by Bob UnruhSource: World Net Daily story from Bob Unruh

A retired lieutenant general from the U.S. Air Force who commanded forces armed with nuclear weapons says the disclosure of Barack Obama’s documentation proving his eligibility to be commander in chief is critical not just to the defense of an officer challenging the president’s status, but to the preservation of the nation itself.

The vehement statements came in an affidavit from retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a Fox News military analyst, that was disclosed today by an organization generating support for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.

Lakin had invited his own court-martial because he is unable to follow orders under the chain of command with Obama at its head until and unless Obama’s eligibility is documented.

A hearing is scheduled in Lakin’s court-martial case Thursday at which a ruling is expected on defense requests for the very evidence that McInerney is citing.

The general, who retired in 1994 after serving as vice commander in chief of USAF forces in Europe, commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing and assistant vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, among other positions, said the chain of command issue is critical in today’s world, since officers are obligated both to follow orders and to disobey illegal orders.

“Officers in the United States military service are – and must be – trained that they owe their highest allegiance to the United States Constitution,” he said in the affidavit.

“There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution.”

He continued, explaining, “good order and disipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge – sometimes under great adversity – whether an order is illegal.

“The president of the United States, as the commander in chief, is the source of all military authority,” he said. “The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.”

Lakin is being supported by the American Patriot Foundation, which said the affidavit is for use in Lakin’s trial, scheduled Oct. 13-15, as well as Thursday’s hearing on the evidence to be allowed in the case.

Officials said McInerney is the highest-ranking officer yet to lend public support to Lakin.

A recent poll showed that only about 4 in 10 Americans believe Obama’s story of being born in Hawaii, living in Indonesia and then returning to America.

McInerney’s affidavit “acknowledges widespread concerns over the president’s constitutional eligibility and demands the president release his birth records or the court authorize discovery,” the foundation said.

Lakin’s defense counsel has asked for the president’s school records as well as a deposition from the custodian of Obama’s birth records that may exist in the state of Hawaii.

The hearing is scheduled at 11 a.m. Thursday at Ft. Meade, Md., at the courthouse at 4432 Llewellyn Ave., inside the military base. The court is open to the public.

Comment by American Grand Jury:

We have a sister posting to this in the form of a PRESS RELEASE:

Three-Star General Files Sworn Affidavit Supporting LTC Lakin’s CaseSource: American Grand Jury posted on August 31, 2010

Some of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama Soetoro’s Passport Application Records Are Released due to Strunk FOIA Filing

source: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

UPDATED passport file analysis and comments …

Some Stanley Ann Dunham passport file documents are released. Passport office implies in cover letter earliest passport application no longer exists. The earliest 1960/1961 passport application paper work information is missing from this released information. The record starts with a “RENEWAL” application filed in 1965 due her name change after marrying Lolo Soetoro at Molokai Hawaii on March 15, 1965 per page marked P3 of the released documents. The carefully worded cover letter implies earlier years records have been purged for some reason. Since passport records are filed in files by name and not in boxes or files by year, this does not make sense. It sounds to me like HI officials (or whoever controls them) are now instructing the U.S. Passport Office how to obfuscate and parse sentences in cover letters to allow them to not provide what one asks for and yet not be lying. There was obviously a passport issued to Stanley Ann (whatever name she used to get it) prior to 1965. I was under the impression that passport records kept and filed by name were kept virtually forever.

