Kerchner v. Obama Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument

puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 6/15/2010 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq

[rxsid]

"Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court. The case will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence is therefore not required.

The Court also informed me that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.

The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.

Of course, it is our hope that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/06/kerchner-et-al-v-obamacongress-et-al.html

[patlin]

very good find there. another interesting bit of historical evidence as I again listen to the Tuan Anh Nguyen oral arguments comes from none other than Justice Ginsburg:

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934

Note that Ginsburg calls it the bad old days aka before feminism, but the rule did not change as to the birth status of a child born in wedlock and historical research of state laws is proof of that. Not until after the 1965 INS Act & then the subsequent opening of citizenship to Vietnamese & Korean children born to US soldiers to give them refuge from an oppressive regime, did the citizenship waters get all muddied up. IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP PER SAUL ALINSKY & THE COMMUNIST PARTY USA AS WELL AS THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA INWHICH BARACK MILLHOUSE HUSSEIN OBAMA WAS A CARD CARRYING MEMBER!

Now the question begs to be answered. Did the Congress by passing the Act in 1934 which allowed women to hold seperate citizenship from the husband completely change the Constitutional definition of NBC as it pertains to A2S1C5?

[El Gato]

Scalia is recognizing the fact that under the US Constitution & US codified law, the the US, there is no law allowing for dual citizenship. This would apply whether born in the US or abroad.

There is also no law prohibiting it.

However in this case their is a law that says that certain people are citizens at birth. So he's wrong when he says that the person was not a citizen until proven to be one. He was a citizen at birth, under the statutes, but that status just was not recognized. Semantics, maybe, but I think not quite.

[patlin]

Another interesting find pertaining to children born in wedlock. If the child born in wedlock automatically gains the citizenship of the mother then why did the government say this:

(b) United States born child of citizen mother and alien diplomat farther eligible . A child born in the United States of a citizen mother and an alien father what was a foreign diplomatic official accredited to the United States was deemed to have been born outside the United States for the purpose of naturalization under the above 1940 provisions.

according to the government, in 1940 citizenship was still derived primarily form the father unless born out of wedlock. This is in compliance with International law of the time.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48278.html