Posted on 11/29/2010 7:37:16 AM PST by Elderberry
(ORDER LIST: 562 U.S.) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2010
CERTIORARI DENIED
10-446 KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Lots of folks think it, few say it. Well said.
This was the most well put together cases to hit the SCOTUS than any other case thus far.
56 posted on Monday, November 29, 2010 11:09:49 AM by Retired Intelligence Officer
I disagree. The Kerchner case was perhaps the most fatally flawed of all the eligibility cases. It comes as no surprise at all that SCOTUS summarily denied a hearing without comment.
Bingo! LOL!
Why was fatally flawed? Please explain.
On the contrary, WE are the boss. Our taxes are paying them.
amen
Once again, the entirely predictable happens...
As Richard Feynman would say “Bad luck.”
Kerchner v. Obama: SCOTUS Orders List Due Out Today (inferring it's been dismissed) ^
|
11/28/2010 11:46:15 PM PST · by STARWISE · 26 replies Oh, For Goodness Sake ^ | 11-29-10The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of New Jersey affirmed the District Court’s dismissal, based on lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction, of Kerchner v. Obama, calling the case “frivolous” and issuing a Precedential Opinion. Not to be taken lightly: *** [W]hen a judge calls an argument “ridiculous” or “frivolous,” it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the position has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone’s time. *** The case relied, belatedly, on the de Vattel theory of natural born... |
||
|
|
||
| Apuzzo, Supreme Court confers Kerchner v Obama, Limbaugh, Hannity, Dobbs question Obama eligibility ^ |
||
|
11/24/2010 8:14:26 AM PST · by Jonah Vark · 15 replies CITIZEN WELLS NEWS ^ | Citizen WellsSean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh have all questioned Obama’s birth certificate, natural born citizen status and eligibility to be president. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh stated the following on his radio show: “The imposter got into the equivalent of the White House in Afghanistan. Did they not ask this guy for some kind of identification? They clearly didn’t. They clearly didn’t ask this guy for his birth certificate. How in the world could they trust in a leader and even give money to somebody who has not been properly vetted? Well, because it happened here in the United States. We... |
||
|
|
||
| Kerchner v Obama DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010 (re: Barry's eligibility) ^ |
||
|
11/08/2010 12:57:34 PM PST · by rxsid · 195 replies www.supremecourt.gov ^ | 11/08/2010 | SCOTUSNo. 10-446 Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. Docketed: October 4, 2010 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (09-4209) Decision Date: July 2, 2010 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010) Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed. Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism.Nov 8... |
||
|
|
||
| Respondents Waive Right to Respond..Petition-Writ of Cert.to(SCOTUS)..Kerchner etal v Obama etal ^ |
||
|
11/06/2010 2:43:29 PM PDT · by STARWISE · 45 replies A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers ^ | 11-6-10 | Mario ApuzzoFull 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... |
||
|
|
||
| Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner ^ |
||
|
10/01/2010 10:41:23 AM PDT · by STARWISE · 203 replies A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers ^ | 9-30-10 | Mario ApuzzoComplete 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... |
||
|
|
||
| Petition for Writ of Cert filed with SCOTUS - Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al ^ |
||
|
puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 9/30/2010 | cfkerchner "Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit JAMESBURG, NJ – (Sept. 30, 2010) - 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... |
||
The full Court never writes an opinion explaining why they didn't hear a case; all they say is "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari denied." Sometimes, one justice will write an opinion dissenting from the denial, or (rather unusual) a short explanation of why they agree with the majority that cert. shouldn't be granted, bu there was no published dissent or concurrence in this case. Which strongly suggests that the decision was 9-0.
from what I gleaned, this guy's 'got bread'-he seemed to disappear, not mentioning a funding problem....
Barry was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England. By birthright.
What is happening is, the precedent is being set that someone born with foreign citizenship, with allegiance owed from birth to a foreign country, is eligible to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
I agree the concept of Standing limits ones right to redress pursuant to Bill of Rights. In the Kerchner case, however, there were no actual present damages at the time of filing and a political issue argument was raised by suing the entire congress.
It was asking for too much to ask SCOTUS to set a precedent allowing a plaintiff without present actual damages to sue former VP Cheney and the entire US congress.
If SCOTUS had taken the case and ruled for the plaintiff, it would have set a precedent allowing even a plaintiff without actual present damages to sue the entire congress regarding any acts perceived to cause future damages.
If SCOTUS had taken the case and ruled for the defendant, then whether stated or not it would have been construed by bo as a ruling abrogating the Qualification Clause of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
Thus, the Kerchner case was a no-win situation for SCOTUS and the Rule of Law.
You might look at it this way: the Supreme Court Justices are the “bosses” of the American judiciary. Does your boss need to explain all of his or her actions to you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If he is a stakeholder, yeah...potentially. It it's a publicly traded company, they generally need to explain their actions to a variety of stakeholders.
The case was a model of its kind. Very well done indeed. However it had been presented in the wrong Federal District Court. In a way, that's a good thing, because when it is presented in the right court, the SCOTUS will have all the less reason to reject it!
These attorneys (including my favorite, the statuesque Russian Lady Dentist Lawyer, Dr. Malapropsky) have been instructed many times by fair-minded judges on how to present their cases. The "how" is in the Federal District Court of Washington DC. The "Why" is that it is the only court Constitutionally empowered to hear eligibility cases.
If that Federal Court in DC gets around to it (there is really no way to pressure them) they will issue a Writ of Quo Warranto,, (which is just lawyer dog-latin for "By what right, " do you hold this office.) forcing Obama to "prove" he is a Natural Born citizen. Or not.
Of course, Team Obama will fight it tooth and nail, But no matter who wins or loses, this has the appeal to the SCOTUS built-in. The SCOTUS is an appeals court.
Although strictly speaking, the SCOTUS could let the lower court ruling stand, (no matter what it was) I think they will finally hear the case. That should be sometime around 2014!
He lost that birthright with Kenyan independence. His British birthright was transferred to being Kenyan citizenship. Thus the way the posted ad states it is wrong. In trying to make the overall valid case, it is not an idea to state things known to be wrong.
That is precisely why this is much bigger than Barry and why people shouldn't look at this in terms of (only) simply voting him out in 2012.
Otherwise, going forward, someone born with foreign citizenship, owing allegiance at birth to a foreign country, can point to Barry and say "he did it" and they too could be Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
He lost that birthright with Kenyan independence. His British birthright was transferred to being Kenyan citizenship. Thus the way the posted ad states it is wrong. In trying to make the overall valid case, it is not an idea to state things known to be wrong.
------------------------------------
Your missing the point entirely.
How can a "Natural Born Citizen" be born with foreign citizenship?
Let alone, hold two foreign citizenship's and thus allegiances at any time of his life.
Doesn't British common law have a say in who may be a British citizen? IIRC, once a British citizen, always a British citizen unless the sovereign (King or Queen) proclaims otherwise.
In any event, he was born with foreign allegiance owed and therefore never was nor will be a "Natural born Citizen." Whether or not he had Kenyan (or Indonesian) or 14th Amendment U.S. citizenship is secondary.
If he is a stakeholder, yeah...potentially. It it’s a publicly traded company, they generally need to explain their actions to a variety of stakeholders.
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.