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-10. This file indicates via the 1965 renewal application that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama had a passport issued to her prior to 1965 and she was applying to RENEW it. Since a passport was good for 5 years that means she likely got her first passport in late 1960 of early 1961. Why did she need a passport at age 18? She would not need it to have a baby in Hawaii or to go to college in Seattle Washington. What was the real reason this pregnant teenager got a passport in late 1960 or early in 1961? I believe it was likely to be able to travel to Kenya to have the baby over there where it was her intent to leave the baby there to be raised the paternal family in Kenya. She was to then return to re-start her life as a young teenager going to college in Seattle Washington. And then when Stanley Ann did not follow the plan because maternal instincts kicked in and she returned to college in Seattle WITH the new baby, grandma Dunham had to take action and filed the fraudulent action in Hawaii to falsely register the baby as born at home there with no witnesses to get her newborn grandson U.S. Citizenship … because it was very easy to do this in Hawaii in 1961. Listen to the Bill Cunningham Radio Show for how it was likely done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

Also in this passport applications file is revealed the exact date of her marriage (two different exact dates and locations?) to Lolo Soetoro. But as everything with this family, nothing is consistent. In 1965 she says she married Lolo Soetoro on March 15, 1965 in Molokai Hawaii. But in a later passport renewal application marked P5 filed in 1981 she states she married him on March 5, 1964 in Maui, Hawaii. Which is true? Either way, said marriage dates, could have allowed for Obama to have been legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii at age 5 or under given these marriage dates, and his falsified birth records in Hawaii, fraudulently created by grandma Dunham in 1961, and which could have been amended to show the new legal name of Barry Soetoro. And then Obama could have later re-amended them back to put his name back to Barack Hussein Obama II when in his life that suited him. Obama is a life narrative chameleon. He changes names and citizenship at will during his life to suit his current needs and plans.

Also on document P2, the second page of that document, she wrote in the block named “Amend to Include (Exclude) Children” the name of her son Barack Hussein Obama and then right below it a weird name or phrase spelled and in parenthesis as (Soebarkah). This entry then has 5 diagonal line strike-through lines across the entry. Another mysterious new tidbit to research.

When the original and complete birth records file for Obama going back to and including Aug 1961 and all subsequent amendments are released, it will likely be very damning to Obama’s self created nativity narrative and other stories of his early life. Children legally adopted at age 5 and under have their new citizenship governed by the international Hague Convention Treaty on adopting children of which the USA is a signatory. That is likely why Obama alludes to his being age 6 when those Indonesian records are discussed in regards to when his step-father “adopted” him and saying that the adoption occurred in Indonesia. I think that story is more false direction and misinformation type data put out by Obama to throw one off the true trail.

See the records that have been released per the Strunk FOIA request and court order at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10

Posted by:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
Please visit this website and help the cause if you can:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

By Bob Unruh

Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suddenly have abandoned plans to assess damages against an attorney whose clients are challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president after he argued that if there was to be punishment, he would have the right to know whether the defendants could have mitigated their injury by publicly releasing Obama’s birth documentation.

The decision came from Judge Dolores Sloviter in the Kerchner vs. Obama case handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court had ordered Apuzzo to explain why defense costs shouldn’t be assessed against him for the “frivolous” appeal.

However, her newest order denied Apuzzo’s request to reconsider the case and stated “based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause.”

The case was filed against Obama, Congress and others just before Obama was sworn into office, arguing that Obama was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

“We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a ‘citizen of the United States’ under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii,” the lawsuit claims.

Apuzzo represents Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

The district court rejected the case based on issues of “standing” and never addressed the core issues presented. The appellate court did the same.

But Apuzzo had explained to the court that under standard rules of judicial procedure, while they allow for damages to be assessed in “frivolous” cases – even though the district never made that ruling – there also is a responsibility on the part of the defendants to mitigate their damages.

In this case, he asked the court to “enforce my right to discover whether defendants had a copy of the [certificate of live birth, Obama's] 1961 long-form birth certificate, and related documents showing that Obama was born in Hawaii which they could have simply shared [with] … the Kerchner plaintiffs.”

He said had those actions taken place and the documents been provided, the plaintiffs “would not have come into existence.”

That disclosure, he argued, “would have mitigated the damages and costs they now claim they suffered from having to defend plaintiffs’ appeal.”

“To confirm the veracity of the defendants’ representations, I also have a right under (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) 26(a)(1) and 26(b)(1) to receive a copy of those documents,” he argued. “Should the court be inclined to find that I am liable for defendants’ damages and costs, I also request that the court defer entering judgment on damages and costs until I have had an opportunity to address the amount of damages claimed by defendants, the issue of proximate cause, and whether defendants satisfied their burden to mitigate those damages.

