew we were in trouble.  I had filed a case to prevent the war in Iraq due to the failure of the Congress to declare war.  During the House International Affairs Committee review of the Resolution to Authorize the President to use Military Force in Iraq, the chairman, Henry Hyde, said in response to Ron Paul’s amendment that we declare war as required by the Constitution that, “The Constitution has been overwhelmed by events and by time.  It is not relevant.”  I took this denial of the Constitution personally and made it the crux of my complaint.  Although Judge Fox agreed with most of my arguments, he denied my demand for a TRO to order Bush to stop the war which had begun two days earlier.  During the hearing, he admitted that our Constitution was no longer viable, having been overwhelmed by events and by time.  I read to you from the transcript of that hearing.  This quote has been featured in a Hollywood Movie by Aaron Russo.  [I read two pages from the transcript of “Sullivan v. United States, et al, 03CV039, USEDNC, March 21, 2003)
7.                   Read “Obama’s Own Words” (attached).
8.                   Read Judge Smith’s oath to support and maintain the US and NC Constitutions.  Do not raise the “Oath Question”, although Judge Smith’s oath is improper.  State:  “The people elect their judges to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and that of the State of North Carolina, where it is not in contravention thereto.  An unconstitutional act is void from the beginning.  It creates no office and grants no authority.  (16AmJur2d)
9.                   Your Honor, failure to allow your order to be vacated and this complaint to move forward in a proper form to provide relief from this probable violation to our Constitutional law would be a treasonous act, a violation of our oaths to the Constitution and to the people of this country.  There is a constitutional remedy for my complaint and this court at law has the authority to grant it.  While I have admitted previously that the court has no equity jurisdiction in this matter, it does have jurisdiction at law under the Constitution and the authority to grant the relief I seek.
 
That having been said, it is apparent from the passage of more than a year since I filed this class action complaint for injunctive relief that this is no longer a matter seeking equitable relief, but instead one seeking a remedy at law, in this case constitutional law.  That remedy must be in the form of common law mandamus authority rather than injunctive relief due to the overwhelming events of this past year and the judicial delays starting from day one.  In any event, the relief I am seeking has not changed: An order to the remaining Defendant Board of Elections to validate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be the President of the United States of America.  Therefore, I request this court vacate the order dismissing my complaint and grant leave to amend the complaint as a petition for the common law writ of mandamus in this matter.  Thank you for listening, Your Honor.
 
[After denying my motion, off the record, the judge asked me if there were any more cases out there on the subject of Obama’s eligibility.  I told him there were two that I knew of, the Barnett case in California federal court, and the recently filed Quo Warranto in DC.]
 
10.               Jury demand after positive ruling.  [The judge denied my motion, so I didn’t pursue this option.]
11.               POINT OF ORDER – Oath question after negative ruling.  [I presented the discussion of the impropriety of Judge Smith’s oath, along with nearly all other officers in the State, including attorneys and all grand and petit juries.  He took home with him my written summary of the issue along with a copy of his oath, a proper oath by Judge Allen Cobb, a copy of the oath sheet used by the clerk of Pender County criminal court, copies of NCGS 11-11 and 11-7, and a copy of the oath given to attorneys written by the State Bar.  He and the judicial officers in the court seemed genuinely interested in the arguments presented.  I informed the judge that his privilege of immunity was not in effect until he is properly sworn and the oath filed with the county clerk of court.  He assured me he would research my information and inform me as to what action he would take, if any.]

View motion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26718710/Lt-Colonel-Donald-Sullivan-vs-NC-Board-of-Elections-Obama-Lawsuit

Birth Certificate March on Washington, Philip J Berg, February 4 2010, Demand Obama Resign, Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be President, Berg cases pending in the Federal Courts

Just in from Philip J Berg, February 4, 2010.

For Immediate Release:  – 02/03/2010

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005

(610) 825-3134

(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]

Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg Announces


“Birth Certificate March on Washington”
to Demand Obama Resign
as Obama is not
“Constitutionally qualified”
to be President

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/03/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States announces “Birth Certificate March on Washington” demanding Obama resign as President as he is “Constitutionally ineligible” to be President.

Berg is requesting all citizens of the United States to email, fax or mail a “copy” of their Birth Certificate that will be presented to Obama demanding that Obama resign because he has failed to produce his long form [vault] Birth Certificate to show he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President.

Berg related an email he received.  A woman from Texas told me she registered her thirteen [13] year old nephew for school.  When registration was finished, her nephew asked the Principal, “Can I ask you a question?”  The Principal said, “Yes.”  Her nephew said, “How come I had to show my Birth Certificate to register for school, but Obama did not have to show his to be President ?”

