Posted on 11/08/2010 12:57:34 PM PST by 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
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.
The most likely targets of such an investigation would be top Obama campaign officials and Obama himself, of course.
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would vote with the libs in their new world order, America is aweful, social justice payback, the Constitution is outdated mindset.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.
Petitioners submit their petitions to a single justice who then presents that petition to the other justices in a “cert conference.” If four justices believe that the full court should hear an appeal, then “Cert” is granted and the appeal is docketed for the full court. If “Cert” is denied on the petition submitted to one justice, plaintiffs will often resubmit the petition to another justice. The only “non-constitutionalist” justices to receive petitions for Writs of Certiorari in Obama eligibility appeals are former Justice David Souter and Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. All the other petitions went to Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia or Thomas.
Since there are four strong “constitutionalists” on the current bench and there have been eight appeals of Obama eligiblity suits to reach the high court for “Cert” conferences, it appears that Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have all not agreed that Obama eligibility issues should be granted a hearing before the full court. Kagan and Sotomayor are not needed to grant cert under the “rule of four.”
My guess is that Justice Roberts has recused himself since he administered the Oath of Office to Obama and Justice Thomas is “avoiding that issue” not wanting to be involved in removing the first African-American from the presidency. Justice Scalia is also on the record in another case as stating that “jus soli” is the intent of the natural born citizen clause and that leaves only Justice Alito (and the always unknown factor, Anthony Kennedy).
In the last action before the high court, both Justice Alito and Justice Thomas denied a Restraining Order to Orly Taitz who asked the high court to intervene in the $20,000 sanctions order against her by US District Court Judge Clay R. Land in Columbus, Georgia in Captain Pamela Barnett v Colonel MacDonald.
Captain Barnett was seeking to have her deployment orders to Iraq delayed under it was determined if Obama was eligible to give orders as Commander-in-Chief or not.
were you talking to me?
Sometimes your brilliance matches a very high level of humor. Well done! Bulls eye.
NS is a troll, Muslim supportinig, taqiya plant , an inveterate lier of the first water, a hater of Israel and the Southern states and their associated culture, and a whining dweeb to boot.
He is about as conservartive as a condom which has been used by Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.He is an apologist for America, just like his hero, “The Won”.
According to the words of Puerto Rican born Committee Chairman Serrano, the Justices testifying before his Supreme Court budget committee have been “evading” the subject of the Chairman Serrano's eligibility for his presidential aspirations since 1998.
It's a running gag.
WND is not a friend to birthers.
Post #100 should be #101...top of the this page.
You do realize that Joe Kovacs made that up, right? He was lying. If you actually follow the link to Kovacs article, you'll see that it was replaced with a completely different article, headed by the following "Editor's Note":
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.
Snopes has full details about the cases that Kovacs falsely claimed were eligibility-related. And as they note at the bottom, WND scrubbed the original article and replaced it after Snopes wrote about WND's false reporting.
Here’s video of Serrano joking about his eligibility at the 2009 committee hearing (at about 1:20): http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/285453-1
And at the 2007 hearing (at 2:20 – 3:05): http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/197007-1
Thank you for the link to the transcript. I read through all 22 pages of that twice and did not see the exchange in question. When did that exchange happen in relation to what’s in the posted transcript? At the beginning of the transcript Serrano said that if anybody was trying to figure out what had just been discussed, they hadn’t decided anything. He alluded to a conversation that was not in the transcript. Was that when the conversation in question took place?
Seriously? It's on the very first page. About a dozen paragraphs into Serrano's opening remarks.
Clarence Thomas didn’t even speak on the first page. I’m asking where the exchange between Serrano and Thomas is, where Thomas said they were evading the issue. It’s not anywhere in that transcript. So when did it happen? Before the transcript started? Or was it cut out of the transcript?
The “evading” comment would be in the transcript of the 2010 hearing. The link in post #113 is to the transcript of the 2008 hearing.
Thank you. That explains why they were saying there would hopefully someday be a Hispanic person on SCOTUS, and why Thomas’ mention of Estrada fits.
Is there a transcript of the 2010 hearing? The computer that allowed me to see video will no longer boot up because of the trojan I was hit with. So I’m back to using the computer that has a virus on it that won’t allow me to download the program necessary so I can view video. So if anybody can point me to a transcript of the 2010 hearing that would be great.
What was the California McCain eligibility case that Serrano referenced in the 2008 hearing? The date on the 2008 hearing is March 13, 2008. Wasn’t that almost exactly the time when the final, third breach to alter Obama’s passport file was made? That happened right at the time that there was a case in CA regarding McCain’s eligibility?
It would have been an open issue at that time because McCain, like Serrano, was born outside US limits but on soil associated with the US in one way or another.
Yes. Tex posted a link and an excerpt at the top of this page, in post #101.
And you replied to that post too, so I'm not sure why you're confused or asking for links.
That would be Inland Empire Voters and Andrew Aames v. US, filed March 6, 2008 in the Central District of California. It was voluntarily dismissed a month later.
Tune in to Glenn Book today 5:00 PM, EST. on FOX about Soros!!!
Butter, this is what you can expect from those ex-military(?) who gleefully are eating their own fellow soldiers, LOL!!!
According to Serrano, he's been trying to establish his own presidential eligibility for about 10 years. Read the transcripts...Serrano is a bit of a jokester.
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.