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 ...
Nebraska and Idaho State are playing in the BCS Championship Football game. Nebraska is winning with a score of 47-3 in the 4th quarter. Nebraska’s tight end catches the ball about 2 yards out of bounds, runs back onto the field and runs it all the way for a touchdown. The referees put their hands up, indicating a TD.
The Idaho State coach asks for the referees to check the instant replay.
The referees say, “You loser, there’s no way you can win this game so you can’t ask for a review.”
Perhaps a more apt analogy would be:
Nebraska and Idaho State are playing in the BCS Championship Football game. Nebraska is winning with a score of 47-3 in the 4th quarter. Nebraska’s tight end catches the ball. He runs it all the way for a touchdown. The referees put their hands up, indicating a TD.
The Idaho State coach congratulates the Nebraska coach on his win.
Then one of the Idaho State fans asks for the referees to check the instant replay, to see if the player was out of bounds. The referees refuse, because they called it in bounds and no one on the opposing team disputes it. The fan then says he can’t get satisfaction because Idaho State has fixed the loss with the referees. He recommends that no one pays on any bets made until the referees comply with his demand.
Does the fan have standing to challenge the results of the game?
Fine with me. Clean out all the treasonous filth.
Judge Carter hiring a clerk from Perkins-Coie in the middle of a very visible case involving a client of Perkins-Coie. The Judicial Code of Ethics deals with that. (Don’t have time to look it up right now but will cite it when I put this all together eventually)
Judge Robertson trying to slap frivolous lawsuit penalties because the issue had already been Twittered. Can you think of a more blatant example of ex parte influence than a judge openly proclaiming that the case was already decided through Twitter? Every person in the country who knows anything about law knew the guy was up to his ears in BS when he made that ruling.
Even Denise Lind pulled a surprise in her decision. There are 3 basic sections to her decision. The first part is where she outlines what each side claimed. In that part she referred to “Barrack Houssein Obama” - which the folks at nativeborncitizen.com suggested she had quoted directly from Lakin’s defense, who had put in the misspellings to allow for future action based on technicalities. (The only reason I even knew about the misspellings was because they were being discussed there, since I hadn’t gotten around to reading her ruling by then. After reading about the misspellings my curiosity was piqued and I read her ruling)
The last part is where she goes through the hypotheticals (totally butchers the issues by talking about embarrassing Congress, whether Lakin had to obey the orders even if they were unlawful, etc - ignoring and/or labeling as irrelevant any evidence regarding the real issue before her: whether Lakin disobeyed a lawful order). In that part she refers to “President Obama”.
Between those two parts is the one place where Lind herself enters a fact into the record. She says that Barrack Obama was installed as President and has been acting as President.
Now if Lakin’s counsel misspelled Obama’s name in order to leave open the possibility of an appeal on technical grounds, then why do you think Denise Lind, in the only place where she entered something factual into the record, misspelled Obama’s first name?
Those are a few examples that come to mind immediately. And I should say that I have not followed the court cases very closely at all. If I know what’s going on, then it’s because the information is blatantly out there. These are not judges trying to quietly slip something past; these are shouts of “Hey, look at me doing something totally ridiculous on this eligibility case!”
And if these were the only cases where the anomalies leaped out at a person it might be different too. But 4 conservative SCOTUS justices and one liberal justice have all had some kind of supposed SNAFU regarding Obama’s inauguration as POTUS. That’s a majority of the SCOTUS justices.
Chief Justice Roberts screwed up the oath. There is no video of Roberts giving the correct oath, just audio.
Justice Stevens called Joe Biden “Mr President” after administering the oath of office to him.
Justice Thomas made a serious comment about SCOTUS evading the eligibility issue - an uncomfortable situation until Thomas smiled as if to give the excuse that he was joking. That comment was out of place and totally unsolicited - obviously something on Thomas’ mind.
Justice Alito refused to attend when Obama and Biden met privately with SCOTUS (which itself was an ex parte violation initiated by Chief Justice Roberts, since there were multiple cases involving Obama waiting to be considered by SCOTUS. So that’s another situation of questionable ethics which I didn’t even think of off-hand).
Justice Scalia pretended to Orly Taitz that he knew nothing about the eligibility cases even though the later comment by Thomas showed they HAD seen the cases. There was also some question about that because there was funny business with several different dockets via SCOTUS Clerk Danny Bickel.
So there are a lot of different behaviors that individually wouldn’t be so significant, but taken together they definitely make a person go Hmmmmm.....
Alan Keyes was a participant, not a fan.
Your alteration totally blows off the issue at hand.
And he contested the call before the game was done. He actually contested the call before the next play ever started. The refs let the game go on without resolving the issue and then tried saying that it was too late to contest the issue because the game was already over.
So my question still stands, for anybody willing to answer it. Is that an OK thing for a ref to do - to tell somebody with skin in the game that they can’t ask for the rules to be followed because they have no chance of winning anyway?
That is the logic presented by these wise, learned men of the law.
I think a 2nd-grader playing two-hand touch football on the playground has more sense than that.
