Respondents Waive Right to Respond..Petition-Writ of Cert.to(SCOTUS)..Kerchner etal v Obama etal

A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers ^ | 11-6-10 | Mario Apuzzo

[STARWISE]

Full title

Respondents Waive the Right to Respond to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit

###

There is new activity on the U.S. Supreme Court Docket today with an effective date on the docket of 3 Nov 2010.

Document HERE.

1. The Respondents named in our Petition have waived their right to respond.

2. The Western Center of Journalism has filed a motion for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of our petition.

To read the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 see this link.

[STARWISE]

Looking forward to some legal expert deciphering.

[STARWISE]

.. Ping!

Other news from the 9th Circus:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

California court throws out lawsuit questioning Obama’s citizenship (Keyes)
By Denny Walsh
Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2010

Excerpt:

The court did not deal with the citizenship issue, instead ruling that the California secretary of state, who oversees elections, and the state’s Electoral College members are not legally responsible to certify presidential candidates as qualified for the office.

Under the terms of the U.S. Constitution’s 12th Amendment, that responsibility rests solely with Congress, a unanimous three-justice panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal declared.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/26/3131570/california-court-throws-out-lawsuit.html#ixzz14Xm5Eh7W

[Future Useless Eater]

The SCOTUS Docket was updated today regarding the Natural Born Citizen questions that Mario Apuzzo has in front of the court.

Does this mean that Obama has chosen to NOT reply to those questions?

And does this mean that Kreep has successfully leeched onto Mario's case? Will Kreep drag it down?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

[azishot]

This is always too much for me to decipher as well. BO’s attys just decided they’re not going to answer?? Then what?

Then the 9th Circuit says it’s up to congress to determine elegibility? Oy vey....

[bgill]

investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

I always found it interesting that Hussein and Hill were two of the six people on that committee.

[LucyT]

. . . . Update.

[Thanks, Future Useless Eater.]

[EDINVA]

Basically, it means nothing. Every Respondent can choose to respond to the Petition or not. The option remains, should the Court grant certiorari, to file a responsive brief. The Respondents most likely assume the Court will NOT grant certiorari, so it’s not worth it to them to invest the time/costs to prepare a response.

Actually, the Western Journalism group’s interest in filing an amicus brief is interesting.

[Red Steel]

Congress Critter(s) say that it is up to the courts to settle Obama’s eligibility?

The old run around.

[azishot]

Thanks, Red Steel. No one is accepting the responsibility because they don’t want to be held accountable. Meanwhile, we’re stuck with a usurper.

[Red Steel]

Actually, the Western Journalism group’s interest in filing an amicus brief is interesting.

"Further, it explains that the provisions in the U.S. Constitution, which require presidents to be a "natural born citizen," cannot be disregarded "by means of a popular vote of the people."

Any amendment to the Constitution, the request points out, "requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of all state legislatures."

"Once a name is placed on a ballot, voters are only concerned with whether they prefer one candidate over another candidate, as it can be rightfully inferred by said voters that the threshold issue of eligibility has already been determined by virtue of the candidate names having been placed on the ballot. Additionally, the candidates for the office of president … are not required to prove any eligibility."

Kreep continued, "Because voters can and do vote for candidates that are liked by the voters, even if those candidates may not be eligible for the position, the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate. For the court to hold otherwise would be to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law." "

http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=223717

[STARWISE]

Seems, not surprisingly, a might disdainful .. like
they’re flicking a gnat.

What’s the judge do with that?

[STARWISE]

Then our new Congress had best install certification
and confirmation of eligibility for POTUS as one of
their Constitutional duties, if that’s the way it’s
gonna be.

[circumbendibus]

It would seem to me that the Supremes must not ignore petitioners in this case given the magnitude of injury to citizens of the United States.

Kirchner and Apuzzo have jumped through all the legal hoops to get to this point. The case is "seasoned." SCOTUS might as well take action now. Soon it will be January 1, start of the next Presidential election cycle. The public will not let this go on a second time.

[EDINVA]

It’s probably more common than not for Respondents NOT to file an opposition to the Petition. Why bother unless Certiorari is granted? Both the Petition and any opposition take a lot of lawyer/staff time, and printing SCOTUS briefs is costly. Why do it unless you have to?

With odds of any given case being granted Certiorari @ 8-10%, it’s just the cost effective way to proceed. Then, IF certiorari is granted, they can respond. (and they sure know what the track record of the courts has been on this issue)

[STARWISE]

I see .. thanks, Ed.

[Frantzie]

Apuzzo has put together the best case of all. If any are likely to succeed - it is his case.

[jamese777]

Seems, not surprisingly, a might disdainful .. like
they’re flicking a gnat.

What’s the judge do with that?

---

That’s one way to look at it, another is: “we trust that you esteemed ladies and gentleman will reach a just decision without any input from us.”

The very first Obama eligibility suit to reach the Supreme Court for cert conference was Berg v Obama. Everyone thought that Justice Souter had given Obama a date to show his original birth certificate, but Obama’s attorneys didn’t respond to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, just like this petition, and the Berg suit was denied by the Court.
It takes the concurrence of four of the nine justices to grant a petitition and to hear an appeal before the full court. That is known as the Supreme Court’s tradition of “the rule of four.”

[hoosiermama]

BUMP for the new year!

[Munz]

thanks for the ping

[syc1959]

bump