Kerchner Eligibility Lawsuit Dismissed on Standing

U.S. District Court, New Jersey ^ | 10/21/2009 | Judge Jerome B. Simandle

[BuckeyeTexan]

United States District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle has dismissed the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit challenging President Barack H. Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.

"The Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss."

Judge Simandle's full opinion is at the link.

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[rodguy911]

THanks when I read his bio that’s about what I had figured.

[curiosity]

Oh, okay, I see your point. You weren't arguing about standing in the Hollander case, where McCain wasn't the one needing to show standing.

You were arguing that only McCain could have standing in a hypothetical lawsuit against Obama. Got it. I agree.

Hollander didn't have standing against McCain (like everyone suing Obama) since he wasn't a serious candidate in the primary.

[illiac]

I would sure think we are being harmed...if we as citizens do not have standing, it is unclear about who does....other than congress.....and, of course, they will do nothing (business as usual)...

[The Comedian]

In brief, “standing” requires some personalized injury to the person suing. If it is an injury that befalls all Americans, then it is not personalized. This is one reason why individual taxpayers can not sue over gov’t waste. It is an injury that befalls all of us.

So the moral of the story is, if you're going to injure anyone, injure everyone, and the law will keep you safe.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[OldDeckHand]

"If the courts can find that they can determine a US House member can be seated per Constitutional requirements"

"Can be seated", is the operative phrase. No court, no where can "unseat" a sitting member of the House or Senate, even if that member obtained the seat through fraudulent or otherwise criminal means. If the member has not yet been seated, then that's another matter altogether. But, in Obama's case, he was Inaugurated. A court can't "undo" an Inauguration. It's as simple as that.

[GregNH]

So in a sense we can, and have been, taken over within by one political force and there is not a thing we do but wait until we are allowed to vote?

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.—John F. Kennedy

[El Gato]

Only if one is delusional enough to believe that Keyes had a chance of winning.

As Judge Carter pointed out, winning isn't everything, or even anything, for a third party or independent candidate. He brought up, repeatedly, the case of H. Ross Perot.

[El Gato]

What Keyes would have us believe is that had Obama not been qualified to run for president then Keyes might have won.

Or Keyes might have sucked enough votes from Her Thighness to have McStain win. Likely he would have. Winning is generally not the object for a third party candidate. Usually it's just making a point, but not always.

H. Ross Perot's object was to defeat Bush, not win the election. He succeeded. Keyes may similarly have wanted to deny the election to the Democrats, which he might have done if Senator Clinton had been their standard bearer.

[El Gato]

Apparently under the “standing” doctrine, as it has evolved since the early 1920s, no resident of Chicago would have standing to sue Omar bin Camelhumpn over his contruction of biological weapons, on the grounds that any one residents possible death would be no more particularized than that of any other resident of the city.

[parsifal]

Well, you’re right about the blood pressure, but somebody has to keep you jokers in line.

parsy, who bravely risks death to bring enlightenment

[parsifal]

Yep, if you’re the gov’t. There are a lot of exceptions though. Think of the alternative. 100 million Americans suing the gov’t every year for the crap they spend our money on. Assuming 20 clients per lawyer= 5 million more lawyers, then 5 million more for the gov’t. Then this many again every couple of years. probably 5 million more judges, and then all the discovery process. Quadruple the number if Orly-clones get involved.

parsy, who says no coffee shop is safe

[parsifal]

Yes. But it would have lost at the appeals level.

parsy, who says a judge can find ways to make things happen but it is considered bad way to practice law and wrong in general.

[Non-Sequitur]

As Judge Carter pointed out, winning isn't everything, or even anything, for a third party or independent candidate. He brought up, repeatedly, the case of H. Ross Perot.

Perot was actually on the ballot in most if not all states. Keyes was not.

[Non-Sequitur]

Or Keyes might have sucked enough votes from Her Thighness to have McStain win.

Keyes finished with what, 45,000 votes nationwide? He could triple that and not made a difference in the election.

[Non-Sequitur]

Apparently under the “standing” doctrine, as it has evolved since the early 1920s, no resident of Chicago would have standing to sue Omar bin Camelhumpn over his contruction of biological weapons, on the grounds that any one residents possible death would be no more particularized than that of any other resident of the city.

What ever are you talking about now?

[El Gato]

But, it can be argued, and I think El Gato would possibly agree, that such an Act is actually an acknowledgement that the particular aspect of citizenship in question was not addressed by the Constitution.

Yes I do. Also that the repeal tells us something about their aknowledgement of the limitations on their powers.

I think if someone had brought up the "military" exemptions" in both Vattel's "Law of Nations" and Blackstones "Commentaries on the Laws of England", we would all have been better served.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

>Time to join oathkeeper friends
>oathkeepers.org
~~~~~~~~~~
AMEN!

[PAR35]

I think the word you are looking for is Comintern, not Cominterm.

[El Gato]

Since this isn’t working it looks like all we have is election 2012.

Nope. Get to work in your state to enact legislation that requires presidential candidates to provide documentation proving that they are eligible to hold the office

Which will have no effect until the election of 2012. Which is exactly what RWGinger said.