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 ...
Keyes’ case isn’t about winning an election. It’s about having the chance for a lawful election. He has the same right to petition for a lawful election as anybody else in the race. It has nothing to do with the results of the election and everything in the world to do with equal protection under the law, and due process.
You can’t just throw away the whole concept of equal protection and due process by saying, “The person wouldn’t have won even if they had equal protection and due process anyway, so they don’t have standing to demand equal protection and due process.”
Equal protection is equal protection. If McCain could sue to get a fair election, then so can Keyes. That’s what equal protection means.
You can’t just throw away the whole concept of equal protection and due process by saying,
~~~~
nor, the imposing and vital necessity of absolutely
verifying Constitutional adherence.
The more I think about it, the more I loathe
John McCain.
butterdezillion, your expressed thoughts in this thread about ‘something is just not right’ is exactly what I have been feeling deep down since the moments after learning Fred Thompson dropped out JUST PRIOR to Super Tuesday. I never felt he explained, in any meaningful way, to his supporters why he made that choice. I was SO sad that day because I felt, at the time, Fred could have made all the difference in this tilted race and wiped the floor up with Obama. Besides the stench steadily coming from the Media, this was when it first smelled to me like a rat had crapped and we were about to loose the election. Palin gave me slight ‘hope’, but I felt we surely had already lost our chance to LEAD ourselves out of the economic marsh we’d just been driven into. Now, we’ve reached the deep swamp, and are sinking faster. I still believe that ‘FRED could have LEAD’ and made all the difference in that election if he had just stayed in the d**n fight. He handed us McPain, but I always thought that decision was not truly his own. Sorry to blabber ... but I’ve been sitting on that thought for quite a while and just had to get that out.
“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?”
Easy answer — Sandy Berglar’s slap on the wrist and the ongoing Able Danger coverup prove there’s a kamizar system in D.C. It’s obvious to people who seriously research things like that for a number of years.
Yes, the Able Danger thing definitely showed that the system put CYA for the SecDef over and above either the rule of law or the security of America and its citizens. Absoltuely sickening. And the feds are still doing the CYA on that even now.
But though that would explain why nobody in DC called Cheney on it, it doesn’t explain why Cheney himself didn’t ask the question. He knew he was required to and it was a big deal because of the lawsuits leading up to that certification, so he didn’t just forget.
Supposedly he knew there were no objections. If he was going along with the certification of the electoral vote there would be no reason for him to not ask the question.
Seems to me as if the logical reason might be that he DIDN’T go along with the certification of the electoral vote. He didn’t make a stink about it to actually stop people from saying that the certification had happened, but he did enough to ensure that the certification did not legally happen. The legal requirements were not met.
Why didn’t Pelosi force him to do what was legally required? Why did she give a standing ovation instead, as if to give cover for Cheney “forgetting” to ask the question as required by law?
I’m wondering if San Fran Nan was caught in a dilemma. I’m wondering if Cheney knew there were objections that would be brought up if he asked the question and told San Fran Nan that if she forced him to ask the question there would be trouble. I’m wondering if Cheney had been threatened into going along with the coup but was not going to give them the satisfaction of being able to claim that the coup was ever done legally, because it wasn’t. Cheney kept it from being done legally. He didn’t ask the question required by law. And San Fran Nan couldn’t make him do it either. Instead she tried to cover up the fact that he didn’t do it.
Nobody in Congress contested the legality of the electoral certification. Could be politics, as you describe. Seems like they were all complicit. For most of them it could just be political expedience and not wanting to stick their necks out. But the behaviors of both Cheney and Pelosi are bizarre. I think there may have been a dance going on there that had been worked out ahead of time. Cheney would do just enough so that the dems could pretend that the coup was lawful, but Cheney would have the hook in their craw because it never actually WAS lawful. For that deal, Soros would hold off on creating a financial panic and Cheney would still be able to look himself in the mirror.
I wanted Fred too.
