Kerchner v. Obama: Court is “working on it”
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, had filed a Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009 (a brief background can be found here). He posted an update concerning the status of this case today:
There are many who want an update on what is going on with the court in the Kerchner case. The court listed the defendants’ (Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) motion for a second extension of time to answer or otherwise move as to the amended complaint for June 1, 2009. Not receiving any decision from the court as of June 5, 2009, I contacted Judge Schneider’s law clerk on June 5, 2009. She advised me that the June 1, 2009 date was a tentative date, with the court being able to decide the motion either before or after the date. She told me that the defendants’ motion was still pending and that “they” were working on it. She was not able to give me any more specific information as to when we can expect a decision.
I know that many of you are frustrated and have lost faith in the integrity of our legal system. I know that many of you do not believe that, given that we are so far post election and the lack of any support from our political leaders, institutions, and mainstream media, a court will have the moral and legal courage to do what you believe to be justice. But at this point, we can only believe and hope in a court honoring the Constitution and the rule of law by upholding the original intent of the Founding Fathers on the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” …
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British subject when he was born in Kenya. When Obama Jr. was born in 1961, his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father a British subject. At the time of his birth, his father, being in the U.S. only on a temporary basis to study, was not even a permanent resident or immigrant. When Obama was born, under the same British Nationality Act of 1948, he automatically became a British subject by decent from his father. Obama Jr., having a British father and being born a British subject himself, along with presumably being a United States citizen under a liberal and probably erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment (if he was born in the U.S.), was born with multiple allegiances and therefore fails the law of nations test and is not eligible under Article II to be President.
Moreover, given how Obama has so far comported himself and poorly represented the interests of the United States internationally, I doubt that he knows and appreciates that he “ought therefore to love [America] . . .” and “express a just gratitude to it, and requite its service as far as possible by serving it in turn.” Vattel.
Only our courts and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court are able to tell America what a “natural born Citizen” is, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The fate and future of and what type of nation America is going to be is all in their hands. In our Constitutional Republic, we have to allow due process to take its course and wait for their decision.
A primer on eligibility can be found here; Mr. Obama’s “sealed from public view” background documentation can be found here; a current listing of citizen grand jury updates and eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
28 responses to Kerchner v. Obama: Court is “working on it”
The UK law has no bearing. BHO was born in Hawaii, US law rules, period. Dream on.
Why is that every single case filed by this birther-cult gets dismissed? You guys are batting .000 in about 35 attempts.
It is hard to wait.
It is like watching people getting electrocuted to death standing in water when I know what to do is to shut off the electric.
But no I have to wait until the courts get their act together and rule to have the electric shut off.
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British subject when he was born in Kenya. When Obama Jr. was born in 1961, his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father a British subject. At the time of his birth, his father, being in the U.S. only on a temporary basis to study, was not even a permanent resident or immigrant.
>>>so in effect someone like Ahmamidgetman, dictator of IRan, or Chavez, or Kim Park, or retrospectively Adolf Hitler under our “laws” could come here, impregnate an American woman and that person could grow up to be president of USA ? Say What?
In addition to the eligibility lawsuits someone in Congress, it probably takes at least 2 should start an impeachment move against Hussein. By now Hussein has probably violated the Constitution while sitting as POTUS more than enough times to warrant such an action.
Thank you for the update. Zach
This sounds like bad news.
People sue in civil court all the time on different parties and persons. The type of civil lawsuits are diverse. There are literally hundreds of thousands of cases in our courts.
What is worse is that our courts will neither dismiss nor rule on these cases but will Shelve them for many years.
I certainly hope that Mario’s case has not been shelved.
If it has been shelved, then the courts will evenutally get back to the case about 4 years from now.
If Mario doesn’t hear of a decision soon, he should call again.
As more time passes, Mario should call the court more often.
If Mario finds that his case is being shelved, he should post the court contact information so people can start calling the court to release their decision.
Mario needs to get his case in the limelight to prevent his case from being shelved for 4 years.
