Posted on 11/06/2010 2:43:29 PM PDT by 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.
“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
I’m not a lawyer, but — if the premises are secure — this is a very strong argument.
This is the part that the opposition will try to rebut:
“...the voters do not have the power, or the right, to determine the eligibility of a candidate.”
They will try to say that since there is no controlling authority, Law — whatever(BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,)— that it IS up to the voters to vet the candidate(BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,)... or something along those lines.
Of course it’ll be BS... but they will try!
STE=Q
Most respondents do not file a response because in most cases, the petition is going to be dismissed anyway.
The defendant not responding really doesn’t mean much.
If the USSC requests or orders the respondent to file a response, then this case will get nation media attention in a big way.
Kreep is probably the guy with the most on the ball on this issue, so if the petition is dismissed, the members of the USSC just isn’t going to get involved.
Are you kidding? It's not even one percent and going lower almost every year.
Wonder if the last SOTUA will have any impact???
Aren't the courts jealous of their prerogatives? Are the courts going to take from the constitution and from themselves the power to determine the constitutional eligibility of a candidate for president and give it over to the “whims of the majority”? I hope not.
Judge Carter, in his ruling, had to bend over backwards to refute Kreep’s excellent oral argument which left Carter “undecided” at the conclusion of the hearing. I hope Kreep gets invited to present this argument to the Supremes.
Well, the % of cases accepted depends on what one is counting. Overall, the acceptance rate is 1-2%, but if you separate the in forma pauperis cases from those prepared by attorneys, I’m pretty sure the latter is still around 8%. The instant case falls in the latter category and it is that group to which I was referring.
“According to the “Chief Justice’s Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary” for 2009, approximately 80% of petitions for writ of certiorari also file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Only 20% of the cases are filed in the Supreme Court’s paid docket.
“2008 Petitions:
“6,142 in forma pauperis docket (79.4%)
1,596 paid docket (20.6)
7,738 total 2008
“2007 Petitions:
“6,527 in forma pauperis docket (80.4%)
1,614 paid docket (19.6%)
8,241 total 2007
“Approximately 50% of the petitions granted cert originate in the in forma pauperis docket; however, since the pool of cases for that docket it much larger than for the paid docket, paid cases are statistically more likely to be accepted on appeal.”
Here’s the source:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_in_forma_pauperis_petitions_are_filed_with_the_US_Supreme_Court_each_year
They should squirm. Good to see you back.
Apparently, Mario TURNED DOWN Kreep’s help!
Here is what Kreep says in his Amicus...
...
THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF AMICUS CURIE’S INTENTION TO FILE THIS BRIEF. THE PETITIONERS [that would be Kerchner, et al] HAVE REFUSED AND THE CONSENT OF THE RESPONDENTS IS BEING LODGED HEREWITH.
(and...)
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS (that would be Mario) HAS WITHHELD CONSENT; COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT (Obama’s lawyer) HAS CONSENTED TO THE FILING OF THIS BRIEF.
I’d say that Mario sees Kreep as a bumbler that trashes all the eligibility cases he touches.
And the White House seems to agree.
Wouldn't that be amazing...the govt (i.e. attorneys representing Barry) wanting to save taxpayer money. Imagine.
"Actually, the Western Journalism group’s interest in filing an amicus brief is interesting."
Yes, it is.
Western Center for Journalism, who are they?
Is this the same group? hmmmm?
Couple of familiar names...
______________________________________________________
About WCJ
Founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah (the brains behind WorldNetDaily.com website) and James H. Smith (former publisher of the Sacramento Union), The Western Center for Journalism has been sponsoring investigative journalism for eighteen years.
It first made its mark following the suspicious death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster during the Clinton presidency. Officially ruled a suicide by authorities, reporter Christopher Ruddy–with assistance from the Center for Western Journalism–unearthed evidence that shouted, “cover up!” No matter how hard they tried to conceal the real cause of Foster’s death, Ruddy’s dogged investigations clearly showed that the suicide ruling was phony.
Today the Center is led by columnist and veteran broadcaster Floyd Brown. The Western Center for Journalism is a vigorous watchdog that keeps a check on government abuse and the media. The Center believes strongly in open public debate. It also believes that informed public debate requires quality journalism and reporting.
The Center is working to provide quality journalism and reporting by exposing bias and falsehoods in the mainstream media so that true information will be available. The Western Center for Journalism website covers a wide variety of topics from media bias, to media industry news, and articles about online news
“Under the terms of the U.S. Constitution’s 12th Amendment, that responsibility [to certify presidential candidates as qualified for the office] rests solely with Congress, a unanimous three-justice panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal declared.”