Alan Keyes wasn’t a contender. He was on the ballot in three states. You might as well call the half-time streaker a participant in the game...
If I write my name in on the ballot, can I claim to be a player too?
Nebraska and Idaho State are playing in the BCS Championship Football game. Nebraska is winning with a score of 47-3 in the 4th quarter. Nebraska’s tight end catches the ball about 2 yards out of bounds, runs back onto the field and runs it all the way for a touchdown. The referees put their hands up, indicating a TD.
The Idaho State coach asks for the referees to check the instant replay.
The referees say, “You loser, there’s no way you can win this game so you can’t ask for a review.”
Is that cool with you? Why or why not?
Here’s an example of where legal standing comes into play. There is a two car accident. One driver named McCain suffers injuries and the other driver named Obama suffers no injuries. The driver Obama who suffered no injuries is clearly at fault.
A pedestrian named Keyes who observed the accident but who suffered no injuries files suit against the driver Obama who was clearly at fault.
Should the observer of the accident, Keyes be granted standing to sue driver Obama?
For the record, the candidates who would have had standing would be:
- John McCain (on the ballots of 50 states)
- Ralph Nader (on the ballots of 45 states)
- Bob Barr (on the ballots of 44 states)
- Chuck Baldwin (on the ballots of 37 states)
- Cynthia McKinney (on the ballots of 32 states)
Each of these candidates were on enough ballots to theoretically capture a majority of the electoral vote, and hence qualify them for legal standing. Obviously, none of them thought there was any legitimate legal dispute over Obama’s eligibility.
Of course, I’m sure this is because all five, despite their *considerable* political differences, are all in on the conspiracy to cover up Obama’s eligibility. Especially the two with law degrees.
If you qualify to be on the ballot you are a participant. In the State of California, where the case was being heard, Alan Keyes was every bit as much as PARTICIPANT as Obama was. In that election Obama was trying to win California’s electoral votes just as Keyes was trying to win CA’s electoral votes.
The only claim that could be made was that Keyes didn’t have a chance to win. That does NOT mean he is not a participant or that the rules just go bye-bye.
At least not in the America I have always known and loved. I feel like that America is fast slipping away.
You’re still claiming that because Keyes couldn’t win he suffered no injuries. The injury is that the rules were broken. It has nothing to do with the score at the end.
It’s sort of like Nebraska a couple weeks ago. We were winning the game by a lot, against the Huskies. But there was a call where the ball was spotted badly. Coach Pelini contested that call just on principle. I don’t think they changed the spot after review but there had been a bunch of spots which had seemed quite a bit off so Pelini wanted to hold the referees accountable.
Now what if those refs had told Pelini that they would not do a film review of the spot because Nebraska was winning anyway. Suppose they had spotted the ball 5 yards off and Pelini asked for a film review of the spot and was told he didn’t have “standing” to ask for a review because he was winning anyway and the bad spot wouldn’t cause him any injury because they would win anyway.
A bad spot is a bad spot, regardless of whether the inaccuracy is enough to alter the outcome of the game.
I might remind you that Nebraska lost to Texas last year because the refs put one second back on the clock just in that one case. How many other times did one second too many or too less get run off in the course of that game without anybody catching it? That one second only got put back on the clock because it altered the outcome of the game. But that’s not how the game is supposed to be played; every second is supposed to be handled just as accurately as that one second that cost us the game.
Imagine if Pelini had argued earlier in the 4th quarter regarding one second, and the refs had said that one second wouldn’t make a difference to the outcome of the game anyway so it doesn’t matter.
Judge Carter hiring a clerk from Perkins-Coie in the middle of a very visible case involving a client of Perkins-Coie. The Judicial Code of Ethics deals with that. (Don’t have time to look it up right now but will cite it when I put this all together eventually)
Judge Robertson trying to slap frivolous lawsuit penalties because the issue had already been Twittered. Can you think of a more blatant example of ex parte influence than a judge openly proclaiming that the case was already decided through Twitter? Every person in the country who knows anything about law knew the guy was up to his ears in BS when he made that ruling.
Even Denise Lind pulled a surprise in her decision. There are 3 basic sections to her decision. The first part is where she outlines what each side claimed. In that part she referred to “Barrack Houssein Obama” - which the folks at nativeborncitizen.com suggested she had quoted directly from Lakin’s defense, who had put in the misspellings to allow for future action based on technicalities. (The only reason I even knew about the misspellings was because they were being discussed there, since I hadn’t gotten around to reading her ruling by then. After reading about the misspellings my curiosity was piqued and I read her ruling)
The last part is where she goes through the hypotheticals (totally butchers the issues by talking about embarrassing Congress, whether Lakin had to obey the orders even if they were unlawful, etc - ignoring and/or labeling as irrelevant any evidence regarding the real issue before her: whether Lakin disobeyed a lawful order). In that part she refers to “President Obama”.
Between those two parts is the one place where Lind herself enters a fact into the record. She says that Barrack Obama was installed as President and has been acting as President.
