Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Usurper update

Linda BentleyObama's 'natural born' problem persists

by Linda Bentley
Sonoran News

Federal sovereign immunity is a defense to liability not a right to be free from trial

CAMDEN, NJ – Charles F. Kerchner Jr., CDR USNR Retired, the lead plaintiff in a pending lawsuit against President Barack Hussein Obama and Congress in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, placed a full-page educational ad in the Monday, June 6 edition of the The Washington Times calling Obama a usurper and containing an explanation by his Attorney Mario Apuzzo why Obama is not an Article II "natural born" citizen and, therefore, not eligible to be President of the United States.

If Obama's father was who Obama claims he was in his book Dreams from my Father, then Obama was a British subject at birth, as he has also admitted.

Because Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, an immigrant, or a permanent resident alien but a citizen of Kenya, which was under British rule at the time of Obama's birth, depending upon where Obama was born, he was either a British citizen or a dual national at birth. In either event, he does not qualify under the "natural born" citizen requirement to be President.

According to The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, Section 212, "natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Mario ApuzzoApuzzo states, "Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship from birth only for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group."

He said, "It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences, which, because of conflict of conscience, can most certainly taint his critical decisions made while leading the nation."

Apuzzo says it's also important to understand naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and, by law, changes that alien's birth status.

Naturalization, by legal definition, requires sole allegiance to the United States, recreates the individual as though he were born a citizen but only does it by law and not by nature.

"This is the reason the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a 'citizen' of the United States and not a 'natural born citizen' of the United States," said Apuzzo.

In conclusion, he stated, "The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of survival of the Constitutional Republic, the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free from foreign influence and intrigue. It is the 'natural born citizen' clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come.

American people do not have the constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military."

The defendants in Kerchner's case filed a motion to dismiss, citing the plaintiffs lack subject matter jurisdiction and standing while claiming the congressional defendants are immune from suit via sovereign immunity, absolute immunity, and qualified immunity.

Apuzzo noted in his blog update, "The defendants took over four months to file their motion. I was only given two weeks to respond. Given the critical importance of this case, the complexity and novelty of the constitutional issues, and the need to do a thorough job, I sought fit to request a two-week extension of time to answer the defendants' motion to dismiss," adding, "I realize that by the extension we are losing two weeks, but winning the motion is more important than not losing the two weeks."

The issue of sovereign immunity, which was also asserted by the Department of Justice in its motion to dismiss the warrantless wiretapping case Jewel v. NSA, should prove to be interesting.

Sovereign immunity is apparently an unwritten carryover from early English law and has been used in an array of situations with rulings that vary widely. However, as some legal sources note, federal sovereign immunity is a defense to liability not a right to be free from trial.

In granting defendants additional time to respond, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider stated, "Plaintiffs' complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests," leaving an impression his court may actually get to the merits of the case.

Kerchner is requesting financial assistance for this lawsuit, asking interested parties to contact:

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Ave
Jamesburg NJ 08831
e-mail: apuzzo@erols.com
732-521-1900
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Copyright © 2009 Sonoran News

Source

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

As old Jack Webb (Sgt. joe Friday) used to say "the facts ma'm, just the facts". The law and the truth is hard to contest!

smrstrauss said...

Re: "The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of survival of the Constitutional Republic, the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free from foreign influence and intrigue."

Yes. But they did not consider the baby born in the USA of a foreigner or two foreigners to be a foreigner. If they did, there would be some evidence that they thought so. The law at the time was that anyone born in a Colony was a "natural-born subject." So the use of Natural Born comes from that.

Some say that it comes from Vattel. But the writers of the Constitution did not adopt all his recommendations, so how do we know that they did in this case? There is nothing in the Federalist Papers or in anything else written by the writers of the constitution that says anything like "two US parents are required" or "follow Vattel on the Natural Born definition."

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

Mark Yannone said...

@ smrstrauss

Correct, they did not consider a baby born in the US to be a foreigner. He would be a US citizen. But if he could be claimed as a citizen of another country -- like Obama Jr. -- he could only be a US citizen, not a natural born citizen.