Mario needs thousands of supporters to be invovled and to push this case in the most expidited fashion to prevent it from being shelved.
I wonder if Counselor Apuzzo realizes that he may very well automatically be an Italian citizen by descent from his grandparents. I was 43 years old before I discovered that this was true in my own case, and that of all my siblings.
Note: I am a citizen at birth, born on US Soil to two parents who were themselves American citizens by birth… also born on US soil. By every definition proposed by the Birthers (using de Vattel, Donofrio, Bingham or whoever else as their authority) I am a natural born American citizen… and yet I am still a dual citizen. I even carry two national passports, having obtained my Italian passport without having to take any sort of oath of allegiance to Italy whatsoever.
In other words, if Apuzzo is the grandchild of immigrants, he too would (by his own accounting) have been “born with multiple allegiances.”
The idea that any other nation’s automatic assignment of citizenship confers an “allegiance” that compromises any individual’s loyalty is simply absurd on its face. Allegiances are ultimately voluntary, as demonstrated in reverse by unquestioned natural born citizens who have betrayed their nation such as Robert Hansen and Jonathan Pollard.
We choose our loyalties. They are not assigned to us by foreign nations against our will.
john,
I seriously doubt that’s the case. On the other hand, the Judiciary can proceed excruciatingly slowly.
-Phil
da verg says:
June 8, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“>>>so in effect someone like Ahmamidgetman, dictator of IRan, or Chavez, or Kim Park, or retrospectively Adolf Hitler under our “laws” could come here, impregnate an American woman and that person could grow up to be president of USA ? Say What?”
Yes. If that person ran for President, won a majority of the Electoral College votes, the Electoral College vote was certified by the Congress and they were sworn in by the Chief Justice on Jan 20th. Natural Born Citizen = Born in the US.
Jon Galt says:
June 8, 2009 at 4:57 pm
“In addition to the eligibility lawsuits someone in Congress, it probably takes at least 2 should start an impeachment move against Hussein.”
[Unneeded sarcasm] The only ways to remove a sitting President are by impeachment by a majority of the House and conviction by 2/3 of the Senate (good luck with that), finding a candidate who can get more votes than he in the next election or eventually he will become ineligible via term limits.
Barack Hussein Obama IS the legal President of the United States. No magical court ruling is going to come down that invalidates the election and gives you a do-over. Convince the Congress to impeach him, find someone who can beat him next election, suck it up, or move to Canada.
Phil says:
Shelving it past any possible relevance took nine hours and ten minutes.
Apuzzo reports initially filing it on 20 Jan 2009 at at 2:50 a.m. EST. With no response from the court to the emergency petitions for stays and injunctions, events scheduled for noon of that day went ahead as planned. The U.S. Congress has the sole legal authority to remove the President, so now this case is just a matter of clearing garbage off the shelves.
HD wrote:
Mr. Arduini, you gut your entire argument by the last sentence.
“We do not choose our loyalties” and “we do choose are loyalties”: each of these propositions are true in different cases.
A NBC does not choose his loyalties, the natural circumstances of his birth as regards place and parentage do that.
A citizen who expatriates and immigrates or uses the right accorded to him as regards his lineage to become a citizen or be recognized as a citizen (as in the Case of Israel or many European Countries such as Ireland and Italy), does choose his loyalties.
So a NBC does not choose, and you in obtaining recognition of your Italian citizenship did choose.
But before you sought recognition, your loyalites were not divided, because you did not choose.
Zero if his father was Obama, did not choose, he was born with dual loyalties: if he was born overseass, a son of Obama, then he is only an American citizen by choice.
In any case, I see no reason to doubt Apuzzo’s legal expertise, even if he holds dual citizenship. The question is Zero’s citizenship status: why is it that you will never question that?
Is it some kind of religious dogma among the partisans for “Change”?
You Obots really act as if it were, since you refuse to even admit it or subject it to rational scrutiny: it is an a priori truth for most of you…
earl said:
You are 110% WRONG. Please stop this crazy notion. It’s absolutely, unquestionably flat out nonsense.
