Kerchner v Obama DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010 (re: Barry's eligibility)

www.supremecourt.gov ^ | 11/08/2010 | SCOTUS

[rxsid]

No. 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 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010

Attorney Apuzzo's blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

[Tex-Con-Man]

This is part of the transcript of the exchange between Congressman Serrano and Justice Thomas.

I included the discussion preceding the often cited exchange to add context.

Before what is posted below, there was a lot of details about court funding in general, but there was also some light hearted exchanges about the Red Sox, White Sox and Yankees. The atmosphere at the meeting was congenial and jovial.

There was no discussion of Obama, and there is no way of knowing if Thomas was thinking of the president or his eligibility.

However, it is obvious from the transcript that Chairman Serrano was joking about his own eligibility to be president because of his Puerto Rican birth...and that is what Justice Thomas was responding to.

SERRANO: You know it's interesting, Justice Thomas, when you say it's a humbling experience. I'll tell you a quick experience that I had.

I represent, as you know, the South Bronx. And there’re a lot of immigrants in the South Bronx. There’re a lot of folks with English as a second language, a lot of poor folks, a lot of folks with little education. And so even explaining on a daily basis after 20 years in Congress what it is a member of Congress does, it's a daily routine for me either in the school, in the community center or on the street.

When Sonia Sotomayor was being considered, granted that a lot of the excitement was the fact that she was a woman from the Bronx, that she was a Hispanic woman, that her parents were from Puerto Rico. But there was no explanation on my part as to what she was being nominated for. Everybody understood la Corte Suprema (ph - Spanish).

You know it was as if they knew that this was huge. This was big. This was important. This was a coming of age for the community. And it became something where everywhere I went, you want to make sure this happens. So I say oh, yes, I spoke to the Senate; it's a done deal you know.

But the importance, I've told you in the past, much to the dismay of some of my friends on the left, but I feel a little uneasy about having a hearing for the Supreme Court because of the respect I have for the court. I don't always agree with its decisions, but I have a respect for it.

So it's humbling, but the public understands. The public understands the importance of what you do and the bearing it has on the future of our country. And so we always thank you for your service and tell the other seven that we do the same.

THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it's always an honor being here. You and I have been at this together for a decade and a half. And...

SERRANO: I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court because I'm not a judge. I have never been a judge.

THOMAS: And you don't have to be born in the United States. You never have to answer that question.

SERRANO: Oh really?

THOMAS: Yes.

SERRANO: So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one.

THOMAS: We're evading that one. We're giving you another option.

SERRANO: Thanks a lot.

THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SERRANO: Ms. Emerson?

This playful banter was a running gag between the Puerto Rican born Chairman Serranno and Justice Thomas. But run it through the WND birther conspiracy generator and before you know it, more evidence of a massive cover-up.

Full Transcript

[American Constitutionalist]

" Obama has amended the US Constitution without the legal process. "

So did those who forced abortion upon us in 1973 in the Roe vs Wade decision.

[Red Steel]

Judge Lind took judicial notice of Congress certifying Obama as the electoral winner. Do you know if Lakin’s counsel has asked that that be removed because the certification was not lawfully done? Without that being lawfully done,

Lakin's new counsel appears to have abandoned as a defense the reason why Lakin sought to disobey the deployment order. On the other hand, his new counsel has also said, as I recall, every defense is on the table.

[American Constitutionalist]

" I’m seeing a split decision here, with the court likely finding that the option of citizenship is one that has to be exercised, and one’s American citizenship can’t be revoked by an outside authority, nor does having an option revoke citizenship. A joined majority will further declare that the SCOTUS is not the arbritor of presidential elections and toss the whole bomb into the lap of Congress. "

Ohhh Geeezzz..... not this crap again....

It's his Natural Born status to be eligible to be president of the United States.

[Red Steel]

Oh, the Obama naysayers here try to BS it away because Thomas chuckled a little. Serrano’s question was serious and he still refused to answer the question.

