After they lose in the United States Supreme Court, the Birthers will lose in the World Court, in the Hague.
Where will they go after that loss?
Posted on 04/08/2010 7:00:00 PM PDT by Man50D
Hmm. I’ll try to search for it. Thanks.
After they lose in the United States Supreme Court, the Birthers will lose in the World Court, in the Hague.
Where will they go after that loss?
After they lose in the United States Supreme Court, the Birthers will lose in the World Court, in the Hague.
Where will they go after that loss?
Soap box
Ballot box
Jury box
Cartridge/Ammo box
Kerchner v. Obama Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument
puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 6/15/2010 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq
Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:48:31 AM by rxsid
“Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court. The case will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence is therefore not required.
The Court also informed me that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.
The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.
Of course, it is our hope that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.”
It’s the 29th. So I guess it’s up to the judge now.
I believe Arkeny v. Daniels (you can Google it) is the only case to have ruled on the merits, not on standing. It holds that both Obama and McCain were natural born citizens.
“I believe Arkeny v. Daniels (you can Google it) is the only case to have ruled on the merits, not on standing. It holds that both Obama and McCain were natural born citizens.”
This case has been discredited, because it contradicts itself in it’s own footnotes, making the finding effectively useless. At any rate it is merely a State Appeals Court, and not on the Federal level, either District, Appeals, or USSC.... I don’t believe that any Attorney, representing either side of this issue, or in any other court jurisdiction, will be citing Arkeny v Daniels in it’s filing brief. To do so would be inviting the charge of incomptentance.
The thrust of the case is not on point at any rate, because the central question is the about the method of elector certification, and not about candidate eligibility......
Thanks anyway, I quess that there are no cases that are on point with regards to the Requirement of Natural Born Citizenship for Presidential eligibility.....I couldn’t find one either, and had hoped that sharper minds would carry the day.....I’m sure that we will see it in the proper court, sometime soon (like the next couple of years, if the they can quit avoiding the issue, and rediscover judicial courage).
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.