And it’s because of the ‘or naturalized’ clause in Amendment XIV. Otherwise by your own admission anyone naturalized would also be a Natural Born Citizen because both are one in the same: ‘citizens of the United States’. Documentation that satisfies Amendment XIV contradicts Natural Born Citizen requirements. And since all Amendments supercede any other previous statute in the Constitution, it is satisfied by a proof of birth first.
Prove me wrong. I doubt you can or will because so far you’ve flat out refused to reply to any of my arguments on this. I will repeat this yet again. Amendment XIV can not be used to satisfy Article II requirements for “Natural Born Citizen” because of the ‘or naturalized’ clause.
[...] Kerchner v. Obama: Court is “working on it” [...]
HistorianDude says “We choose our loyalties. They are not assigned to us by foreign nations against our will.”
Sounds so simple, please go explain that to the dead Americans that were press ganged prior to 1812 and placed upon British Ships and ultimately died there. (further unneeded sarcasm)
Choice of loyalty and Court assigned loyalty are two different things. I will make this simple, if a country can tax you or press gang you legally under their court system, they have a CLAIM on you. Two countries CLAIM you at birth, you are not a Natural Born Citizen. You may have ‘Italian citizenship’ but could they (by Italian laws) Tax you or draft you at your birth? What is the ‘Truth” here. You cannot serve two masters, and you can’t be Taxed by two countries (especially at 51% of your income each).
brygenon,
When you can cite evidence where your conclusion may actually have any basis in fact, then I might start taking such a comment seriously.
-Phil
JeffM says:
June 9, 2009 at 3:59 am
“You are 110% WRONG.”
- I am absolutely right. Born in the US = Natural Born Citizen. The Electoral College, the entire Congress, and the Chief Justice who swore in Pres Obama on Jan 20th agree with me. So does the DNC, the RNC, the FEC, the Dept of State, the Dept of Homeland Security, the 50 states, DC and 6 territories. All these people and agencies are wrong about Pres Obama’s eligibility and you, JeffM, are right? Nonsense.
- There are two types of citizen: born and naturalized. Born citizens are natural born citizens. A naturalized citizen is not, and could never be, a natural born citizen. I never said otherwise.
- You are exactly right that a born citizen is a natural born citizen. Born in the US = Natural Born Citizen. The 14th amendment amended all references to citizenship in the original Constitution.
- You prove me wrong. It is apparent that every controlling authority in this country agrees with me. As does every legitimate constitutional scholar.
Dear Mr. Apuzzo,
Yes, I am one who has been waiting for the court to prove its honor.
It is disappointing to read comments that which are muddeled in the same way that the ’08 campaign show was played. The Article is not a difficult application. I understand it. It is simple to comprehend lawfully, the difficulty appears when applied unlawfully.
And to the hopefully lawful citizens, would it not be prudent to request that simple laws be upheld and that honor continued in our courts? Gods’ speed Mr Apuzzo, your application and honor is apparent.
Sincerely
A lawful USA citizen
Breaking News! Gov has until June 29th to answer (At least the ball is rolling and the case hasn’t been shelved):
Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit – The motion by the defendants for the second extension in time to answer, move, or otherwise respond was granted. Their new deadline is June 29, 2009
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Phil wrote:
My facts there will check out. Phil, with the birthers’ record on these suits standing at zero for dozens, does it occur to you that your judgment on what to take seriously could perhaps be a bit off?
brygenon,
What — am I supposed to run things by you before I post them? I’d recommend you not holding your breath on that one.
-Phil
Earl,
You theory about the 14th Ammendment and born vs naturalized, runs contrary to what is said in Minor vs Happert, and thus, you are shown to be either ignorant or a liar.
Minor vs. Happert stated that a NBC was certain one born in the USA with 2 citizen parents, that was doubtful for one born in the USA of only 1 citizen parent, and that did not exist for one born in the USA of no US Citizen parent.