I hadn’t thought about that timing, or the implications of it. There may have been more going on with the Republican leadership than met the eye. Maybe even involvement from Soros’ people. I thought I had read that Soros was supportive of McCain. No doubt that having McCain as the candidate meant that the person with the most obvious standing would never sue Obama over the eligibility issue.
The thing that stands out clearly in all this is that DC and all the politicians are a boiling cauldron of contempt for the American people and the systems that are supposed to enable us to hold government accountable.
Easy answer — Sandy Berglar’s slap on the wrist and the ongoing Able Danger coverup prove there’s a kamizar system in D.C. It’s obvious to people who seriously research things like that for a number of years.
“But though that would explain why nobody in DC called Cheney on it, it doesn’t explain why Cheney himself didn’t ask the question.”
Cheney could have asked a ton of disturbing questions. The Bush administration put the DNC on legal life support.
Fascinating, FRiend! I don’t know all these procedures myself.
“Seems to me as if the logical reason might be that [Cheney] DIDN’T go along with the certification of the electoral vote. He didn’t make a stink about it to actually stop people from saying that the certification had happened, but he did enough to ensure that the certification did not legally happen. The legal requirements were not met.”
A coup could never be legal. Cheney couldn’t have made such a thing legal even if he wanted to nor could he make any more illegal than it already would be.
Bipartizan coverup of Sandy Berger:
Sandy Berger’s Little Mistake
http://www.spectacle.org/0804/wilson.html
Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a “mistake” and was just “sloppy” when an FBI investigation revealed ...
Hot Air » Report says Sandy Berger hid Archive documents
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/20/report-says-sandy-berger-hid-archive-documents/
Dec 20, 2006 ... “Sloppy”….. No……….. TREASON! PinkyBigglesworth on December 21, 2006 at 12:19 PM. “Report says Sandy Berger hid Archive
Do you notice though, that all those that could do something about this, Rush, Sean, Levin, Ingrahm, and all the others, if they just started talking about it instead of little snipits, like little teases, there would be such a huge wave of people calling for B.H.O. to show all of his documents. They should all start saying, if you got nothing to hide, Usurper RAT, show us all your papers.
The ‘buk’ stops at clinton, since she had nothing to do with the fraudulent DNC positioning of Barry the Basatrd and Nazi Pelosi did ... Byrd is gone.
Right. But unless I’m reading Cheney wrong, that doesn’t really fit with him. He seems like a guy who loves this country and is willing to say things exactly as he sees them regardless of where the political chips may fall. Much more so than GW.
And there’s the bigger picture too. If it was just Cheney then maybe GW or the Bilderbergers (which I don’t know much about) or somebody got to him. But it’s not just Cheney. It’s 5 out of 9 SCOTUS justices, at least 2 or 3 eligibility judges, etc.
Doug Hagmann says he’s got 6 or 7 (can’t remember the exact number) affidavits corroborating the claim that Obama’s lawyers threatened the media heads with annihilation by the FCC if they reported on the eligibility issue - once before the election and once after.
First off, if he felt he had to make that step with the media heads that were already kissing his behind, then this is bigger than what simple political alliances and shenanigans could cover.
Second, if they did that to Fox they must have been able to convince Fox that Obama was going to be elected even if Obama’s threats and the eligibiilty issue WERE reported. They had to get Fox to think Obama’s election was inevitable, otherwise Fox could have said they’d report the threats and Obama and his people would be sitting in jail instead of telling the FCC to harass Fox.
Obama’s lawyers had to have some trump card that absolutely ensured his election. When McCain chose Palin and rose to meet Obama on an even footing in the polls - bam! - the electronic run on the bank, which Obama pussy-footed around on and McCain suspended his campaign to get back to DC over. The rest is history. That electronic run on the bank changed everything. I’m thinking that may have been the trump card that Soros had over all these people - Fox, Cheney, GW, SCOTUS, the judges as they each came up, etc. But they each had their own little way of protesting what they were forced to do, and those are the anomalies that keep popping up.
Not the least of which is that the election was never actually legally certified, because Cheney never did what was required by law; neither Pelosi nor anybody else was able to get him to do that.
