3rd Circuit picks June 29 for eligibility case
"A significant development."
. . . . Indeed.
[Thanks Red Steel, and hoosiermama.]
Posted on 04/08/2010 7:00:00 PM PDT by Man50D
A federal court case that argues President Obama probably is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution of the chief executive officer, has been scheduled by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for June 29.
In a letter dated yesterday to Mario Apuzzo, the attorney representing plaintiff Charles Kerchner and others, the clerk of the court said the case has been "tentatively listed on the merits on Tuesday, June 29, 2010."
The notice said there is a possibility the case would have to be moved, and the court "will determine whether there will be oral argument and if so, the amount of time allocated for each side."
Those decisions would be announced later if necessary, the notification said.
On a blog dealing with the case, lead plaintiff Kerchner wrote that the case will be addressed by three members of the 3rd Circuit, but those names have not yet been announced.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Pffft! Obama could be from Mars and nobody will do a darn thing.
Those 3rd Circuit judges better sleep lightly.
~~Kerchner ping!
Mario/Kerschner’s case may be the best one. Early on I thought it was the sleeper. They made sure to file before he became POTUS, they included Congress and did a few others things they make it harder for the judges to ignore.
One person here said if they win, Obi will appeal to SCOTUS next??? If they lose, I think Mario can appeal to SCOTUS?? Anyone know?
NBC Ping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This case seems to be on track to Scotus to define NBC,can you say “high noon”!
Ping. A significant development.
O Boyah!
Dad said the third is a “good” group. Hope we get three of their best judges.
Apuzzo’s court filing on the 19th or 20th of Jan was around 24,000 words. He had to be as thorough as possible.
3rd Circuit picks June 29 for eligibility case
"A significant development."
. . . . Indeed.
[Thanks Red Steel, and hoosiermama.]
Who ever wins the loser will appeal.
I listened to Mario Apuzzo and Charles Kerschner last night on Blog talk radio. Mr. K has been tireless in this battle. Mario is like the energizer bunny. This case keeps going and going. I always thought it was the sleeper case from the day it was filed.
Mario or somebody made sure to cover a lot of key things before filing. They got it in before Obama was Pres, they included Congress and a few other things. Other judges threw the other cases because others did not think of these things.
I remember just before Mario filed, he suposedly me with Leo Donofrio. Mario was talking about Ramsay last night and he added it to the case plus he has a good handle on it.
Mario/Kerschner’s case may be the best one. Early on I thought it was the sleeper. They made sure to file before he became POTUS, they included Congress and did a few others things they make it harder for the judges to ignore.
One person here said if they win, Obi will appeal to SCOTUS next??? If they lose, I think Mario can appeal to SCOTUS?? Anyone know?
“however the US Supreme Court has already had seven lawsuits on Obama’s eligibility for Justices’ conferences and they have rejected them all from being heard before the full Court.”
Yes, but that was before 0’s performance at the State of the Union address.
Thanks for the info. I listened to them on blog talk radio. Mario graduated from Temple where Mark Levin graduated from law school. He sounds like an average Joe with no pretense but he has a good mind.
He appears to have been very careful in all his filings. When I first read about this case when it was filed, I felt there was something different about this one.
That is a standard letter sent out by the courts when an appeal is lodged. Always allow themselves the right to dispense with oral argument. Which, very likely, they will do, unfortunately. But we can hope.
Defeatism never won any wars. Why don’t you put down the white flag.
Mario appears to take great pains to cover all the bases.
ping
PING!
marker for list
ping
The Supreme Court refused each of those cases because they are not a Trier of Fact. They are a Judicial Review Court....ie they do not hear testimony arguing facts, they listen to arguements about points of law and how they are correctly applied to the case at hand....When a case is tried in one of the lower courts, the USSC will then take up the matter upon someone’s appeal and we will get a Constitutional ruling....not until then....I have full confidence that eventually it will reach our highest Court..... and Obama will be out on his ear!
Excellent! Godspeed to them.
OH!! The bloody horse head in the bed ploy, aye?
Sure hope they don’t change the date.
YES!
I only wish they wouldn’t pick those particular examples to publish when it comes to Obama via Kerchner. I don’t know if it’s selective or not, but Obama has DEFINITELY affected ALL US Citizens via Obamacare and other Unconstitutional Laws he has signed that directly effect the entire country, as well as now executive orders that are illegal (calling for the assassination of a US citizen by the CIA — excuse me??? No trial???).
VERY GLAD that this will be heard by the appeals court. And I’m VERY GLAD that they are basing a lot on Obama’s British Citizenship, even IF his mother was qualified to bestow citizenship on Obama as the time he is STILL not a “natural born citizen” due to his at the very LEAST Dual Citizenship with Britain and the US!
Noticed the words about the case that says "listed on the merits"...that can be held "within the week of June 28th" which includes the 4th of July, U.S. Independence Day.
I find the timing a little more than interesting. Prophetic?
obumpa
Yep. Roger that...
Does anyone know the of reputation of this court? Past rulings?