Berg said, “That email motivated me to continue to expose Obama for the fraud he is !”

Berg continued, “Since the Courts are taking their time to get to the point of allowing ‘Discovery,’ it is time to motivate the citizens of the United States for a ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to expose the ‘HOAX’ of Obama, the biggest ‘HOAX’ in the history of our country, in over 230 years !”

Berg wants people to email, fax or mail a copy of Their Birth Certificate to:

Email = philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Fax      = (610) 834-7659

Mail    =  Obamacrimes
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Berg said, “Then, we will be preparing them to deliver to Obama demanding that he resign from the Office of President as he has not proven that he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President and   that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia.

I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the 3.2 million men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution with our ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to prove that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”   

Berg continued, “I still have cases pending in the Federal Courts.  Go to obamacrimes.com to see the status of each case.”

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:

obamacrimes.com

Kerchner v Obama & Congress, US 3rd Circuit Appeal, Appellant’s Opening Brief, Filed 19 Jan 2010, Update January 20, 2010

From Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama & Congress, January 20, 2010.

For Immediate Release – 19 January 2010

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – U.S. 3rd Circuit Appeal – Appellant’s Opening Brief – Filed 19 Jan 2010

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/kerchner-v-obama-appeal-appellants.html

Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed the Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al lawsuit Appeal. The Brief was filed with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA on 19 Jan 2010. See this link to download a copy and read it:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25461132/

Attorney Apuzzo will comment on this action more in the next few days in his legal blog at:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/  However, please feel free to contact Atty Apuzzo with any immediate questions at the contact addresses listed in the afore listed blog site.

We look forward to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing this matter and ordering a trial on the merits as to the Article II Constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

We say Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a Usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic.

“We the People” will be heard on this matter! As the People in Massachusetts have demonstrated, “We the People” are the Sovereigns in this country and the Constitution is the fundamental law of our nation, not Obama or Congress. We will not be silenced.  The chair Obama sits in in the Oval Office is not his throne. It is the People’s seat too.  And Obama despite all his obfuscations to date must prove to Constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that seat.

This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for President. Obama at birth was born British and a dual-citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenships during his life-time. He’s a Citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a “natural born Citizen” with singular and sole allegiance and Citizenship at birth to the USA as is required per the Constitution per the intent of our founders and the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional standards.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Dr Orly Taitz, Update, January 11, 2010, Captain Pamela Barnett et al V Barack Hussein Obama lawsuit, Not been heard on the merits, No discovery has been granted, Quo Warranto

Just in a few minutes ago from Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney in Captain Pamela Barnett, et al V Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle L.R. Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and    President of the Senate.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-3078 
California State Bar No.: 223433
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
 
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,                           §
                        Plaintiffs,                                     §
                                                                            §
              v.                                                           §        Civil Action:
                                                                            §
Barack Hussein Obama,                                     §        SACV09-00082-DOC-AN
Michelle L.R. Obama,                                        §         REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State,      §        MOTION TO TRANSFER;
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense,             §        MOTION FOR LEAVE OF  
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and                  §        COURT TO FILE QUO
President of the Senate,                                      §        WARRANTO
Defendants.                                                         §
 
Here come the plaintiffs in this case (aside from Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson represented by Gary Kreep ) and concur with the brilliant suggestion by the Department of Justice and move the court to grant the Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto challenging constitutionality of position of Mr. Barack Hussein Obama as the president of the United States under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States for following reasons.
 
(1.) The case at hand has not been heard on the merits, no discovery has been granted and the court simply granted the defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss for want of Jurisdiction, when the defendants argued that the proper jurisdiction is Washington DC. In their opposition the defendants do not deny making such an argument.
(2.) The defendants twist the truth in their opposition claiming that the court didn’t find the jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. On page 26 of the order 89 the court states: “[T]he writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President  Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A Quo warranto may be issued from the United States District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States, civil and military”. D.C. Code §§16-35-1-3503. The court h! as denied the plaintiffs request to apply the District of Columbia quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice of law provisions. The court went even further by stating that “[W]hile the Court can apply the law of the other jurisdiction where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District of Columbia. Plaintiff’s quo warranto demand is hereby dismissed for improper venue”.  The court dismissed plaintiffs quo warranto due to improper venue, not on the merits of the case. At this time the plaintiffs have 3 options:  A. App! ealing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the DC statute quoted by the court itself does not state that the venue is exclusive and other district courts cannot apply this statute anywhere else in this country from Anchorage, Alaska to Tucson, Arizona, however an appeal might take a year and a half to get to trial, which means a year and a half of further usurpation of US presidency. B. The plaintiffs can file a new case in DC, however judging by stonewalling techniques of the Department of Justice, there will be another year of pretrial motions, which means another year of usurpation of US presidency. C. Motion for leave of court to file quo warranto to be granted by this court or to be transferred by this court directly to the Chief Judge of the US District of  Columbia Royce Lamberth who currently has under submission a related case and to include by reference all the pleadings in the current case of B! arnett et al v Obama et al. This will serve the interest of justice, it will clear the jurisdiction hurdle and will give both parties an opportunity to proceed with discovery and trial on the merits of the case. As this court very eloquently stated during the July 13 hearing, that the case should not be decided on technicality but on the merits. It is important for the country and the military.
 
