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

[Non-Sequitur]

If SCOTUS rules that Obama was never lawfully declared the winner of the electoral vote, Kagan and Sotomayor will be thrown out by their ears and can kiss their paychecks and reputations good-bye.

No they won't.

If you can’t even see something as concrete and obvious as that, it’s pretty much pointless for me to try to point out anything to you.

Madam, I have been watching your posts for some time now and if there is one thing I've noticed it's that there is little that is concrete or obvious in what you say.

[Non-Sequitur]

The question is did Kagan represent the government or Obama in one or the many other Supreme Court cases about Obama's eligibility when she was the United States Solicitor General?

And the answer to that is almost certainly 'no'. The Solicitor General speaks for the United States in cases that appear before the Supreme Court. Not district courts or appeals courts, but the Supreme Court. Not a single one of the Birther cases that have been submitted to the Supreme Court to date has passed the conference stage. None have been heard by the court, so none of them have involved the Solicitor General.

[rxsid]

Not that I doubt you, but can you provide the evidence for your statement: "Kagan has recused herself from hearing every case in which she did legal work for the Government." Facts are, of course, important. Thanks.

[butterdezillion]

But the point of this case is that Vice President Cheney and the joint session of Congress did NOT lawfully certify Obama as the winner of the electoral vote.

And they clearly didn’t. The requirement of the law is clear and it didn’t happen. It is required that they ask for any objections, and they didn’t.

We’re talking about a country which lets obviously guilty people go free if the police fail to follow to the letter the exact procedure of reading the exact words of a Miranda warning.

Use that standard.

Obama has never been LAWFULLY declared the winner of the electoral vote.

When you realize that, you see that it may be Chief Justice Roberts who has to recuse himself as well, because the entire superficial “legitimacy” of Obama stands on the image of Roberts - without LEGAL reason to do so - swearing in Obama. What Roberts did was unlawful. He can’t just swear in somebody who has never been lawfully declared to be the electoral winner.

If Roberts swore me in would I then be the POTUS? I’ve never been lawfully declared the electoral winner or qualified, but then neither has Obama so what’s the difference? Why would it be considered a coup if he swore me in but considered a “de facto officer” if he did it to Obama? In a legal sense, what exactly is the difference?

How can Obama be a de facto officer when the step to declare him the electoral winner never fulfilled the legal requirements?

[Red Steel]

There are literally hundreds of cases a month where someone files a cert. petition and the government doesn't respond. I doubt that the Solicitor General herself, as opposed to some low-level lawyer in her office, reviews every single one of them.

That wouldn't fly. Ultimately, the Solicitor General's name gets placed on the Supreme court docket as we see below in this example. Delegated authority is no excuse or is it excepted to shirk accountability.

- - - - - - -

No. 09-724
Title:	The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner v. Federal Election Commission, et al.
Docketed:	December 22, 2009
Lower Ct:	United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Case Nos.:	(08-1977)
Decision Date:	August 5, 2009
Rehearing Denied:	October 6, 2009

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 16 2009	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 21, 2010)
Jan 11 2010	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 22, 2010.
Feb 17 2010	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 24, 2010.
Mar 24 2010	Brief of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. filed.
Apr 2 2010	Reply of petitioner The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. filed.
Apr 7 2010	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 23, 2010.
Apr 26 2010	Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. ___ (2010) and the Solicitor General's suggestion of mootness.
May 28 2010	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

---

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
James Bopp Jr.	Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom	(812) 232-2434
	1 South Sixth Street
	Terre Haute, IN  47807-3510
	jboppjr@aol.com
Party name: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.
Attorneys for Respondents:
Elena Kagan	Solicitor General	(202) 514-2217
	United States Department of Justice
	950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
	Washington, DC  20530-0001
	SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Not a single one of the Birther cases that have been submitted to the Supreme Court to date has passed the conference stage. None have been heard by the court, so none of them have involved the Solicitor General.

The Solicitor General is often, but not always, involved before the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case-- the Solicitor General sometimes files a brief asking the Court to grant or deny cert. (Hence Kagan's many recusals.) But the Solicitor General never filed anything in any Obama eligibility case.

[rxsid]

"What makes a person a “de facto officer”?

If the candidates in the contested elections set up office and start acting like they won does that make them de facto officers?

-------------------------------------------------

I think a reasonable argument could be made that Barry has discharged the duties of the office of POTUS with the CLEAR appearance of being an "intruder" and/or "usurper."

"To satisfy the doctrine, the officer must be in the unobstructed possession of the office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper."

http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/SUPCT/160/op92-113.txt

[Lurking Libertarian]

Not that I doubt you, but can you provide the evidence for your statement: "Kagan has recused herself from hearing every case in which she did legal work for the Government." Facts are, of course, important. Thanks.

We know she has recused from numerous cases. If there was a case she worked on and didn't recuse herself, someone on the other side would be making a motion for her to recuse herself; no one has.

[butterdezillion]

And I would also add that we do not have any video of Obama saying the exact oath of office required. We have an audiotape. Could we prove that the actual Constitutional oath happened? Only circumstantially.