Judge Carter (of Santa Ana, CA) replied to one of the Taitz filings that the proper venue for the inquiry was a “Quo Warranto” hearing in the D.C. District Court. Why wouldn’t that apply here?
C 10
Bumperoo!
A well-thought-out and well-written brief. Godspeed, Mario.
Right on!!!!
This one has been scheduled. That means it has not been dismissed for standing. Yet, there is some hope, Apuzzo put together a pretty tight case.
Drip...drip...drip...
The Supreme Court refused each of those cases because they are not a Trier of Fact. They are a Judicial Review Court....ie they do not hear testimony arguing facts, they listen to arguements about points of law and how they are correctly applied to the case at hand....When a case is tried in one of the lower courts, the USSC will then take up the matter upon someone’s appeal and we will get a Constitutional ruling....not until then....I have full confidence that eventually it will reach our highest Court..... and Obama will be out on his ear!
Time will tell with regard to this latest attempt. I’ll leave the crystal ball gazing to you.
This one has been scheduled. That means it has not been dismissed for standing. Yet, there is some hope, Apuzzo put together a pretty tight case.
This one has been scheduled. That means it has not been dismissed for standing. Yet, there is some hope, Apuzzo put together a pretty tight case.
I don’t believe that any of the 7 cases (or for that matter any other case) was ever ruled on by lower courts....There has been no Court, at any level, that has actualy ruled that Obama is, or, is not, an NBC as per the US Constitution.
Of course I could have missed one .... could you provide me a link to any courts ruling on Obama’s NBC , so that I might educate myself, (and would love to read the ruling and it’s rational that Obama is an NBC).... A dismissal is NOT a Ruling....it is an acknowlegement of a defect in the suit’s filing....that says nothing of the underlying validity/non validity of the central question of Obama’s NBC eligibility...
Judge Carter, in dismissing Alan Keys suit, indicated that the proper court to bring his (Keyes) suit was the DC District Court and filed as a Quo Warrento brief.....have there been any cases so brought, and RULED upon? Or are attorneys so deaf that none have been filed?
In the cases you cite the plaintiffs sent their briefs directly to the USSC without fixing the defects in their filings, or by filing in the proper court, believing the validity of the brief would overcome the process....
It is therefore no wonder the Supremes refused to issue a Writ of Cert......as I said they are not a Trier of Fact....there must be a ruling of a lower court first....
Chief Justice Roberts’ fumbling of Obama’s Oath of Office, not once, but twice, tells me that he realizes Obama does not meet Constitutional Presidential requirements... maintaining Judicial decorum proved difficult for him......
Removing Obama must follow an orderly process with all i’s dotted and t’s crossed because of a prescedent setting removal of a sitting President by judicial ruling...It must be done with very strict, and within very narrow, grounds, because an intemperate ruling would wreck havoc upon our tradition of orderly Executive Office power transfer....a consideration that in the end, may outweigh the question of ruling upon Obama’s eligibility........
My crystal ball broke decades ago when I was 7...... Nonetheless I can still see farther than the ground directly in front of me......
Thanks I missed it, looking for ANY good news I can find these days.
A dismissal of a lawsuit because the plaintiff did not have legal standing to sue IS a ruling (an adjudication) by the court. If someone sued you and the judge dismissed their suit because they had no grounds to sue you, didn’t you still win?
Every one of the seven Obama eligibility lawsuits that was rejected for a Writ of Certiorari by the US Supreme Court was heard and dismissed at a lower level state or federal court. That is why they were appealing to the “court of last resort.”
(1) Berg v Obama was heard in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals before being denied by the US Supreme Court.
(2) Craig v US was heard by the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals and it was denied by the US Supreme Court.
(3) Donofrio v Wells was heard first in a New Jersey State Court, then by the New Jersey Supreme Court before being denied by the US Supreme Court.
(4) Herbert v Obama et. al. was heard in the Middle District of Florida US District Court and was then denied a Writ of Certiorari by the US Supreme Court.
(5) Lightfoot v Bowen was heard and dismissed by the California Supreme Court and submitted to Justice Kennedy at the US Supreme Court. It was denied by Justice Kennedy and resubmitted to Chief Justice Roberts. It was denieda again at Justices’ conference.
(6) Schneller v Cortes was dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and denied by the US Supreme Court.
(7) Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz was dismissed by the Connecticut state court and denied a Writ of Certiorari by the US Supreme Court.
Kerchner et. al. v Obama et. al was dismissed by US District Court in New Jersey and is pending in the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
Only two courts have rendered decisions on Obama’s eligibilty, The Marion County, Indiana Superior Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals. In the case of “Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels” the plaintiffs sued to stop Indiana’s governor from allowing Obama’s (and McCain’s) Electoral votes from being certified due to the fact that neither was a natural born citizen. The Superior Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that both Obama and McCain qualify for Indiana’s electoral votes as natural born citizens with respect to Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution. The plaintiffs argued that Obama was not natural born because his father was not an American citizen. The courts rejected that argument.
You can read the Ankeny decision at the following link. Scroll down to page 10, Section B “Natural Born Citizen” for the 3 Judge panel’s rationale.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Just last week the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.”
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.