Kerchner v Obama- All Is Not Lost

Mario Apuzzo from the beginning said this case is going all the way to the Supreme Court. As news of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals wears off, take heart in the knowledge, plaintiffs were not expecting a positive ruling. It wasn't too long ago the New Haven firefighters case was overturned after an appeals court voted 2 -1 against.

I woke up this morning with the nine justices names running through my mind, must have been the bbq sausage. BTW how was your 4th?

What is good and at the same time lamentable, is the out of hand dismissal of the Kerchner case. Mario Apuzzo has on his website, "A Place To Ask Questions" articles and essays discussing the pertinent facts of his case. On June 30, Apuzzo updated us with the news his case was in the hands of the 3rd Appeals Court in Philadelphia. Hardly had the ether dried on the pixels of his article, before news 2 days later, of the out right rejection of his appeal. What is good, is it only took 48 hours to get a decision, only two days were wasted, before the case can move up the ladder to the Supreme Court.

What was bad, besides the whole process of mucking around with this Usurper business, is the clownish Catch-22 the appeals court gave as their justification to dismiss. In essence they said we dismissed the Berg case for lack of standing, and this is just another identical case of "no standing". But if you read the ruling against Berg, you'll see the reason for dismissing his case was not related to the Kerchner case as stated Friday.

The Berg case was thrown out for lack of standing because the ruling stated "any person has a right to run for president, irregardless of their eligibility status, the test of eligibility cannot be applied unless and until that person actually wins the election and takes the oath. Therefore Berg was dismissed because he filed in October 2008, a month before the election. The appeals court wanted to ensure every jackalope and freak in the country weren't impinged upon in their efforts to be the prez.

Mario Appuzzo took that timing issue into account, he didn't file his case until January 20, 2009. His time stamp on his electronic filing indicates it was filed as Obama was actually taking the oath of office. Hmmm no standing as in Berg v Obama? It sure doesn't ring true. Not as written by the 3rd circuit appeal when you hold up both cases side by side.

A cute Catch-22 the 3rd circuit dreamed up. You can't be heard before someone is elected, but on the other hand once that person gets elected now you can't be heard because now the prior case's dismissal precludes it. Sounds like a case of judical PMS, one bitchy irrational thought, justified by another equally bitchy irrational thought.

We've got November and we've still got a future ruling from the Supreme Court due us. We also must press our state governments to pass eligibility legislation enforceable prior to the 2012 election. If these fail us then we must take up arms. In the mean time, if we see no meaningful representation after the November 2010 election, we must take to the streets. The time is waning for maintaining a peaceful posture in our protests and assemblies. We need to escalate the costs to the forces behind the usurpation of our government. Rioting and destroying property in Smallville, USA will only hurt the local people, most likely people who agree with us. But there are the 50 State Capitals and Washington DC itself. If we have no just government what do we need these buildings to house these scoundrels for, to mock us?

I've mentioned a couple of our hopes in this endeavor to wrest America from the hands of the Usurper, now I'll close by listing our greatest strength. We've got God.

20% of the population, some driving around in their Cadillac escalades, will no doubt riot when their brother is disqualified.

The demographic you are likely referring to is only 12.4% of the population. The non-Hispanic white population is 75% of the total. It's also better armed.

So let them riot, less disrupting than the larger group going on the warpath. We wouldn't burn down our own neighborhoods.

And, IMO, that judge was wrong to not grant standing to Keyes. Win or lose is not the only thing hanging in the balance. If Obama was not in the running, might have Keyes gotten more votes? More votes effects the standing of the party, fund raising potential, the ability to get on the ballot in more states in 2012, etc.

Not granting standing to Keys because there’s no way to tell if he would have gotten more votes would be like not granting standing to McCain, because who knows if McCain would have won against, say, Hillary? “Mr. McCain can not prove injury in fact, therefore he has no standing.” Heh.

Alan Keyes was only on the ballot in three states. He could have gotten every single vote in those three states but never would have gotten enough electoral votes to win.

Hillary Clinton wasn’t on the ballot against John McCain, so that would have no impact on granting legal standing to sue Obama. None of Obama’s Democratic Primary opponents sued on grounds of Obama’s ineligibility.

Courts deal with ACTUAL injury-in-fact not hypothetical injury. Hypothetical or theoretical injuries are the exact opposite of when courts are supposed to grant standing.