[butterdezillion]

You have to watch it live. It was not a running gag. It was just a normal conversation until out of the blue Thomas mentioned the part about not having to be born here to be on the court. Then there was uncomfortable silence. It was an uncomfortable exchange until the end when Thomas smiled as if to give the excuse that it was banter when in reality it had been an uncomfortable exchange brought about deliberately by Thomas bringing up the issue of birthplace in determining what position a person qualifies for.

I gave the link for it; I just counsel anybody to watch it. I totally blew off this conversation based on descriptions similar to yours when I was unable to watch any video on my computer. Then when I had to switch computers I was able to watch it and was immediately struck by how out-of-the-blue Thomas’ comment was, and what an uncomfortable silence it created.

So I say to everybody, listen to it first and then figure out what you think was going on there, because the descriptions don’t always accurately portray the real atmosphere.

[jamese777]

Here you go.
“The de facto officer doctrine (DFOD) would not save Obama or the Dems from destruction. If the truth ever became evident, we would see a conspiracy to commit fraud and obstruction of justice. In all the cases, the officers in question became known after the fact...that the defendants found out later that the officers had no right to their offices. Millions of people have known otherwise that Obama was not eligible, and numerous of court cases have been filed against Obama for more than 2 years.

You couple the obstruction of justice charges and conspiracy to commit fraud along with the public have known for a very long time Obama was ineligible, it is inconceivable that Obama is covered under the de facto Doctrine. Judges could try and expand legal reasoning for the DFOD. In the words of X-judge Alcee Hastings, ‘We make crap up’ to “mitigate the damage” they would think could happen to the country. But politically Obama and the Dems would be done. You could stick a fork in them. “

---

I agree with you that the correct way to go after Obama is not by filing more civil lawsuits that go nowhere due to plaintiffs who do not have standing to sue.

You have correctly named three felonies that should be investigated by a Grand Jury: Conspiracy, Fraud and Obstruction of Justice.

Grand juries can subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath. Grand juries were utitlized in Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, the Governor Rod Blagojevich impeachment and removal and the Valerie Plame-CIA Leaks incidents, just to name a few well known political scandals.

I wonder if you can name a single major political figure who was forced out of office by a civil lawsuit.

The “defacto officer doctrine” would cover the rest of the Obama administration from loss of position and actions taken, not Obama himself, if he were to be charged with a crime, indicted on criminal charges, or impeached and removed from office.

[April Lexington]

Prayerful ping...

[American Constitutionalist]

The Obama Administration, the Coconut Coup.

[wintertime]

When will Obama resign?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He will resign while visiting a friendly foreign nation. If he sticks around the U.S. he would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned for massive fraud.

[Red Steel]

You know, for as long as we’ve been dealing with this, that still hits me between the eyeballs. I still can’t quite absorb that, that the rule of law has just been suspended by the people who are put in place as the ultimate arbiters of the law.

There are other reasons why the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case. What I say now I've never seen posted anywhere else. Four of the Constitutionalist Supreme Court justices may not have the votes to win on Constitutional grounds against the activist judges on the SCOTUS bench. Lets say they don't have the 5 justices to win in this extremely important case. They discovered though the Supreme Court grapevine [or even through a straw poll] they know the swing vote Justice Kennedy may not yet be convinced for whatever reasons to rule against Obama. Why give the activist judges a win on such an important ruling that directly eviscerates the US Constitution?

It is also possible that 3 of the most extremely liberal activist judges are now or have voted yes because they know they can weaken the US Constitution. They feel the justices in the middle will eventually go there way if they get the fourth vote.

In both cases, as a strict constitutionalist Supreme Court jurist, you "Evade" the Obama eligibility case by voting NO.

[jamese777]

Ohhh Geeezzz..... not this crap again....

It’s his Natural Born status to be eligible to be president of the United States.

---

And that status is to be determined by Congress, not by the Courts. Congress had the opportunity to not certify the Electoral College votes of a president-elect who might not qualify as a natural born citizen. Not one out of 535 members of Congress challenged the certification.

[Tex-Con-Man]

MARCH 13, 2008

REP. JOSE E. SERRANO HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

WITNESSES: ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT

CLARENCE THOMAS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT

SERRANO:
"...Although I must say on a personal level that for about 10 years I've been trying to get out of you an unofficial comment on whether or not someone born in Puerto Rico can serve as president."