     The plaintiffs have filed both with the Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and his successor Channing Phillips a request for Quo Warranto in March and April of 2009 respectively. Undersigned has already provided the Court with copies of the Certified Mail receipts, showing that those were received.  Hundreds of concerned citizens have called the Department of justice demanding a response to Quo Warranto submission. No response was received for ten months. Letters, e-mails, faxes went unanswered. Employees of the justice department were slamming phones in the face of the citizens calling and urging a response, even when those calls came from high ranking officers of US military. The undersigned does not know what was the reason for this t! otal dereliction of duties by Attorney General Holder and DC US attorneys Taylor and Phillips: was it A Laziness? B Lack of guts and spine? C Corruption? Regardless of the reason department of Justice cannot use their own inaction as justification in denying the plaintiffs ex-relators status in filing Quo Warranto. They cannot eat the cake and have it whole. This game of hide and seek by the Attorney General Holder and US attorneys played with the plaintiffs and their counselor is infantile at best and treasonous at worst, as National Security is on the line. Recent near tragedy of NorthWest 253, slaughter of CIA agents and tragedy at Fort Hood are only a few reminders of how dangerous it is to have a Big Question Mark with numerous stolen and fraudulent social security numbers sitting in the position of the President and Commander in Chief.       
 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant Leave of Court to file Quo Warranto as ex-relators in the name of the United States of America against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and to transfer this leave of court or transfer the request for leave of court with the rest of the file as an attachment to the US District court for the District of Columbia to be assigned to Honorable Judge Royce Lamberth, chief judge for the US District Court of the District of Columbia, who currently presides over a related case.
Writ of Quo Warranto
 
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 
I.   What is Respondent Obama’s standard and burden of proof of his birthplace under Quo Warranto and ethical duties? – Considering Obama’s first cousin Raela Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya, sealed alleged records of Obama’s birth in Mombasa; while the State of Hawaii holds Obama’s “original” sealed birth records, allows registration of births out of State, allows registration based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence and seals original birth records.
 
II. Does the State of Hawaii’s withholding Respondent’s Obama’s original birth records by privacy laws breach the U.S. Const. by obstructing constitutional rights duties of the People to vote, and State and Federal election officers to challenge, validate & evaluate qualifications of presidential candidates based on legally acceptable and not fraudulent records and the President Elect., per U.S. Const. art. II § 1, art. VI, & amend. XX § 3?
 
III.          Does the restrictive qualification for President of “natural born citizen” over “citizen” include allegiance to the U.S.A. from birth without any foreign allegiance, as required of the Commander in Chief in time of war to preserve the Republic, including birth within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. to parents who both had U.S. citizenship at that birth, and having retained that undivided loyalty?
 
IV.          Does birth to or adoption by a non-citizen father or mother incur foreign allegiance sufficient to negate being a “natural born citizen” and disqualify a candidate from becoming President?
 
V.           Having attained one’s majority, do actions showing divided loyalty with continued allegiance to the foreign nationality of one’s minority evidence foreign allegiance sufficient to disqualify one from being a “natural born citizen” with undivided loyalty to the U.S.A., such as campaigning for a candidate in a foreign election, or traveling on a foreign passport?
 
VI.          Does a presidential candidate or President Elect by default fail to qualify under U.S. Const., art. II § 2 and amend. XX, § 3, if they neglect their burden to provide State or Federal election officers prima facie evidence of each of their identity, age, residence, and natural born citizenship, sufficient to meet respective State or Federal statutory standards?
 
VII.        Do candidates for office disqualify themselves if they seek office under a birth name differing from a name given by adoption, or vice versa, when they neglect to provide election officers prima facie evidence of legal changes to their name, or if they neglect to legally change their name?
 
VIII.       Does a President elect fail to qualify through breach of ethical disclosure duties, and obstruction of election officers’ constitutional duties to challenge, validate and evaluate qualifications for President, by withholding or sealing records evidencing identity, age, residency, or allegiance, or by claiming privacy and opposing in court efforts by Electors, election officers, or the People to obtain and evaluate such records?
 