If you MIGHT have injured someone in a car accident, they shouldn’t be able to sue you for damages. If you DID injure someone in a car accident, they then have standing to sue you.

There is one person who COULD have been president with a realistic chance to win if Barack Obama was not on the general election ballot, Senator John Sidney McCain. It is a stretch, but possibly conceivable that a very conservative court or a very conservative judge in an extremely conservative, Obama hating state MIGHT have granted standing to Sarah Palin (as the Vice Presidential candidate of an elderly presidential candidate) but Governor Palin hasn’t tried to gain standing so we’ll never know.

My position is that until the Judicial branch

That's fine, but were we not speaking of the ability of the courts to bar the person from executing the powers of the office?

Judge Carter’s position is that Democratic Party Primary Election opponents and then Obama’s general election opponents had one year and nine months to have him declared ineligible and they failed do so.

So how does that change the fact of his eligibility or lack thereof? What court has even attempted to ascertain the facts under an adversarial procedure with full access to available evidence and witnesses from both sides of the controversy?

I know I’m unusual... Didn’t watch that much TV as a kid, played outside, rode bikes, etc much more, plus I was a voracious reader rather than a TV watcher (I was born in 1950). Was on my own by 18, and only had a TV for about 2 years since then - notably during the Clinton impeachment hearings! And I’ve never been a movie fan at all, probably watched less than 75 movies (maybe less than 50?) my entire life.

Alan Keyes was only on the ballot in three states. He could have gotten every single vote in those three states but never would have gotten enough electoral votes to win.

I never said he had any chance of winning. But getting fewer votes (as a result of not being the only black candidate maybe?) is a "hypothetical" injury just as valid as Sen. McCain's. Especially for a minor party.

Courts deal with ACTUAL injury-in-fact not hypothetical injury. Hypothetical or theoretical injuries are the exact opposite of when courts are supposed to grant standing.

So you're saying McCain wouldn't have standing, either? His injury (losing the election) is just as hypothetical.

I never said he had any chance of winning. But getting fewer votes (as a result of not being the only black candidate maybe?) is a “hypothetical” injury just as valid as Sen. McCain’s. Especially for a minor party.

What can I tell you? The judges who heard the cases disagreed with your assessment. Keyes was a plaintiff in three different lawsuits and he was denied standing in all of them. (Keyes v Obama et. al., Keyes v Bowen and Keyes v Lingle). Keyes v Obama eventually became “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack Obama, et. al.”

Since John McCain hasn’t tried for standing as a plaintiff in any Obama eligibility lawsuit, we can’t know if any court would have granted him standing or not.

McCain’s injury-in-fact would not have been losing the election but rather it would have been being deprived of the presidency by running against an ineligible candidate.

“That’s fine, but were we not speaking of the ability of the courts to bar the person from executing the powers of the office?”

Maybe you were talking about that.

Every one of the 70 plus courts that has accepted legal briefs from plaintiffs and defendants has attempted to ascertain the facts under an adversarial procedure. It is not the judicial system’s fault that plaintiffs have not been able to present a plaintiff with legal standing to sue.

It is also not the judicial system’s fault that those who would challenge Obama’s eligibility have failed to convince a prosecuting attorney to convene a Grand Jury investigation into this issue where there would be no issue of standing to block subpoenas from being issued and testimony from being taken under oath.

“That’s fine, but were we not speaking of the ability of the courts to bar the person from executing the powers of the office?”

Maybe you were talking about that.

“That’s fine, but were we not speaking of the ability of the courts to bar the person from executing the powers of the office?”

Maybe you were talking about that.

“That’s fine, but were we not speaking of the ability of the courts to bar the person from executing the powers of the office?”

Maybe you were talking about that.

Didn’t watch that much TV as a kid, played outside, rode bikes, etc much more, plus I was a voracious reader rather than a TV watcher (I was born in 1950)

I was born in '49 in November. I played outside, a lot, would often stop by the library on my way home from school. (Library was closer to school than home was) and would ride there in the summer a couple of times a week, at least. Also played baseball and was in the local pool several times a week. Still, I saw W of Oz many many times. I'd watch it tomorrow if I had DVD of it..well I do, but at our other house, almost 4 hours away.

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.