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/political-transcript-wire/mi_8167/is_20080313/rep-jose-serrano-holds-hearing/ai_n50720147/

Like I said...a running gag until Farah gets a hold of it.

[Red Steel]

And that status is to be determined by Congress, not by the Courts. Congress had the opportunity to not certify the Electoral College votes of a president-elect who might not qualify as a natural born citizen. Not one out of 535 members of Congress challenged the certification.

Natural Born Citizen status would not be determined by Congress. As natural born citizenship falls under natural law. Citizenship laws by man or made by Congress are a form of naturalization. Naturalization is a process that grants citizenship to people.

[Red Steel]

The “defacto officer doctrine” would cover the rest of the Obama administration from loss of position and actions taken, not Obama himself, if he were to be charged with a crime, indicted on criminal charges, or impeached and removed from office.

They still could go to jail for conspiracy to commit crimes of fraud to hide Obama's lack of eligibility, and/or be charged with obstruction of justice.

[Tex-Con-Man]

From the same 2008 Committee hearing...

SERRANO: I’d like to remind you that your full testimony will be inserted into the record, so we would appreciate, to allow for questions during these difficult voting times, if you could keep your remarks down to five minutes.

However, I’m not about to gavel a member of the Supreme Court, especially before the ruling on my presidency...

KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman. Justice Thomas joins me in thanking you for the opportunity to appear before the committee, as is our custom and our pleasure.

(...)

Oh, incidentally, I can give you a ruling right now. You’re eligible to come to the Supreme Court.

SERRANO: I’m eligible to serve on the Supreme Court? Is that what you just said?

KENNEDY: There’s no problem with that, so if your presidential ambitions subside, you can always (OFF-MIKE)

SERRANO: But president is kind of cool.

[bitt]

verrrrrrrryyyyyyy interesting.......

[MamaDearest]

They’re just deciding how to say, “No”, again, with a straight face.

The credibility of the judicial system is, in actuality, also being tried in this case. Millions of Americans are already distrustful of the courts and previous rulings issued. This issue is FAR larger than the case itself. It is representative of whether the courts are enjoined in corruption protecting an undocumented man instead of protecting the nation and the citizens within it. It is an historical magnitude 10 on the richtor scale case. May they decide in the favor of honesty, ethics, and true justice - not the kind bought/paid for or threatened.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[rxsid]

"There are other reasons why the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case. What I say now I've never seen posted anywhere else. Four of the Constitutionalist Supreme Court justices may not have the votes to win on Constitutional grounds against the activist judges on the SCOTUS bench. Lets say they don't have the 5 justices to win in this extremely important case. They discovered though the Supreme Court grapevine [or even through a straw poll] they know the swing vote Justice Kennedy may not yet be convinced for whatever reasons to rule against Obama. Why give the activist judges a win on such an important ruling that directly eviscerates the US Constitution?

It is also possible that 3 of the most extremely liberal activist judges are now or have voted yes because they know they can weaken the US Constitution. They feel the justices in the middle will eventually go there way if they get the fourth vote.

In both cases, as a strict constitutionalist Supreme Court jurist, you "Evade" the Obama eligibility case by voting NO."

THAT, is very plausible RS! And as horrible as that may seem on the surface, it would actually be better IF the 4 "Constitutionalists" on the bench voted NO on pursuing it if they thought there was a good chance Kennedy would vote with the libs in their new world order, America is aweful, social justice payback, the Constitution is outdated mindset.

However, now that 2 sit on the bench as a direct action (nomination) by the usurper himself...perhaps, now...the odds just got much better IF they were to recuse themselves (one or both). I think the public at large would be more than outraged if they learned that neither recused themselves in such an eligibility case. The public is far, far more awake now...than, say...the summer of 2008!

Thinking back...were there any eligibility related cases docketed AFTER the two picks where installed (other than this one and Taitz's pending)? In other words, weren't all the others that have been "filled" in the circular filing cabinet done so prior to the Kagan and Sotomyor? What I'm getting at is perhaps you're on to something. Perhaps now, the issue is "ripe" (esp. post Nov. 2)? Guess we'll find out soon.