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

[rxsid]

"“Furthermore, the 14th Amendment deals with ‘citizenship’ and not ‘natural born citizen’ and you know that’”

I think you know natural born citizen means nothing but citizen from birth. But you don’t like Obama, so you’ll say anything.

----------------------------------------

I think you like Obama, and therefore are more than happy to see the office of the Presidency usurped. For someone like you, it's ALL about party politics...the Constitution be damned!

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

The framers knew exactly who a natural born citizen was. One born in country, to citizen parentS. The same definition mentioned in 5 SCOTUS cases, early law books and read into the Congressional record by none other than the framer of the 14th Amendment.

[bushpilot1]

[Tublecane]

“I think you like Obama, and therefore are more than happy to see the office of the Presidency usurped.”

Of course you would. People who disagree with you must not have good reason, but rather are motivated by adverse politically ideology. Perchance are you a deconstructivist literary professor?

[rxsid]

"Maybe Barack Obama, Sr. is NOT his father...."

A most probable possibility, as a marriage between Sr. and SADO would be considered bigamous or polygamous (depending on what SADO knew or didn't).

What then, for starters, of the world famous short form COLB that list's his father as Sr.? That (alleged) copy of a government document was proudly posted on his own campaign web site.

[Tublecane]

Enough with you Birthers and your ugly cut-and-paste posts. How about you drop the talking points and address things other people are discussing for once.

In every exchange it’s Vattel this, Vattel that. He’s not the key to the universe. Use your words.

[Danae]

Forgive me, but I disagree completely.

This is clearly a constitutional matter which directly affects the very legality of this country. I believe they will hear it. Either this case or one of the others.

You cannot make the logical assumption that because they did not hear the previous cases, that they will not hear this one, or any other future case. That logic fails.

The Vietnam War is a completely different case, with different underlying constitutional issues. The case itself and how it may or may not be written has a great deal to do with whether or not it gets a hearing.

You also neglect to note that many of the cases the SCOTUS refused to hear were cases that were brought directly to it. The court rarely ever hears those cases. It has to come to it from the court system. You should know better than this. That was a subtle and misleading statement you made.

Sorry, but I am going to utterly disagree with you. May as well move onto the next poster.

[rxsid]

"“There was only 1 definition available to the framers for citizens who were natural born. That of Vattel’s.”

That is a damn lie, and you know it. You know full well that no translation of Vattel used NBC until AFTER the Constitution was adopted, and you know there were other sources available for that phrasing.

You won’t win in court by relying on lying...

----------------------------------------

Your a damn lier and a damn fool. You know full well many (if not most) of the framers read French, you damned lier you.

[Danae]

He isn’t the key to the universe, he is the key to the CONSTITUTION.

Get over it and yourself. You are simply wrong.

[rxsid]

"“So you see there, the U.S. DOES recognize dual nationality”

If by “recognize” you mean the U.S. government is aware dual citizenship exists, well, duh. What’s important is that it makes no legal difference, which is what I was getting at. The U.S. government does not legally recognize dual citizenship. Persons born with allegiance to another country is every bit a citizen as everyone else (aside from naturalized citizens, of course, who can’t be president).

----------------------------

What, now your simply making stuff up? Where's your proof that "The U.S. government does not legally recognize dual citizenship."

I've just shown you proof that the state department (which, as you know, is part of the government) DOES recognize it.

[rxsid]

"think you left out a word:

The framers definition for a natural born citizen included people NOT born with allegiance to a foreign nation ...

-----------------------------------------

I intentionally left it off, see the /s (sarc) tag. I posted that way, because that's how tublecane and the other's like him believe.

[rxsid]

And of course you would too.

[Tublecane]

” And of course you would too.”

WOuld what? Assume you dislike Obama? The difference is in your case it’s a guess, whereas I know where you’re coming from.

[Danae]

“You know full well that no translation of Vattel used NBC until AFTER the Constitution was adopted, and you know there were other sources available for that phrasing.”

That is complete BULLS***. The Law of Nations was written long before the constitution, and the many french speaking members of the constitutional congress, including Ben Franklin, USED Vattel’s work and referred to it in letters etc. Even George Washington had a copy, as was VERY well publicized just a couple of months ago, he forgot to return the copy he HAD to the Library he BORROWED it from.

The only one trying to obfuscate history appears to be YOU.

[rxsid]

Who said Vattel was "the key to the universe"? What in the world are you talking about? Did you even bother to spend a moment reading my post #1? Answer, no. Otherwise you would have seen this before I stared talking about Vattel:

What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic.

[Lurking Libertarian]

You also neglect to note that many of the cases the SCOTUS refused to hear were cases that were brought directly to it. The court rarely ever hears those cases. It has to come to it from the court system. You should know better than this. That was a subtle and misleading statement you made.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in every Obama case brought to it, including at least seven cases which came up from lower courts.

Sorry, but I am going to utterly disagree with you. May as well move onto the next poster.

Disagree all you want, but time will prove me right. SCOTUS will never hear an Obama eligibility case (unless some lower court finds Obama ineligible, in which case they will hear the case and reverse). I speak not as a defender of Obama (I think he is a terrible President), but as a lawyer who knows something of the way the court system works. If there was ever a nonjusticiable "political question," this is one.

[mlo]

"Dual citizenship at birth is an automatic disqualifier."

Nope.

It isn't.

[rxsid]

"” And of course you would too.” WOuld what? Assume you dislike Obama? The difference is in your case it’s a guess, whereas I know where you’re coming from."

What you started back in post #50:

"But you don’t like Obama, so you’ll say anything." I then stated that you like Obama, so you don't care that a usurper is in the W.H. (paraphrasing). That's what. The irony here, is that it's you who is guessing. I've given numerous sources in many of my posts. You've done nothing but offer up your opinion that's unsubstantiated.

[Mr Rogers]

Vattel’s work was translated multiple times before the Constitution was written, but not with the phrase “natural born citizen”. The French does no support that translation. “Natives” and “indigenous” would be the transliterated words used by Vattel, so the french speaking members would NOT have thought about ‘natural born citizen’. Had they wanted to follow Vattel, they would have inserted the words ‘native’ or ‘indigenous’. They did not.

English common law had established use of ‘natural born subject’, and it was natural for the Framers to use ‘citizen’ instead of ‘subject’, since a republic has no king. Multiple Supreme Courts rulings have used British common law to determine the original intent of the Founder’s phrase.

It is dishonest to pretend the Founders were using Vattel in writing NBC when you know full well that Vattel did not use the phrase in French, and no translator used it until AFTER the Constitution was written. Vattel was changed to match the Constitution’s phrase, not the Constitution using Vattel.

[Mr Rogers]

Ping to #78, since you are spreading lies.

[Tublecane]

“’But you don’t like Obama, so you’ll say anything.’ I then stated that you like Obama, so you don’t care that a usurper is in the W.H. (paraphrasing). That’s what.”

I have actual evidence to believe you don’t like Obama. You possess nothing of the kind for my alleged love of Obama. False equivocation.

“The irony here, is that it’s you who is guessing. I’ve given numerous sources in many of my posts. You’ve done nothing but offer up your opinion that’s unsubstantiated.”

That’s beside the point. If I’m untethered on the larger issue it doesn’t change anything about this sub-issue.

By the way, people’s long, colorful posts with quotations from Vattel and scans of various old books aren’t necessarily substantial. Most of the time, they are proffered with little or no prompting. And they’re always the same, on every thread, regardless of the particular conversation. Easy way to avoid real argument.