Kerchner V Obama, lawsuit, July 13, 2009, Washington Times, Mario Apuzzo, Obama not natural born citizen
Citizen Wells published
Look for this ad in the Washington Times on Monday, July 13, 2009, regarding the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit filed by attorney Mario Apuzzo.
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 con icted
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 con rmed 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 de ning
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 Of ce
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
in uences which because of con ict 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
quali cations 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
con rms 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 de nition 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
con rmed 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 Of ce of
President and Commander in Chief of the
Military be free of foreign in uence 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
quali ed to hold the Of ce 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
Sarah PAULIN could help Mario APPUZZO,
Orly TAITZ, Leo DONOFRIO, BERG….. to obtain a
loyal information about the status of citizenship(s)
of B.O. by writing and signing with them a letter
to the Chief of the Supreme Court John ROBERTS.
Just asking to the Chief of the Supreme Court
if the definition of the Constitutional Status of Natural Born Citizenship stated tby the US SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITEE on April 3:
“because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Sen. John McCAIN is a Natural Born Citizen of the US”………..
aplies only for John McCAIN and, but not for the Democrate candidate thats is born of foreign parent ?
Sarah PALIN being a rival at the Presidential Election of B.O
has the “standing” beside Mario APUZZO, Orly TAITZ, Leo DONOFRIO, BERG….and before John ROBERTS and the Conference of the Justices, to obtain just the certification that B.O is not or is a Natural Born Citizen, without having to say if he is qualified or not to be President.
It’s the job of John ROBERTS and the Supreme Court to call Dr FUKINO and verify the HAWAIIAN COLB, long form, and its following records:
- Foreign Citizenship of the father
- citizenship and age of the mother
- certified signature of the doctor
- name of the hospital
- Indonesian certificate of adoption
- changes of identity: BarrySOETORO
-.etc ….
It is not the job of the Chief of Justices ROBERTS
to verify the qualification or eligibility or impeach the President, because he is not the Congress.
The status of Natural Born Citizenship and false claims of NBC are a matter that comes, out of the Presidential Election procedure and exists before the Presidential campaign of 2008…..as far as in
August 4, 1961 and in UKC KENYA,
then at the time of the adoption in Indonesia and the 2D marriage of his mother with a second foreign parent.
It’s not interference by the Supreme Court, and Chief of Justices ROBERTS to tell the truth, about what happened in August 4, 1961, by just saying that he is not a NBC and cann’t be one with a foreign father.
It’s an interference by the Supreme Court, to say that he is not qualified to be President, because that’s the Job of the US Congress, not the Supreme Court’s.
There is two sorts of Natural Born Citizenship status:
A) the commun one: born to two US Citizens
B) the Constitutional and Presidential
eligibility one.
The Supreme Court is not concerned by B but A.
There is many lawsuits, in the the Supreme Court’s History about the citizenship status and false claims of citizenship, that didn’t meant to interfere with political parties and campaigns, legislative or executive branches.
Each branch sweeps up his own house.
1) Supreme Court the false citizenship claims
no person has the right to claim a false
citizenship status to obtain a Job.
2) US Congress is exclusivly concerned about
the qualifications of the
candidate,…President Elect… President….
but a Senator or Rep has no
” standing” before Dr FUKINO to obtain the
COLB (long form) or conduct any
investigation (Privacy Act )
The Job of the Supreme Court is not to be silent in matters of false claims of cityzenship.
Justice SABATINO noted that John McCAIN was a Natural Born Citizen in the lawsuite of Leo DONOFRIO.
Always John MCCAIN is evaluted, controlled, verified by the Senate, Congress, and Supreme Court (SABATINO………….but never B.O
WHY?
In a jumbled and semi-literate sort of way, your point makes sense. Perhaps it has been because Orly Taitz’s lawsuits were too encompassing that caused the reluctance to hear her cases in open court. Perhaps the other eligibility cases filed by the other lawyers were also seen as over-reaching the authority of the Supreme Court; enough to put them in conflict with the other branches of government. The simplified question of a judicial determination of the citizenship status of BO may be the extent of any court’s authority in a situation such as this. A determination of citizenship might give Us the right,reason and standing to take the issue before Congress and demand Constitutional enforcement.
Yes Vattel said there has to be two citizens of the country. Nobody else did, however, and the writers of the Constitution did not adopt all that Vattel recommended, such as his recommendation that a country establish a specific religion and force people to join it.
The meaning of Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen stems from the laws in the colonies at the time of the Revolution in which anyone who was born in the colony was considered a Natural Born Subject. Natural Born is thus a synonym for native born or born in the country.
And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
For smrstrauss:
True, what you said. But fact is that Obot hasn’t produced anything that shows he was born here. In fact all the tap dancing on the internet and at the hospitals and in the Hawaii Dept. of Health, brings us to a point of reasonable skepticism.
FACE IT, if OBOT HAD A BIRTH CERTIFICATE SHOWING HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII, IT WOULD BE ALL OVER THE NET. AND NOT THE CRAP COLB. MUCH MORE LIKELY, HE WAS BORN IN MOBASSA, OR IN TRANSIT, OR IN CANADA.
AND THUS, WE HAVE A USURPER IN OFFICE
Re: “But fact is that Obot hasn’t produced anything that shows he was born here.”
He has produced the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html
The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department.
And, since it is the only document that Hawaii currently sends out, unless Obama has a copy of the original himself, saved from the time of birth by the family and not lost (as many of us do lose their original birth certificates), then all that he can show is the document that Hawaii sent him, which is the Certification.
There is no proof whatsoever that he was born in Mombassa, and Canada is even less likely. I remember Canada in the 1960s. They wouldn’t let pregnant women in to give birth in their country, and they wouldn’t even let pregnant women in in the last few months of pregnancy for fear that they might give birth in their country. And that went double when the woman was accompanied by a black male.