3rd Circuit Affirms Kerchner Dismissal & Orders Appellants to Show Cause (Possible Sanctions)

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell J. LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. (hereafter "Appellants") filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that President Barack Obama is ineligible to hold his Office as President. They rely on Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution which provides that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. ..." U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Appellants challenge the District Court’s order dismissing their complaint. We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.

Turning to the argument of Kerchner and Nelsen that their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution “increase[ ] their adversarial posture,” Appellants’ Br. at 56, no court has found that a plaintiff established “injury in fact” simply because s/he had once taken such an oath. Carving out an exception on that basis would still leave an impermissibly large class with unique ability to sue in federal court. See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 502(a) (requiring all military personnel to take an oath “swear[ing] . . . [to] support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”). Kerchner’s assertion of standing on the ground that he, who has been retired from the Naval Reserves since 1995, may be required to serve the Commander in Chief as a combatant in the case of an “extreme national emergency,” Kerchner, 669 F.Supp.2d at 483 (quotation and citation omitted), is to no avail because it is conjectural.

Because of all the law enforcement I have contacted none will even touch this. And I’ve contacted everybody you can imagine, at every level.

That’s why this is not just a political issue and why it cannot rightly be resolved by Congress or the courts alone. Our entire law enforcement system is politicized beyond any resemblance to the Constitution. We are Mexico, Iran, Venezuela.

And THAT makes it unconscionable for anybody calling himself a “conservative” to poo-pooh this issue. This is war against the very rule of law.

Maybe it is just the Constitution in which no one can have standing!

Or maybe because:

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[Please note where a citizen is concerned, it says citizens of STATES]

§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

-----

Claiming to be a citizen of the United States today means your claiming to be a creation of government. This means you legally and voluntarily make yourself 'subject to' it's jurisdiction.

The Constitution acknowledges Citizens of States, and nowhere in the entire Judiciary Act of 1789 do the words 'citizen of the United States' appear.

If you aren't the right kind of citizen, administrative law courts can treat you however they like.

Update: U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals panel reviews Apuzzo’s response explaining why he appealed the district judge’s decision. Apuzzo not sanctioned. Order to show cause discharged.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Attorney Apuzzo Not Liable for Obama’s/Congress’ Damages and Costs Incurred by Them in Defending the Kerchner Appeal

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-finds.html

But when elected officials refuse to act

There are three tiers of elected officials with jurisdiction:

First, the 538 Electors for President of the United States. 364 of them took a favorable view of Obama's eligibility.

Next, the 535 voting Members of Congress and Senators who met on January 6, 2009 to count the electoral votes and to raise and rule on objections. All 535 had the opportunity to offer objections, all acted by accepting the votes.

Third, the President of the Senate. Obama's certificate of election was signed by Richard Cheney of Wyoming, so he also acted.

All the elected officials with jurisdiction acted in a timely fashion. None refused to act.

They just didn't do what you wanted them to do.

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.