IX.          Does misprision by Federal election officers cause a President Elect to fail to qualify, if they neglect or refuse to challenge, validate, or evaluate qualifications of Electors or a President Elect, being bound by oath to support the Constitution and laws, after citizens provided information challenging those qualifications via petitions for redress of grievance, or by law suits?
 
X.           To uphold its supremacy and inviolability, and to preserve the Republic, does the U.S. Constitution grant standing to Citizens to bring suit or quo warranto over negligence, obstruction, misprision, or breach of constitutional duties, and protect the People’s rights?
 
Here come the plaintiffs/ ex-relators in the name of the United States of America praying this Honorable Court issue Quo Warranto writ against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States and Commander in Chief.
 
Ex Relators are seeking Quo Warranto under District of Columbia Codes §§16-3501-16-3503 which provides for the “Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America  against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military”.  The ex-relators assert that respondent Obama  has indeed usurped the franchise of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the United States Military forces due to his ineligibility and non-compliance with the provision of the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United  States that provides that the President of the United States has to be a Natural Born Citizen for the following reasons:
 
The legal reference and legal definitions used by the framers of the Constitution was the legal treatise “The Law of Nations” by Emer De Vattel as quoted and referenced in the Article 1, Section 8. The Law of Nations defines “…Natural Born Citizens, are those 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 conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Book 1, Chapter 19, §212. In his book Dreams From my Father   as well as on his web site Fight the Smears respondent Obama admitted to the fact that his father was never a US citizen, but rather a British citizen from a British colony of Kenya and based on British Nationality act respondent Obama was a British citizen at birth and a K! enyan citizen from age 2 on December 12, 1961 when Kenya became an independent nation. As such, for the reason of his allegiance to foreign nations from birth respondent Obama never qualified as a Natural Born citizen. 
 
In spite of some 100 legal actions filed and 12 Citizen Grand Jury presentments and indictments Respondent Obama due to his ineligibility  never consented to unseal any prima facie documents and vital records that would confirm his legitimacy for presidency.
 
          The state of Hawaii statute 338-5 allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative evidence from any hospital. Respondent Obama refused to unseal a birthing file (labor and delivery file) evidencing his birth from the Kapiolani Hospital where he recently decided, that he was born. Similarly, respondent Obama refused to consent to unseal his original birth certificate from the Health Department in the state of Hawaii. The original birth certificate is supposed to provide the name of th! e hospital, name of the attending physician and signatures of individuals in attendance during birth. As such there is no verifiable and legally acceptable evidence of his birth in the state of Hawaii.
Circa 1995 Respondent Obama has made an admission in his book Dreams from My Father that he has a copy of the original birth certificate, when describing a certain article about his father he write “…I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms…” In spite of the fact that respondent Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate, he released for public consumption only a COLB, an abbreviated certification of life birth which was issued in 2007 and does not provide any verifying information, such as name of the hospital and name of the attending physician and signatures, which infers that he knows that he is not eligible and actively trying to obfuscate the records in order to usurp US presidency. An affidavit from one of the most prominent forensic document experts, Sandra Ramsey Lines, previously submitted to this court, states t! hat authenticity of COLB and inference of the US birth cannot be ascertained based on COLB alone without examining the original birth certificate in Hawaii, that respondent Obama refuses to unseal and present in court and to the public at large.
 
As respondents schools records from Indonesia, previously submitted, show him the citizen of Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, and there is no evidence of legal name change upon his repatriation from Indonesia, there is a high likelihood of the scenario whereby the respondent was sworn in as a president not only illegitimately due to his allegiance to three foreign nations, but also under a name that was not  his legal name at the time of inauguration and swearing in as the president. 
 
Affidavits from licensed private investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels, previously submitted to this court, show that according to national databases respondent Obama has used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in Hawaii, which in itself is an evidence of foreign birth. Most egregious is the fact that the respondent has used for most of his life in Somerville Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois and currently in the White House SSN XXX-XX-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut between 1976-1979 and assigned to ! an individual born in 1890, who would have been 120 years old, if he would be alive today. Respondent never resided in the state of Connecticut and he is clearly not 120 years old. There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and social security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this Honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution of identity theft and social security fraud, as the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another.  The undersigned requests to bar the US attorney’s office from representing the respondent in such hearing based on US Code 44 Section 22 and due to obvious inherent conflict of interest.
 