Now if Lakin’s counsel misspelled Obama’s name in order to leave open the possibility of an appeal on technical grounds, then why do you think Denise Lind, in the only place where she entered something factual into the record, misspelled Obama’s first name?
Those are a few examples that come to mind immediately. And I should say that I have not followed the court cases very closely at all. If I know what’s going on, then it’s because the information is blatantly out there. These are not judges trying to quietly slip something past; these are shouts of “Hey, look at me doing something totally ridiculous on this eligibility case!”
And if these were the only cases where the anomalies leaped out at a person it might be different too. But 4 conservative SCOTUS justices and one liberal justice have all had some kind of supposed SNAFU regarding Obama’s inauguration as POTUS. That’s a majority of the SCOTUS justices.
Chief Justice Roberts screwed up the oath. There is no video of Roberts giving the correct oath, just audio.
Justice Stevens called Joe Biden “Mr President” after administering the oath of office to him.
Justice Thomas made a serious comment about SCOTUS evading the eligibility issue - an uncomfortable situation until Thomas smiled as if to give the excuse that he was joking. That comment was out of place and totally unsolicited - obviously something on Thomas’ mind.
Justice Alito refused to attend when Obama and Biden met privately with SCOTUS (which itself was an ex parte violation initiated by Chief Justice Roberts, since there were multiple cases involving Obama waiting to be considered by SCOTUS. So that’s another situation of questionable ethics which I didn’t even think of off-hand).
Justice Scalia pretended to Orly Taitz that he knew nothing about the eligibility cases even though the later comment by Thomas showed they HAD seen the cases. There was also some question about that because there was funny business with several different dockets via SCOTUS Clerk Danny Bickel.
So there are a lot of different behaviors that individually wouldn’t be so significant, but taken together they definitely make a person go Hmmmmm.....
We have appellate courts in this country. If any one judge’s decision is constitutionally inaccurate, it can be overturned by higher courts all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Since the Supreme Court has ruled against positions taken by the Obama administration far more often than they have supported positions taken by the Obama administration, I don’t see how the little pre-inaugural get together to welcome the representative of the first branch of government has interfered with the Justices’ judgements of cases on the merits.
Twice in recent decades, incoming presidents have paid a pre-inaugural visit to the court. President Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush did so in 1981, and President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore in 1992.
No such visit was arranged for President Bush in 2001. Since the Supreme Court had cleared the way for Bush’s victory a few weeks earlier in a 5-4 ruling in “Bush v Gore”, a friendly visit was seen as awkward.
Who all in this country is supposed to be given equal protection under the law?
Just the people who can win, or everybody in the race?
This is BASIC, BASIC stuff, people. It’s the whole thing of the “haves v have-nots”. We don’t have any have-nots in the eyes of the law. Everyone is to be treated equally. If John McCain has standing to ask for a fair and lawful election, then so does EVERYBODY ELSE on the ballot.
The Constitution doesn’t guarantee equality of outcomes. It guarantees equality of protection under the law and due process.
Basic stuff. But the attitudes presented here really, really show the failure of the good ol’ boy mentality. “If we say you count, you count. Otherwise, go kiss a truck. You’re outta luck.”
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.
A man who is on the ballot in 3 states cannot complain that he didn’t win because of Obama. He suffered no injury from Obama, only from his overall lack of popularity which is why he had to create a party.
The coach of a team in the game has a right to protest. The water boy of another team who is watching on TV does not.
Wow! What an idea. Fraught with risk but the reward would be awesome.
“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.”
___________________________________________________________
Bill Ayers and his Weather Buddies gave up bombs for books. Many of them are in our education systems and the education departments of our universities. They are, and have been for some time, teaching our teachers how and what to teach. They have indoctrinated many of our youth for at least a generation. That’s how Obama got elected. They have dumbed us down and are set to take us over. Good plan... too bad the greatest nation in human history is the victim and the scum of the earth the victor.
Alan Keyes did not complain that he didn’t win. He complained that he didn’t get a lawful, fair race - the only thing he asked for and a thing he is just as entitled to as anybody else in the race.
That’s the point. Winning makes no difference as to whether the race was fair and lawful. If somebody steals his chance to have a lawful process, they have injured him, regardless of what outcomes did or didn’t happen. That’s what EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW means - not that you will be guaranteed any particular result, but that you will have the same legal protections as anybody else. That means that losers are just as protected and have just as many rights in the eyes of the law as winners do.
And twice before those presidents did NOT have Supreme Court cases against them. Does the legal term 'Ex parte' ring a dumb-bell?
No such visit was arranged for President Bush in 2001. Since the Supreme Court had cleared the way for Bush’s victory a few weeks earlier in a 5-4 ruling in “Bush v Gore”, a friendly visit was seen as awkward.
A non sequitur.
If you are correct, Keyes had a BETTER chance of winning, since he could have made his case to the voters that Obama wasn’t legally qualified. With no Democrat contender, maybe Keyes would have done better.
But he didn’t make his case to the voters. THAT is where the decision is to be made, not the courts.
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.