What Roberts did in inviting Obama would be like if SCOTUS had had a private meeting with Bush before deciding Bush v Gore. If it would be seen as inappropriate AFTER the ruling, it sure as heck should be seen as inappropriate BEFORE the ruling.
And that’s what Roberts did. He scheduled a private, ex parte meeting between SCOTUS and a Presidential candidate with multiple court cases pending before the court.
You may say ho-hum to that; after all, it’s only the rule of law. But people who actually care about ethics - which also involve avoiding any APPEARANCE of bias on the part of a judge - have to wonder why so many of these judges have done so many blatant things.
One dot is just one dot. If it’s just one dot and somebody says it’s a photo of a dog then you call them a conspiracy theorist. If somebody looks at a news photo of a dog - made up of many dots - you don’t point out each dot and say it can’t be an image of a dog because each of those dots is just a dot.
This is really the same thing you tried arguing with Lakin’s case, and with the Nazis. When it’s Lakin you say that all that matters is that one dot - that one order that Lakin was given - and whether it was a dot, whether it was criminal. If it wasn’t criminal then the order is lawful and he has to do it. But if the German soldier is told to turn on the oven the whole print full of dots matters; he should have seen that the oven was full of people who were going to be maliciously killed.
If only the dot matters for Lakin, then only the dot matters for the German soldiers.
I say when you’ve got a bunch of dots they add up to more than just a dot, and you’re a fool if you refuse to look at them all together.
What was “before the Court” at that time was Phil Berg’s petition to Justice Souter for a Writ of Certiorari which had not yet been presented to the full Court.
You might remember that petition as the one that many in the “Obama is ineligible” movement thought was going to “force Obama to reveal his birth certificate to the Supreme Court.” (Obama’s attorneys chose to submit no response at all to Justice Souter, which was their legal privilege).
In case you have forgotten, here’s a FreeRepublic thread on that issue:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2128383/posts
I suppose the case could be made that Justice Souter rather than Justice Alito could have stayed away from the meeting with Obama and Biden, but that’s about it.
As for Lieutenant Colonel Lakin, he announced in advance and with premeditation his intention to disobey not one order but a series of orders which all focused on his movement to a war zone. However to this very day Lakin is following OTHER orders which extend from the exact same Commander-in-Chief under Lakin’s legal theory. For example, when Lakin shows up at his Court Martial, he is following orders. The military tends to look unkindly upon persons in the chain of command who want to decide for themselves which orders they will obey and which orders they won’t obey. Lakin obeys the order to go work at Walter Reed Hospital and he picks up his Barack Obama issued paychecks as well.
Right. But if you look at the arguments given for why it’s too late to do anything about this now there are always 2 things that are brought up: he was certified by Congress as the electoral winner, and he took the oath of office. How would that have happened if these great conservatives didn’t acknowledge Obama as president, we’re asked.
But the first never happened and there’s no videotape of the second legally happening either.
The argument being made is not only absurd, it’s factually incorrect. It seems to me that these “great conservatives” HAVE been protesting, just quietly as if to preserve their own self-respect.
Something is holding them back from a full-out protest and the proper legal action, and I think that needs to be found out, because until whatever that is changes, they will not take the bold, lawful steps the Constitution requires. But they have left plenty of room for them to take up the issue once that obstacle is removed, and show everybody why what happened was illegal.
Not only did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility, which meant that Pelosi was supposed to also refuse to certify his eligibility (rather than perjuring herself as she ended up doing)... but Congress did not lawfully certify Obama as the winner, because Cheney never fulfilled the legal requirements for that process.
So every claim of supposed legitimacy for Obama to think he’s President is inaccurate. NOTHING about this guy has ever been legally certified.
Your case assumes that Cheney would toilerate such a threat to our country. I doubt that very much. He could have stopped in it’s tracks, in a cold second. I believe he would have done just that regardless of any threat. What do you have to argue otherwise?
Probably the most succinct collection of means to understand this mess ... and thanks for pinging to that again, since I missed it the previous time.
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.