Wherefore the plaintiffs ex-relators in the name of the United States of America are requesting this Honorable Court to issue a writ of Quo Warranto against a respondent Barack Hussein Obama and order an evidentiary hearing whether fraud upon the court was committed and whether criminal charges should be brought  against the respondent for fraud, identity theft and social security fraud.
 
 
s/ DR ORLY TAITZ ESQ
:__________________________________
. Orly Taitz, Esq. (California Bar 223433)
 for the Plaintiffs
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel.:  949-683-5411; Fax: 949-766-7603
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com
 
 
 
 
PROOF OF SERVICE
 
     I, the undersigned Orly Taitz,  hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, 01.06.2010, I provided electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-and-foregoing Notice of Filing to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the “STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:
ROGER E. WEST roger.west4@usdoj.gov (designated as lead counsel for President Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)
 
DAVID A. DeJUTTE
FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819
 AND EXECUTED ON THIS 01.06.2010
 
/s/Orly Taitz
 
Dr. Orly Taitz Esq
29839 Santa Margarita PKWY
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Philip J Berg, Update, September 18, 2009, Interview, MommaE blog radio, Status of 3 cases, Berg lawsuits, Obama not eligible, Obama not natural born citizen

Philip J Berg, who filed the first lawsuit in August 2008, claiming that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president, will be interviewed on MommaE blog radio tonight, September 18, 2009 at 8:30 PM ET. Philip Berg will provide updates on his 3 cases. Attorney Berg also warned in 2008 that if we did not resolve this eligibilty issue before the general election, that we would have a constitutional crisis. That is exactly what has happened.

“Hi,
 
I just want to let you know that tonight’s guest will be Attorney Phil Berg.  Phil will be giving us updates on the status of his 3 cases that are alive and well, plus telling us the true information about a Subpoena that surfaced a few days ago with his name on it.. 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”

Philip J Berg, Press release, February 24, 2009, Michael savage, Radio interview, Berg vs Obama, 2 cases, 1 under seal, Hollister vs. Soetoro aka Obama, Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional qualifications, eligibility, President of the United States

Philip J Berg Press release dated February 24, 2009:

 

02/24/09: PRESS RELEASE – Berg on Michael Savage Nation (Contact information and PDF at end)(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/24/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualifications/eligibility” to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama announced today that he will be on Michael Savage Nation tonight at 6:30 p.m. E.S.T.Berg stated, “I am thrilled to be on Savage Nation as Michael Savage has a widespread audience [10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week - on WOR in New York, KNEW in San Francisco, WKRO in Boston, or hundreds of other stations nationwide] and Michael asks the tough questions. The last time I appeared our dialogue regarding Obama was so great that I turned out to be the longest guest ever, being on for 1 ½ hours.

My appearance will help in our efforts to spread the word as the major media continues to refuse to cover this story – the most significant story in the history of our country; the biggest “HOAX” perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years, since our nation was established. Obama must be legally removed from office.”

Berg continued, “I believe that 10 to 15 million people are aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ and we must make 75 million people aware. When people are made aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ that Obama has not proven he is constitutionally ‘qualified/eligible’ to be President; that Obama has not produced his original (vault version) ‘Birth Certificate;’ that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia; they will demand Obama be removed from his office of President of the United States.”

Berg concluded, “I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the tens of thousands of men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution, with our legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”

The following is an update on my three [3] pending cases regarding my challenge to Obama’s lack of qualifications/eligibility to be President.

Also, I am preparing to file a 4th case – Quo Warranto [challenge person in office - that does not meet the qualifications].

As you know, I was the first to legally raise the issue – having filed my lawsuit on August 21, 2008, before the DNC Convention

Status of Cases:

Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09
Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and FEC filed on 2/17/09 (Appellees)
This is the case that was dismissed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA
Judge Surrick dismissed for lack of “standing” by Philip J. Berg
This is case that I bypassed Third Circuit to U.S. Supreme Court – where U.S. Supreme Court denied several Injunctions and to hear case.
However, case is still alive in Third Circuit.

Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
Berg filed Motion to Unseal – decision pending.

Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
Berg filed 1st Amended Complaint for Hollister on 2/09/09 after Soetoro/Obama and Biden filed Motion to Dismiss
Berg also filed Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
This is the case of retired Air Force Colonel Hollister who is on lifetime Presidential recall.
Hollister needs to know if recalled by Soetoro/Obama – must he obey an Order by a legal President or disobey the illegal Order by a Constitutionally ineligible/unqualified “Usurper” President.

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
obamacrimes.com

For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com

For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire           

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                                                     
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
                (6…        
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
Cell                 (6…        

philjberg@obamacrimes.com   

First hour interview between Berg and Savage
begins just after 17 minutes in.

First hour interview 

Second hour with additional comments from
Senator Shelby of Alabama.