“So that I may have a meaningful opportunity to present defenses to defendants’ claim of damages and costs, including showing that defendants have failed to mitigate their claimed damages, I am requesting limited discovery of Obama’s (certificate of live birth), his 1961 long-form birth certificate, and any documents that may be relevant in showing where Obama was born, along with a hearing on the record at which I will have a fair opportunity to present witnesses, evidence and defenses to the defendants’ claim of damages and costs,” he wrote.

The court’s response was to drop the “Order to Show Cause” almost immediately, referencing only Apuzzo’s “research.”

Apuzzo told WND the case, which now is being prepared for the U.S. Supreme Court, probably was impacted by his explanation of his rights and his suggestion a simple disclosure of Obama’s birth documentation could have resolved the issue and “mitigated” the defendants’ claimed damages.

He also said it’s essential to obtain a decision from the highest court in the land, because, of the multitude of cases that have been brought over the eligibility issue, virtually none has addressed the question itself. All have been decided on “standing” or other side issues.

“Only the Supreme Court can decide the issue in the context of Article 2 standing,” he said.

He explained Obama can claim no special privacy rights to his birth documentation since his campaign already has posted online an image of a “Certification of Live Birth,” a document critics say was available to children not born in Hawaii at the time. Documents supporting the birth certificate also should be public, Apuzzo argued.

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, April 11, 2010, Appellants Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Appendix, Obama not natural born citizen, US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney Mario Apuzzo

From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress.
For Immediate Release – 11 April 2010

Kerchner v Obama & Congress Appeal – Atty Mario Apuzzo Filed on 10 April 2010 to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals an Appellants Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Appendix. Along with the motion he also filed a copy of the Supplemental Appendix. You can read the Motion and the Supplemental Appendix which has been combined into one file for release purposes via the link to the filing documents at this link.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/kerchner-v-obama-appeal-atty-apuzzo_10.html

Comment from Commander Kerchner, the Lead Plaintiff:

Our side is ready and rhetorically locked and loaded for the epic struggle. General Quarters has been sounded and the We the People are now awake on this issue and on the move to remove the unconstitutional Usurper from the Oval Office along with his corrupt and socialist backers with their foreign influences, money, and agenda for America to take our nation into a direction that is not American and violates our Constitution, the fundamental law of our land. We are a nation of laws not men. Our hearing in court is coming. If we don’t prevail in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals this case will be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. We the People will not quit. This issue is not going away until Obama’s true legal identity is revealed and his constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our Military is thoroughly vetted in a court of law on the merits of the charges. The truth and the Constitution will win this fight in the end. We the People will insure that. So help us God.

Commander Charles Kerchner
www.protectourliberty.org

source: hat-tip to Robert Hefner by email…

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, April 8, 2010
source reference: Citizen Wells website..

From Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog:

“There has been activity in the Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al Appeal before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia Pa.”

1st: Atty Apuzzo sent a letter on 2 Apr 2010 to the Court of Appeals requesting addition to the record the dissertation on natural born Citizenship written by David Ramsay and published in 1789, one of the founders of our nation.

2nd: A letter dated 6 April 2010 was received today from the Court of Appeals scheduling a hearing date for the case on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 in Newark NJ. The court indicated in the letter that it has not yet decided whether it will permit Oral Arguments and that the parties to the case will be notified on that decision at a later time. If Oral Arguments are not permitted the case will be decided on the written Briefs and documents before the court. The appeal will be heard by a panel of three Federal 3rd Circuit Judges the names of whom have not been provided at this time.

Atty Mario Apuzzo, time permitting given his active legal practice, will provide a fuller explanation about the filing he made and letter received today from the court later this evening or tomorrow.

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Link to letter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29519222/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Ltr-from-Court-4-6-10-Case-Docketed-For-Hearing