Posted on 01/22/2009 1:22:47 PM PST by dascallie
"Activism, Eligibility, Kerchner v. Obama, POTUS » Kerchner v. Obama: Complaint, Petition Filed in NJ Federal District Court Thu, Jan 22, 2009
Mario Apuzzo, a New Jersey attorney, filed a case early Tuesday morning, a Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto:
On early Tuesday morning, January 20, 2009, at about 3:00 a.m., I filed a Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto on behalf of my clients, Mr. Kerchner, Mr. Patterson, Mr. LeNormand, and Mr. Nelsen, against defendants, Barack Hussein Obama II, United States of America, United States Congress, United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, Richard B. Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi. I filed the complaint in the Federal District Court of New Jersey and is now pending in Camden. It bears Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00253. The complaint seeks to learn the truth about whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. On January 21, 2009, I filed an Amended Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto. The Complaint and the Amended Complaint can be accessed and viewed at the District Court of New Jersey and Pacer web site. I will also be uploading a copy of the documents at this blog site as soon as possible so that they may be more easily viewed.
The defendants have not yet been served. I am now in the process of requesting that the Court issue to me the summonses so that I can then serve as soon as possible the Summons and Amended Complaint on the defendants.
As you know, the courts have refused to reach the underlying merits of the many lawsuits that have been filed on the question of whether Mr. Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. My clients and I hope that we will get a court to reach the underlying merits of this question so that the American people will be assured that Mr. Obama is their legitimate President and not an usurper. I will appreciate whatever comments anyone has on the merits of this lawsuit.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq."
Apuzzo authored this excellent piece:
WHY OBAMA WILL NEITHER PUBLICLY SPEAK ABOUT WHERE HE WAS BORN NOR PRODUCE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Statements have been made in the public domain that if Obama was not born in Hawaii but rather in Kenya, that he actually committed a crime involving fraud. That leads me to think that if that were true, then Obama has a Constitutional and state common law right to avoid further self-incrimination and to remain silent. That could explain why he has neither talked publicly nor wants to talk in any court of law about where he was born. But his right to remain silent would not extend to withholding his original Certificate of Live Birth. Disclosure of documents is not testimonial (coming from a person’s mouth) and his 5th Amendment and state common law right to remain silent and to not incriminate himself would not prevent such disclosure. This leads me to the main point.
Obama at present finds himself in a trilemma: (1) Does he state publicly that he was born in Hawaii if he knows he was not and thereby “perjure” himself in the court of public opinion should the truth be eventually discovered? If he so swore under oath before Congress or any court of law, it would be actual perjury. (2) Will he produce his original birth certificate which may show and will he tell the public the truth that he was not born in Hawaii but rather Kenya and thereby betray his natural instinct of self-preservation and his life-long ambition to be President of the United States? or (3) Does he remain silent as to where he was born and continue to refuse to release his original birth certificate and thereby earn the contempt of those in the public who believe that he has not convincingly proven that he is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President? I submit that Obama has made the third choice.
The consequences for Obama are the least drastic and he gains the most benefits under the choice involving remaining silent and not producing his original birth certificate which is exactly what he has done to date. There are at least two reasons for this:
(1) To date, no court of law has been willing to accept any case challenging his “natural born Citizen” status. The courts have dismissed law suits against him for reasons of jurisdiction, standing, political question, justiciability, and for reasons unknown. These procedural obstacles have allowed him to escape having to defend the underlying merits of the claims against him which would necessarily involve his having to make declarations under oath as part of legal discovery and before the court itself in case of a trial. He will simply continue to pursue this procedural strategy, for being so successful will allow him to maintain his silence and not produce his original birth certificate with the cost to him personally of only having to pay his team of lawyers. This strategy explains why he is willing to spend enormous amounts of his own money and resources for his legal defense (maybe not even his own money if he can make a case that he can use his campaign contributions to meet the costs involved) and cause private individual plaintiffs and public institutions (courts and public entity defendants) to spend theirs with no end in sight. This strategy also provides great impetus to the sales of his past and future books, thereby further filling up his coffers. This strategy also explains why he is not willing to simply spend less than $100.00 and produce his original birth certificate for the benefit of those Americans who want to see it. Lastly, this strategy provides an answer to the question of, assuming that Obama in the end simply produces his original birth certificate which shows he was born in Hawaii, why would Obama risk the public then perceiving him as one who played a dirty little game for the sake of aggrandizing his own image and increasing his profits.