How did they arrive at that interpretation? The 12th Amendment is silent on the matter of who decides who is constitutionally qualified. Leaving it up to Congress is tantamount to saying the constitutional qualifications are subject to political interpretation. However, the qualifications are quite clear and objective. There is no need or room for political interpretation.
I’m not a lawyer, but — if the premises are secure — this is a very strong argument.
I'm not a lawyer either, but the second sentence above seems very poorly written to me.
... to strip all candidates not winning a majority of the votes cast of all political power, ...
What kind of political power is he talking about? If he is talking about elective power, of course these candidates don't have any to be stripped from them. Maybe he should refer to the power they would have had if they had won.
Or is he talking about the political power they should have to keep ineligible candidates off the ballot?
.. as the laws would be based upon the whims of the majority of voters, rather than on the Rule of Law.
What laws is he talking about? The laws legislators will make after they are elected? Or the law inherent in the Constitution? How can laws be determined by the Rule of Law?
Apparently Kreep is trying to say that some non-winning candidates may have been harmed because they might have won if non-eligible candidates had been kept off the ballot. I guess he's trying to say several other things too, in the same sentence, but this needs to be spelled out more precisely.
They have so far. This isn't the first time a petition has reached the Supreme Court. In every one of the previous cases, and there have been at least two or three I believe, the court has declined to hear the case.
Lol
Now that was a legal smackdown!
Mario Apuzzo is a good guy and he put together the best eligibility case filed. He covered every angle, had perfect timing to almost teh second on his filings, amneded his filings and did his best to box the muslim and congress in. Kreep needs to stay away.
I always thought from the day it was filed that Mario’s case might be the one. He has worked away quietly like a little church mouse nibbling away at the ropes keeping this major fraud wrapped up. His case has slowly moved through the courts.
The only way Mario’s case gets shot down is if the judiciary is totally corrupt and I think we know that answer. However, the Dems may finally want to rid themselves of this fraud. So maybe we may get judges to do their job.
How is your buddy and his auto job over in Germany? The guy who is miserable? And all you other buddies going broke. Hopefully the Germans will send him home. They do not need retread Detroit incompetent FU’s to wreck quality German products.
Thank you hero Obama. Old timers like you are not gonna have a plug nickel once the Kenyan usurper is done with seniors and baby boomers.
Personally - I do not give a s*it anymore because most people are idiots who watch TV. Thank goodness - thanks to hardwork, intelligence and focus - I am a lot better hedged than most folks. I feel sorry for many but most are stupid idiots who watch TV.
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.
What laws is he talking about? The laws legislators will make after they are elected? Or the law inherent in the Constitution? How can laws be determined by the Rule of Law?
============================================================
I don't know if Kreep is aware of it but he appears to be drawing a distinction between a democracy -- or the rule of the majority -- and a republic -- the Rule of Law.
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution To The United States reads:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." (emphases mine)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/
So the answer to your question could be that Kreep is referring to "law inherent in the Constitution" as you put it.
He would seem to be arguing for A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT -- Rule of law" -- as opposed to a Democratic form of government: the "whims" of the mob... sometimes referred to as a "mobocracy."
If people can just vote-in whoever they want to -- regardless of the Rule of law -- we no longer have a republican form of government.
STE
Here’s more:
The Constitutional Law Of The United States, by Westel Woodbury Willoughby:
“The late Judge Cooley, in his Principles of Constitutional Law2 has perhaps defined the term as satisfactorily as anyone. “By a republican form of government,” he says, “is understood a government by representatives chosen by the people; and it contrasts on the one side with a democracy, in which the people or community as an organized whole wield the sovereign powers of government, and, on the other side, with the rule of one man as King, Emperor, Czar, or Sultan, or with that of one class of men, as an aristocracy.” “In strictness,” Judge Cooley goes on to say, “a republican government is by no means inconsistent with monarchical forms, for a King may be merely an hereditary or elective executive while the powers of legislation are left exclusively to a representative body freely chosen by the people. It is to be observed, however, that it is a republican form of government that is to be guaranteed; and in the light of the undoubted fact that by the Revolution it was expected and intended to throw off monarchical and aristocratic forms, there can be no question but that by a republican form of government was intended a government in which not only would the people’s representatives make the laws, and their agents administer them, but the people would also, directly or indirectly, choose the executive. But it would by no means follow that the whole body of people, or even the whole body of adult and competent persons, would be admitted to political privileges; and in any REPUBLICAN STATE, the LAW must determine the QUALIFICATIONS for ADMISSION to the ELECTIVE franchise.”
STE=Q
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.