Posted on 10/01/2010 10:41:23 AM PDT by STARWISE
Complete title:
Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit
_______________________________________________
*snip*
Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC, on behalf of plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ.
Plaintiffs are challenging the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, which affirmed the dismissal by District Judge, Jerome Simandle, sitting in the Federal District Court, Camden, NJ, of plaintiffs’ lawsuit in which they charge that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has NOT conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and that he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born Citizen of the United States
Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama's father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident.
Obama's father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship.
Rest @ link
(Excerpt) Read more at puzo1.blogspot.com ...
Being a born “Citizen of the United States” is a necessary part but is NOT sufficient to be an Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States”. We have asked the relevant questions and provided for the U.S. Supreme Court in our Petition various reasons why it should accept this case and promptly resolves this constitutional crisis."
~~~~~~~~
Keep going, Mario.
..Ping!
I’m not as up on all the court cases as I should be, but isn’t this the case where they are suing Pelosi, Cheney, etc because they didn’t verify Obama’s eligibility?
If so, then how can they dismiss it as a “political question”, when the point being raised is that the people who were supposed to do the job failed to do it?
Does the public have no right to sue the government for failing to do what the law requires? Or are they just saying the only person who would have standing to sue would be John McCain? Wouldn’t it be a hoot if Sarah Palin sued and broke the whole thing open?
I would hope someone has a standing.
If Barark is found not to be eligible to serve as President, the Congress will be forced to chose from among the other eligibles who did not receive a majority of votes in the electoral college—that candidates are John McCain.
If Barark is found not to be eligible to serve as President, the House will be forced to chose from among the other eligibles who did not receive a majority of votes in the electoral college—that candidates are John McCain.
>>>If Barark is found not to be eligible to serve as President, the Congress will be forced to chose from among the other eligibles who did not receive a majority of votes in the electoral college—that candidates are John McCain.<<<<<
Not so quick my friend, Many left wing websites are now saying that if, in the unlikely event that ineligibility is proven, Biden would become President since he was on the winning ticket that got the most votes. No different than if a President-Elect died before taking office.
Good to see the effort continued on Obama Eligibility. Hopefully a real hearing will be held based on this issue
It is sad that we have phony conservatives attacking Birthers and supporting Obama. Many of these people had no problem when Clinton’s girlfriends kept their stained dresses....yet they have been supporting Obama on his eligibility issue.
We need people to stop bragging about “we got Clinton’s law license revoked”...and step up and support those challenging Obama’s eligibility.
Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama’s father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Says it all in a nutshell, truly. Yes .. the
educational failures in this country and
strident revisionist history greatly contribute
to the ignorance of the hard won birth of this
nation and the clear INTENT of our blessed
Founding Fathers, who would NEVER foster
an alien CIC, with even a hint of split national
loyalty and sworn, confirmed allegiance.
Given that Obama goes down and out the primary question will be one of conspiracy by Biden etal [includes Clintons] to defraud America with the fullbore deceit necessary to have gotten him elected.
The nature of Congressional discovery will present a query as to treason or sedition by those who had to know and did nothing to stop the effort.
This could bring to the foreground why the Electoral College did not stop it when they had a chance.
The questioning, once begun, will not have a simple place to call it quits.
I’m thinking about the fact that Dick Cheney never asked the question of whether there were objections, as required by law.
Why didn’t he ask the question?
Who would have “standing” to sue the government for breaking the law - which they did by failing to ask the question?
This whole “standing” issue has me totally confounded. It makes no sense to me at all. If our government breaks the law, who gets to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”? Seems like that’s a First Amendment right, just like freedom of religion, speech, and association. If a person can’t have standing to petition for a redress of grievances when the government breaks laws, would they have standing to sue if their free speech or freedom of religion is violated by Congress?
It just makes no sense to me.
I understand that there are internal procedures for Congress when the rules are broken there, because Congress determines its own rules. But we’re talking about the actual law here - a law requiring the VP to ask if there are objections to the electoral tally. They broke that law. So would the Bush DOJ file criminal charges for something like that, or where is the accountability?
