Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Kerchner v Obama - w/Historical NBC ref)

puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 7/21/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

Monday, July 20, 2009
Filing Announcement: Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Filed
Filing Announcement: Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed his opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint/Petition Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and Alternatively to Strike the Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition.

A must read, it's replete with historical reference to the understanding of what the term Natural Born Citizen means.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

[rxsid]

Ping!

[RebelTXRose]

read later

[penelopesire]

Bookmark. Thanks for posting.

[fso301]

A much better researched and written document as compared to those written by major Cooke’s attorney.

[Red Steel]

Going to read this all sometime today with anticipation.

And to all those trolls, and you know who you are (zotted Michael Michael) and the remaining of you intellectually dishonest people. Read this.

From the Brief:

"U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 649 (1898) only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not an Article II "natural born Citizen" ..."

But I expect you guys to keep up the lie that Ark settled who is a natural born citizen even though you trolls know you are liars.

[Red Steel]

Thanks for posting. ;-)

[rxsid]

Yes indeed. The truth will come out!

[rolling_stone]

I just want to point out that an acting US Attorney and an ASSistant US Attorney are representing defendants. I thought they were supposed to uphold the Constitution? Our tax dollars at work.

[azishot]

Thanks for the ping.

Will definitely read later.

[conservativegramma]

Wow. Bombshell. Thanks for posting. I was familiar already with the cases regarding definition of 'natural born'. I was not familiar with the following cases:

• State v. Hunt, 2 Hill (SC) (1834) – Explains the legal, ethical,, and moral obligation that an officer has to honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution
• Cole v. Richardson, 405, U.S. 676, 92 S. Ct. 1332, 31 L.Ed.2nd 593 (1972) – explains the military officer’s oath to protect and defend the constitution provides standing
• Bergdoll v. Kane 557 Pa. 72, 731 A.2d 1261, 1268 (1999) – the PA Supreme Court ruled that an attorney had demonstrated a substantial, direct and immediate interest as an attorney sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and therefore had standing to bring suit.

Seems to me that there is legal precedence for the military (such as Major Cook) to legitimately have standing and be able to sue to confirm that their oaths to defend the constitution are upheld and should not face any sort of court martial or disciplinary action in so doing as many Freepers have suggested! Freepers who have suggested this have themselves violated the civil rights of these military officers, such as Major Cook, and owe him an apology!

Secondly Bergdoll v. Kane has already ruled that any attorney seeking to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution HAS STANDING!!!!!!!!! Therefore, ANY suit seeking to protect and defend the Constitution regarding the natural born status of Obama being REJECTED due to lack of standing is FALSE and unconstitutional!

[real_patriotic_american]

Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, attended the University of Hawaii during the fall of 1960. She was enrolled at the University of Washington in autumn of 1961.

Between these start dates, Miss Duham became pregnant with Obama on Nov. 1, 1960 while she was 17 years of age. Claims are that she married Obama Sr. on February 2, 1961. If this is correct and Obama Sr. was already married, it would constitute bigamy. Bigamy is outlawed in Hawaii, but legal in Kenya. Thus, chances are that Obama’s mother had moved to Kenya residing there the months preceding Obama’s 1961 birth.

Obama’s own grandmother states that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. Thus, he would not be a natural born citizen. Obama is reported to have been born August 4, 1961.

Now, how could Obama be born in Kenya or Hawaii and then have his mother enrolled at the University of Washington later that same month? Unlikely movement!

Is there any witnesses to Stanley Ann Dunham’s location and movement in 1961 up through Obama’s birth. Any medical clinic visits in the U.S. during her pregnancy? I have not heard of any which is a good indication that she was in Kenya.

Claims indicate that Obama was adopted and became Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He would then have lost natural born citizenship if he even ever had it. He attended Occidental College as Barry Soetoro. Occidental College informed Newsweek that Obama enrolled as a foreign student (info at FreeRepublic).

By simply releasing his original long form birth certificate, Obama could prove whether he is a natural born citizen or not. By spending an enormous amount in legal fees to keep his birth certificate hidden, it leads one to think that he is NOT a natural born citizen.

[conservativegramma]

In my opinion WHERE Obama was actually born is completely moot. He has ALREADY declared via his fight the smears website that his father was a British subject. The defnition of 'natural born' requires TWO citizen parents, not just one. Therefore he cannot possibly be natural born.

This definition was defined by Emerich De Vattel in 1758. Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212: defines 'natural born' as 'those children born in the country, of PARENTS who are citizens.'

This definition has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in:

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 in 1830 - they reinforced Vattel's definition in this case.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 in 1875 - again the same definition as Vattel was reinforced in this case.

Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 - In this case not only was the same definition as Vattel reinforced yet again, but the source citation for this definition was Vattel!

United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) - Vattel was again cited as the source for the proper definiton of 'natural born' as understood by the framers of our constitution.

Nowhere has this traditional definition ever been overturned. Not in the 14th amendment which only defines 'citizenship', not 'natural born status' - not in any SCOTUS decisions (quite the opposite) - and not in any Acts of Congress. I've been shouting this from the rooftops for over a year and very few are even listening.

[rxsid]

"By simply releasing his original long form birth certificate, Obama could prove whether he is a natural born citizen or not."

My understanding is that even if Barry could produce a legit HI long form B.C. he would still NOT be considered a NBC because of these to facts (unless he lied who his father was):

1) His father was a foreign national, who never had any "attachement" to this country. He only ever had a temporary student visa.
and
2) Barry himself admitted to having been born a foreign subject (British) and therefore the British govt' could also claim jurisdiction over him.

Attorney Apuzzo's filing is filled with references that state NBC = born in country, to two (2) citizen parents.
Barry obviously fails that no matter where he was really born.

On a side, but related note...

Vattel's original work: Le Droit des Gens (The Law of Nations) (1758) was written in French. Notice the title contains the word "natureles" (as in Natural) and that parents is plural in this original

A valid long form HI B.C. will ONLY prove weather or not he is a citizen and not an illegal alien (as there is no know naturalization record for him).

[bvw]

Try not to use up all the exclamation points? You see I had to substitute a question mark there.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Secondly Bergdoll v. Kane has already ruled that any attorney seeking to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution HAS STANDING!!!!!!!!! Therefore, ANY suit seeking to protect and defend the Constitution regarding the natural born status of Obama being REJECTED due to lack of standing is FALSE and unconstitutional!

Bergdoll v. Kane is a Pennsylvania state-court case. It is not a federal case and has nothing to do with federal law. There is a long line of SCOTUS decisions holding that a plaintiff has no standing in federal court if he is raising a "generalized grievance" that all citizens have in common. Such claims have to be decided by the elected branches, not the courts.

[rxsid]

"natureles" should be "naturels" in my post above.

Of course, the translation most are familiar with is the English translation which was titled (in 212) "Of citizens and natives".

"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212"
http://www.thebirthers.org/ (yes, that site does believe Barry is a usurper, contrary to their name. they've simply 'embraced' the so call slander from the obots.)

French to English translations do sometimes come with mistakes....case in point here.

[BP2]

From Thomas Lee's (University of Chicago Law) essay, “The Safe-Conduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute”:

On Monday, March 10, 1794, during the height of young Republic’s neutrality crisis, the Senate ordered: “That the Secretary purchase Blackstone’s Commentaries, and Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.” The purchase order—the first books the Senate bought (and the only ones it apparently ordered in the eighteenth century) -- gives us insight not only into the reference books the members of the First Congress likely consulted for issues relating to the ATS, but also signifies the omnipresent, omnipotent dual influence—sometimes complementary as with the ATS, at other times pointing in different directions— of English common law (represented by Blackstone) and continental “public” law (represented by Vattel) on the founding group.

The treatise by the Swiss thinker Emmerich de Vattel entitled The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns was the supremus inter pares of the international law texts the founding group used during the crucial decade between 1787 and 1797. The Founders also read and cited other leading authorities, most notable Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, but Vattel was their clear favorite.

Vattel’s work was first published in French in 1758, with the first English translation published in London in 1759. By 1787, there was another English edition and eight more French editions. The first American edition was published in New York in 1796 (BELOW). Vattel’s treatise, according to Benjamin Franklin as early as 1775, was “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting.” The book was especially treasured for its directions on how the young Republic should conduct its foreign affairs. At one cabinet meeting in April 1793, Alexander Hamilton cited Vattel for the proposition that the United States could unilaterally revoke its treaty of alliance with France given the dramatic upheaval in that country. “Jefferson was not swayed by the citation, but it did cause Edmund Randolph, the attorney general, to reconsider his opposition to Hamilton’s proposal. Unfortunately, a copy of Vattel’s was not available at the moment, and so the meeting adjourned” until a copy could be located.

[Red Steel]

In my opinion WHERE Obama was actually born is completely moot.

I agree. The birth certificate helps the Joe six-pack crowd understand and it's harder for the MSM to lie by omission to persuade them if Obama was born outside the US. And the court system would find it easier for them to go beyond the BC issue to what really constitutes a natural born citizen.

[real_patriotic_american]

I agree! Both parents must be American citizens.