Dick Cheney was required to ask for objections 50 times; he failed to do it even once.

Obama mixed up what? Two words? So they had him take the oath over again, JUST TO BE SURE. But the 50 times that Cheney failed to say, “Are there any objections?” all passed by without a blink. There is a reason the law put that requirement in there. It is not a trifle. Any more than a Miranda warning is a trifle. Or an oath of office is a trifle.

Crazy.

But it’s the same thing we’ve observed everywhere else: the rule of law can be dispensed with when it’s not convenient. It is fitting that this coup was effected using the same lawlessness with which he has ruled (and I don’t mean governed; I mean ruled) ever since. The Obama coup - illegal from the start and continuing that way ever since.

[Lurking Libertarian]

But the point of this case is that Vice President Cheney and the joint session of Congress did NOT lawfully certify Obama as the winner of the electoral vote.

That's the whole difference between de facto and de jure. If all of the correct legal steps were followed, Obama would be president de jure. If they weren't, he is still President de facto.

I don't believe there is any requirement to call for objections unless they were first made in writing, but that is irrelevant to this issue; the whole point of the de facto officer doctrine is to deal with people who were not lawfully elected-- otherwise, the doctrine would never apply.

[butterdezillion]

And how can he be said to be “unobstructed” when he has a court case rightly noting that he was never even lawfully declared to be the winner of the electoral vote?

The obstruction to his exercise of power has been sitting in front of all our faces this whole time.

Saying that Obama is the de facto officer is like saying that the Huskers won last year’s game against Texas when the referees were still deciding whether there was any time left on the clock. We could act like we won all we wanted but until the decision was made that there was a second left on the clock and that second had ticked off, all our celebration was just wishful thinking.

The certification of the electoral vote has been on hold this entire time. There is nothing either Obama or Roberts could do that would change that fact. The courts have still to determine whether there is one more second on the clock - whether Obama was ever LAWFULLY declared to be the winner of the electoral vote. Roberts and Obama can break out the champagne and pour the water bucket and Gatorade all over each other all they want, but it doesn’t change the legal facts.

Obama cannot be the de facto officer while this obstacle is still in his way.

[butterdezillion]

The only way they would know if there were objections made in writing is by asking if there were any. That was done in both 2000 and in 2004.

You just told me that what makes a person a de facto officer is the electoral certification by the Vice President and joint Congress. If that didn’t lawfully happen, then there is no de facto officer.

Or if you’re now saying that that legal process ISN’T what makes a person a de facto officer, then what ARE you saying makes a person a de facto officer? If it’s not the lawful process of certifying the electoral winner, then what?

[patlin]

While this would initially seem to be rather good news, please remember the other cases that also got sent to conference. The justices don't discuss the cases there, they all enter their votes as whether to proceed or not which means a majority has decided which way to go.

So, PRAY for RELIEF but KEEP STUDYING! We have a long road ahead, we have just begun... It took the founders nearly 10 years of prep work(getting the public educated) before the actual revolution began.

[Lurking Libertarian]

You just told me that what makes a person a de facto officer is the electoral certification by the Vice President and joint Congress. If that didn’t lawfully happen, then there is no de facto officer.

If it happened lawfully, he is President de jure. If it happened unlawfully, he is President de facto. But it clearly happened. No one else is acting as President now, are they?

[butterdezillion]

This is what I see given as the de facto officer doctrine:

“one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised . . . . under color of a known election or appointment [that would otherwise be] void by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public.”

The point here is that before Obama did a thing as supposed POTUS, the public DID KNOW THE IRREGULARITY. Kerchner filed his case BEFORE Obama’s term would have started had he ever been lawfully declared the winner of the electoral vote and qualified according to the 20th Amendment. He threw down a yellow flag and called foul.

Obama has done NOTHING without the public knowing of the irregularity and ineligibility, because we’ve know it all along, and this lawsuit has been pending since before Obama pretended he was the POTUS.

[butterdezillion]

So if I go sit in the White HOuse and start acting like I’m the POTUS I’m the de facto president?

If not, why not?

[rxsid]

Oh believe you me, I'm fully aware of the demise of the other eligibility cases and the potential this one has of actually being heard.

I can and will, however remain hopeful that this Constitutional crisis will finally get heard on the merits. Not to mention continuing with research ~__^

[Lurking Libertarian]

So if I go sit in the White HOuse and start acting like I’m the POTUS I’m the de facto president?

Try it, and tell me what happens.

[patlin]

Without hope, there is no future. We MUST ALWAYS cling to hope! I just don't want to get let down again like we did that with the Wrotnowski case that was also based on procedure & had no flaws from lower court actions as Donofrio’s did.

Keepin’ Hope, but Keepin’ the emotions in check!

[butterdezillion]

Sounds like you’re issuing an open invitation to a coup - if you can get away with it, it’s yours for the taking.

Is that what you’re saying? Might makes right?

Seems like that flies in the face of everything this electoral process is about. Are you really saying that is what the de facto officer doctrine means - that it’s fair game for whoever is strong enough to get away with it?