Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored (Re-opened for limited business)

NOTICE is hereby given that plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., in the above-named case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from an opinion [Docket Item 41] and order [Docket Item 42] granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Verified Complaint and Petition for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto [Docket Item 27] which the Court entered on October 20, 2009.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR., et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.
Defendants.

SIMANDLE, District Judge:

Under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, a person must be a “natural born citizen” to be eligible for the office of President of the United States.  Four individuals, believing that President Barack Obama is not eligible for his office on this ground, have filed suit seeking a court order to require various officials to look into their claims and to remove the President from office.  Plaintiffs present various arguments for defining  the term “natural born citizen” accompanied by allegations of how President Obama does not meet their definition. This matter is presently before the Court on a motion to dismiss [Docket Item 27] submitted by Defendants President Barack Obama, the United States of America, the United States Congress, the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, former Vice-President and President of the Senate Richard Cheney, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (collectively, “Defendants”).  For the reasons expressed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

(more…)

pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

October 2, 2009

Dear Counsel:

I have received Mr. Apuzzo’s letter of yesterday’s date.  Please be assured that these matters are receiving the court’s  attention.  I remind counsel that both sides had obtained enlargements of time for submitting your written arguments to the court.  Briefing upon the motions was not completed until July  31, 2009, and the parties have raised many issues and arguments. Counsel and clients may expect a written determination as soon as my research and decision upon these issues are completed.

Very truly yours,
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge
JBS/ew

cc: Honorable Joel Schneider, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Note: Mario may fail to understand that his client’s worries provide no standing

Dear Judge Simandle:

I am writing to the Court to express my client’s and my concern for the amount of time that has passed without the Court rendering a decision on the two motions currently pending before the Court. We allege in our amended complaint/petition that putative President, Barack Obama, is not eligible under Article II to be President and Commander in Chief. We allege that he failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii, and that he is also not an Article II “natural born Citizen” even if he proves that he was born in Hawaii. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint/petition which was scheduled on the court’s calendar for August 3, 2009. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for leave nunc pro tunc to file and serve their Second Amended Verified Complaint Petition, which was scheduled on the court’s calendar for August 17, 2009. It is now October 1, 2009, and the Court has not yet rendered its decision on these two motions.

(more…)

Mario has filed his motion in opposition to the Government’s motion to dismiss.  They present a ‘novel’ interpretation of legal and historical precendents. The issue of standing remains likely unresolved as with the many cases that preceded this case.

Remember that the second amended complaint was argued to be excessive in content “Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud” and was filed without leave of Court or consent of defendants.

Mario attemps to rectify this, as explained at The Right Side

In the above, Mr. Apuzzo is also requesting that the Court “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.” According to LectLaw.com, here’s a definition of “nunc pro tunc:”

In other words, Mario is asking the Judge to retroactively approve the second amended complaint.

According to Wikipedia

A judgment nunc pro tunc is an action by a trial court correcting a clerical (rather than judicial) error in a prior judgment. A nunc pro tunc may be signed even after the trial court loses its plenary power. For appellate purposes, a nunc pro tunc judgment correctly taken ordinarily does not extend appellate deadlines.

Mario argues that the second amended complaint was in fact just an amended complaint since they were ‘forced’ to file an amended complaint when President elect became President. As to the length, Mario insist that it was necessary given the ‘grave national importance’.

U.S. District Court
District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Camden)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
CHARLES F. KERSHNER JR., et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et
al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 09-253-JBS-JS

O R D E R

This matter having been sua sponte raised by the Court; and the Court finding that certain letters received from non-parties were erroneously added to the court’s docket (see, e.g., Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25); and the Court noting that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is
unrepresented”); and good cause existing for the entry of this

Order,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2009, that the
Clerk of the Court is directed to strike and remove from the docket
all letters from non-parties including, but not limited to, Doc.
Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25.
s/Joel Schneider
JOEL SCHNEIDER
United States Magistrate Judge

Note: A separate order to remove all inappropriate correspondence was also entered

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAMBERS OF MITCHELL H. COHEN COURTHOUSE
JOEL SCHNEIDER 1 John F. Gerry Plaza, Room 2060
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAMDEN, NJ 08101-0887
(856) 757-5446
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

June 29, 2009
Mario Apuzzo, Esquire
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
Re: Kershner, et al. v. Obama, II, et al.
Civil No. 09-253-JBS-JS

Dear Mr. Apuzzo:

The Court recently learned that it has been erroneously reported on certain internet web sites that the court accepts correspondence and faxes from non-parties that will become part of the court’s file. As a result the court has received numerous letters and faxes from non-parties. Although the court does not know the source of the erroneous reports, you are nevertheless directed to advise your clients that the court does not accept
correspondence or faxes from non-parties for filing in the court’s file. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented”). An Order will be entered striking the nonconforming letters from the court’s docket.

Very truly yours,
s/Joel Schneider
JOEL SCHNEIDER
United States Magistrate Judge
JS:jk
cc: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle
Elizabeth Ann Pascal, AUSA

A case was recently filed in the New Jersey Courts by laywer Mario Apuzzo on behalf of his clients Kercher et al

From a quick perusal it seems to be much of same old, same old with the usual flawed and erroneous claims.

Some observations

Claim: The Hawaiian law that existed in 1961 when Obama was born (Chapter 338-178 Hawaiian Statues which applied for all births prior to 1972), which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii, was lax in terms of assuring the integrity of the documents and did not adequately safeguard against fraud in the process.

Conclusion:  The statute did not exist in 1961: The law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982 (the “L 1982″) , 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration on August 8, 1961.

(more…)