Njon
07-07-2009, 01:43 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is the plaintiff's attorney in Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president under the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. The last update I posted on this case was at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=197559
Kerchner v. Obama is a strong case; perhaps the strongest case challenging Obama's eligibility we have yet seen. Here are some key points:
1. It was filed on January 20th before Obama was inaugurated.
2. It covers both the birth certificate argument and the argument regarding Obama possessing Kenyan (British) citizenship at birth thru his father.
3. It covers multiple defendants because Obama, Cheney, Pelosi, the Senate, the House, Congress as a single entity, and the United States itself, are all named as defendants. This way, they can't just pass blame onto one another because they are all named.
4. The lead plaintiff, Charles Kerchner, is ex-military and thus subject to recall, which would place him under Obama's command. If Obama is not Constitutionally-eligible, this puts Kerchner in more danger than a citizen who has never served in the military.
Apuzzo is working on this case pro bono. Right now it is at a critical point. The defense has a motion to dismiss pending which was going to be ruled on July 20th. Yesterday, Apuzzo filed for an automatic extension and now it will be ruled on August 3rd. Apuzzo needs to file his response to the motion to dismiss at least 14 days prior to that date.
At http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/plaintiffs-obtain-extension-of-time-to.html Apuzzo has posted asking for help with research and arguments. The main things that need to be defeated in the defense's arguments are:
1. They claim that the plaintiffs have no standing (right to sue) under Article III of the Constitution because they can't demonstrate an injury-in-fact or the ability of the courts to remedy it.
2. They claim that the plaintiffs have no standing prudentially because the issue is too generalized and the proper place to handle this is in the legislature, not the courts.
3. They claim the United States, Congress, the House, the Senate, and Cheney and Pelosi in their official capacities, are immune because the government is sovereign and cannot be sued unless it waives immunity.
4. They claim Cheney and Pelosi in their official capacities are immune from suit under Article I, section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution.
5. They claim that Obama, Cheney and Pelosi are immune from suit because no clear Constitutional violation was alleged.
The defense's arguments are clearly ridiculous. They are contrary to popular sovereignty and the right to petition for redress of grievances. These arguments are beatable but Apuzzo does need help with research, as stated.
So, if you have any legal or historical research skills, or know of any court cases, historical facts, quotes from the founders or other prominent/respected figures in American history, etc. or even simply any logical argument, that may be helpful in dismantling any of the defense's claims, please send them to Apuzzo ASAP or post them on his blog. And if at all possible, please provide citations.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
Phone: (732) 521-1900
Fax: (732) 521-3906
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
You can read the defense's motion to dismiss and see their specific arguments for yourself at http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/
At http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ on the right side of the page you will find links to many of the documents from the case.
Kerchner v. Obama is a strong case; perhaps the strongest case challenging Obama's eligibility we have yet seen. Here are some key points:
1. It was filed on January 20th before Obama was inaugurated.
2. It covers both the birth certificate argument and the argument regarding Obama possessing Kenyan (British) citizenship at birth thru his father.
3. It covers multiple defendants because Obama, Cheney, Pelosi, the Senate, the House, Congress as a single entity, and the United States itself, are all named as defendants. This way, they can't just pass blame onto one another because they are all named.
4. The lead plaintiff, Charles Kerchner, is ex-military and thus subject to recall, which would place him under Obama's command. If Obama is not Constitutionally-eligible, this puts Kerchner in more danger than a citizen who has never served in the military.
Apuzzo is working on this case pro bono. Right now it is at a critical point. The defense has a motion to dismiss pending which was going to be ruled on July 20th. Yesterday, Apuzzo filed for an automatic extension and now it will be ruled on August 3rd. Apuzzo needs to file his response to the motion to dismiss at least 14 days prior to that date.
At http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/plaintiffs-obtain-extension-of-time-to.html Apuzzo has posted asking for help with research and arguments. The main things that need to be defeated in the defense's arguments are:
1. They claim that the plaintiffs have no standing (right to sue) under Article III of the Constitution because they can't demonstrate an injury-in-fact or the ability of the courts to remedy it.
2. They claim that the plaintiffs have no standing prudentially because the issue is too generalized and the proper place to handle this is in the legislature, not the courts.
3. They claim the United States, Congress, the House, the Senate, and Cheney and Pelosi in their official capacities, are immune because the government is sovereign and cannot be sued unless it waives immunity.
4. They claim Cheney and Pelosi in their official capacities are immune from suit under Article I, section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution.
5. They claim that Obama, Cheney and Pelosi are immune from suit because no clear Constitutional violation was alleged.
The defense's arguments are clearly ridiculous. They are contrary to popular sovereignty and the right to petition for redress of grievances. These arguments are beatable but Apuzzo does need help with research, as stated.
So, if you have any legal or historical research skills, or know of any court cases, historical facts, quotes from the founders or other prominent/respected figures in American history, etc. or even simply any logical argument, that may be helpful in dismantling any of the defense's claims, please send them to Apuzzo ASAP or post them on his blog. And if at all possible, please provide citations.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
Phone: (732) 521-1900
Fax: (732) 521-3906
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
You can read the defense's motion to dismiss and see their specific arguments for yourself at http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/
At http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ on the right side of the page you will find links to many of the documents from the case.