(2) Obama wants (i) people who simply voted for him, (ii) people who are apathetic to the eligibility issue or because of ignorance, fear, or self-ambition refuse to address it; and (iii) people who in good faith believe he is eligible to be President (these categories may overlap), to believe that all the lawsuits and internet chatter questioning his eligibility to be President is political sour grapes, racism, or “tinfoil hat” conspiracy nonsense. These “explanations” for this outcry against him provide great camouflage for his silence and refusal to release his original birth certificate. This strategy limits any contempt backlash to only those who oppose him on the eligibility issue and to no one else, thereby greatly reducing the price associated with the public contempt component.
The benefits Obama gains from stonewalling compared to the price he has to pay for complete disclosure makes the choice to refuse to speak about where he was born and to produce his original birth certificate most attractive for Obama. The stakes are high in this game for the Office of President. Obama has shown that he has the arrogance and audacity to play the game any which way he wants simply to win that Office and greatly profit thereby. The question for many concerned Americans who doubt whether he is eligible to be President is what they can do to get the nation’s political, legal, and social institutions to adequately and honestly investigate and decide whether he is indeed qualified to be President. Obama’s strategy is now preventing these Americans from learning the truth about whether he is eligible to be President. The ball is in the court of those who challenge Him.
© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
The way they were so quick to administer that second oath in “an abundance of caution” makes me wonder why they won’t spend $12.00 for a birth certificate in that same “abundance of caution” spirit.
And the hits just a keep on comin. He should add active and reserve military to his case.
It seems like they put an awful lot of emphasis on legitimacy by way of the oath.
I’m encouraging democrats to demand an Obama birthplace memorial.
The drums may be distant but the volume is increasing.
That would blow his cover and put the Communists back another 50 years in their effort to overturn our country and its economic system.
Good post. Apuzzo nailed it. Obama has simply to do nothing, and as things are now proceeding, will succeed in burying the issue.
Another soon to be tossed-out.
I guess this is a form of welfare for lawyers.
In `92 the public was promised “the most ethical administration ever” and we got 8 years of breathtaking venality.
Obama & Co. are promising “transformation, transparency and trust” so I suppose we can expect that getting a straight answer out of them will be like pulling a wisdom tooth ... That’s been the experience, so far at least, with asking the simple question:
“Uh, are you (whatever your real name is) are you even ... an American?”
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is actually the first suit to name Obama as a defendant. All the others have been against various State officials or electors challenging their actions.
This is an important distinction because, for example, an elector would not have the legal right to request another person’s birth certificate.
I would like to SUE for lots of dollars (would be will to take some of the bail out money if need be) the Federal Government for the mental anguish Pres. Obama is causing me for his failure to provide proof of his citizenship. His failure to provide the document makes me feel like we have an illegitimate president who can not be in the role of Commander in Chief and issue any orders to our military to protect us because they do not have to obey him.
Examples include much of what went on during the FDR administration, a number of questionable things done to copperheads during the Lincon administration, and many (if not all) of the declarations of war.
Even if Obama were to be hauled before a court and found guilty, people would find a way to give him a pass during the current set of unprecedented crises.
Frivolous. The court is not an informational or investigative department.
Jan 20th has passed.
Now, someone who is affected by an official act of Zobama has to file suit to have it declared void because he is not qualified to be President.
Berg case named defendants: Obama, DNC, FEC, Nancy P to name a few.
We’ve “been there, seen that,” but someone has got to get the message that NBCUS is not the only route to go.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is actually the first suit to name Obama as a defendant. All the others have been against various State officials or electors challenging their actions.
This is an important distinction because, for example, an elector would not have the legal right to request another person’s birth certificate.
Is it a true statement that should Obummer be found to be ineligible to hold the office of the President that everything he did while in office would immediately become null and void?
“Is it a true statement that should Obummer be found to be ineligible to hold the office of the President that everything he did while in office would immediately become null and void?”
Not in the USSA........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.