It uses naturalized and native as other terms for citizenship.
That is the US Supreme Court on the matter. Your opinion has constitutional no legal merit whatsoever.
da verg:
Yep. That’s exactly true.
Of course… there is the whole issue of an election, too. But why quibble about details?
Civis naturaliter natus:
See… that’s where you demonstrate that you have missed the entire point of the argument. Jonathan Pollard and Robert Hansen were both NBCs. Are you honestly pretending that they did not “choose their loyalties” when they betrayed the nation of their natural born citizenship?
Loyalty cannot be assigned by an act of law. It is a personal choice.
Okay. Hold onto that thought, because you are about to completely contradict yourself again. In your view, prior to voluntarily accepting an Italian passport, I was an NBC with undivided loyalties. Now… I was still a dual citizen, as Italian citizenship was granted to me automatically by Italian law. So you are forced by your own reasoning to agree that dual citizenship and natural born citizenship are not mutually exclusive.
Good. At least that issue is settled.
But additionally (as you explicitly acknowledge here) it takes a conscious choice for loyalties to be divided, not the involuntary imposition of act of law.
Then you do a sudden about face….
Huh? But you just said that I had undivided loyalties until I chose to divide them. How then can you contradict that for Obama? He too must be accorded the same standard: i.e. he has undivided loyalties until such time as he chooses to divide them. It does not matter that British Law automatically granted him British citizenship (as you admit it did not matter that Italian law had granted me Italian citizenship), he was a natural born citizen at birth and there exists no evidence that he has ever chosen otherwise.
Oh, trust me. It is not Apuzzo’s dual citizenship that causes me to doubt his legal expertise. I have actually read his blog and his filings.
As to why I do not question Obama’s citizenship status, it is because he has proven that status as per the standards of the US Department of State. They have even declared as much under oath.
Pete:
It sounds simple because it is. And your example here does nothing to contradict that. In fact, it puts an even finer point on the truth of my position.
The “press ganging” of American sailors onto British ships is identical to (not merely analogous with) the “press ganging” of American citizens into dual citizenship by foreign (in Obama’s case British) laws. The latter is no more legitimate than the former. Your argument, though, is claiming that Obama cannot be president because he was “press ganged” into British citizenship against his will… probably even without his knowledge.
That argument is absurd on its face, let alone without any legal support.
No other nation’s laws can trump American laws when it comes to deciding who our natural born citizens are.
Are you even listening to yourself here? What “court” assigns loyalties? I must have missed that session in civics class.
1. We choose our loyalties.
2. We also choose which country gets to tax us, within the limits and complexities of international tax law which have almost nothing to do with citizenship.
3. If we are “press ganged” however, we have not made a choice. We have instead become victims of crime.
And as an aside… yes, the Italian government could have drafted me had they known I existed prior to my 40th birthday. Remember, my Italian citizenship was automatic (as Obama’s British citizenship was automatic). They didn’t even have to know I existed, and I didn’t even have to know I was an Italian citizen.
Civis naturaliter natus:
No… it did not.
It said there was no doubt for the first.
It said there was some doubt for the second, but explicitly declined to settle that doubt.
It said absolutely nothing about the third. That part you simply made up out of thin air.
Civis naturaliter natus says:
June 10, 2009 at 3:55 am
“Minor vs. Happert stated that a NBC was certain one born in the USA with 2 citizen parents, that was doubtful for one born in the USA of only 1 citizen parent, and that did not exist for one born in the USA of no US Citizen parent.”
Minor vs. Happersett does not say that anywhere. Paraphrasing a court decision to say what you want it to say is worse than lying. But then, you didn’t read it yourself or you’d have at least gotten the names right. Here is exactly what the Chief Justice wrote in the majority opinion in this case:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who will be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law with the nomenclature which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. ”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7522834/Minor-v-Happersett-88-US-162-1874
“As to this class, there have been doubts.” Just like with the “he’s not eligible” ers of today. You have your doubts. But cases are not proven by casting doubts. Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. Prove Otherwise.