I just don’t understand.
Why didn’t he ask the question?
~~~
My eternal haunting.
Like I said in the post - once the questioning starts there is no simple or safe or easy place to call a halt.
Cheney will have a lot to account for.
The “blood on the floor will be mixed” which is what I suspect is why the RNC is in a big twit about having real Conservatives coming into power.
To make sense of the situation consider; Bush was there to keep the NWO usurpation plans operational and the timeline in place. Obama was their (NWO/CFR/EU-banksters/SorusCrats/fellow traveler folks) choice and he had to be given cover once the deceit was out in front.
Q: Is a government takeover/coup action-plan a conspiracy if it’s done in full view, all players known in public, and without denials of the action plan.
I’m thinking about the fact that Dick Cheney never asked the question of whether there were objections, as required by law.
Why didn’t he ask the question?
Who would have “standing” to sue the government for breaking the law - which they did by failing to ask the question?
This whole “standing” issue has me totally confounded. It makes no sense to me at all. If our government breaks the law, who gets to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”? Seems like that’s a First Amendment right, just like freedom of religion, speech, and association. If a person can’t have standing to petition for a redress of grievances when the government breaks laws, would they have standing to sue if their free speech or freedom of religion is violated by Congress?
It just makes no sense to me.
I understand that there are internal procedures for Congress when the rules are broken there, because Congress determines its own rules. But we’re talking about the actual law here - a law requiring the VP to ask if there are objections to the electoral tally. They broke that law. So would the Bush DOJ file criminal charges for something like that, or where is the accountability?
I just don’t understand.
Just because citizens have the right to petition doesn’t automatically guarantee that they will win on the merits.
When a plaintiff is not granted standing, the prudent thing to do is to present a different plaintiff who would have standing.
The Republican National Committee, Senator John McCain or Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin were my choices for the persons most likely to have been granted standing. I would even throw in Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr as possibly being granted standing by a conservative judge disposed to rule on Obama’s eligibility.
There are NO issues of standing on the CRIMINAL side of the judicial system. If any government official had been charged with a crime or if Obama had been charged with forgery, fraud, or election fraud, standing would not be an issue.
That last question is a good one. The communists have not hidden that they’ve been working on this very stuff - using these very methods and actually THESE VERY PEOPLE - for a very long time.
Are we really conspiracy theorists if we simply take them at their word?
Which is odd since if SCOTUS wanted to re-gain some honor, they would hear all the facts and rid themselves of two dis-honorable justices in the process.
When the government breaks a law, what can the normal everyday citizen do about it?
Kerchner is military. How could it be possible that military personnel would not have standing to sue the government for not giving them a lawful CINC?
People keep saying that the election was certified by Congress, but it wasn’t. Not legally. The law concerning how that was required to be done was not fulfilled. Congress did NOT give the US military members a lawful CINC, and Kerchner and any other military personnel should certainly have standing to sue.
If the line the judges were told to take is that McCain or Palin are the only people who would have “standing”, then McCain’s shushing of Palin takes on a whole different level of significance, and John McCain should be answering some very, very pointed questions.
If the line the judges were told to follow was to deny standing to anybody but McCain, then McCain is the critical person to the success of their plan. There are only a few people who would have to be threatened into submitting to the communist coup. Maybe they already knew McCain would never challenge. When the run on the bank happened, who exactly did McCain hear from about what was going on? He suspended his campaign to go back to DC. I would dearly love to see who all talked to him privately during that time.
Why didn’t he ask the question?
~~~
My eternal haunting.
None of the 535 members of Congress did that and since the certification of Obama’s electoral college votes, not one single member of Congress has said that they would have raised an objection if Vice President Cheney had asked for objections. The proof is in the pudding.
Four conservative justices and one now-retired liberal justice have all done some bizarre things in association with Obama’s presidency, as if they were dragged along against their will.
So have a number of judges in the eligibility cases - ethics violations which they had to know would be obvious and could actually get them disbarred.
As has Dick Cheney.
I think there’s more to this story than meets the eye.
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.