Friday, June 26, 2009

Activity in Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case - Defendants' Motion to Dismiss & Supporting Brief Received (this motion was expected)

Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit: The defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit was filed today and is posted on the PACER system as Document 27. A copy of defendants' motion and supporting brief are available in the right frame of this blog. We all know that we have seen months of stalling from the defendants. We fully expected this dismissal motion which Obama has previously used when he was a mere candidate. The difference now is that Obama is the putative President and not simply a candidate with a 1st Amendment right to run for political office. As the putative President, Obama must show that he is qualified under Article II of our Constitution. We also know that Congress failed to exercise its Constitutional duty to properly vet Obama prior to confirming him as President at the Joint Session. The motion return date is July 20, 2009. We, of course, will file opposition to their dismissal motion prior to that date. I will comment more later after I have had a chance to fully study the motion and supporting brief in greater detail.

Read the motion and supporting brief here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

32 comments:

roderick said...

there should be a motion made to dismiss the loser imposter from the country

Let us move forward said...

TEA PARTIES JULY 4th!

Opportunity to show opposition to everything outrageous that is happening in Washington.

Get your friends out in the heat too!

sjc said...

This M.T.D. gets us up the ladder to the SCOTUS faster. This makes my weekend better. Gooooooo M.A.!!!

A Tea Party Patriot on a minute's notice.

Puzo1 said...

Moved and Edited:


Pragmaticite said...
June 26, 2009 5:36 PM

I read as much of this plea as I could stomach in one setting, which only got me thru part of the "standing" objections (veneer level).

Apparently the defense feels that, as long as they are screwing everyone, then no individual has any cause to object.

So, if you want to trample the Constitution, just go big! That way there's nothing anyone can do!

8by8 said...

Mario,

You are the best lawyer on this issue. I am so glad that the judge said this is a serious case. He will hear the case, I just know it. I have full faith in you, Mario. The entire USA and Constitution will be decided by God speaking through you. When you feel a need for God to speak in court or while writing, just relax and ask him to speak and say what he has to say. Then let your mind relax and observe what God says through you. It really works.

sjc said...

Mr Apuzzo,
Is there a means in your case for the Judge to appoint an Ad Litem attorney to represent the specific and/or general constitutional infringements by the defendents against We The People.

Would this help your effort or muddy the waters?

Pragmaticite said...

From Defendants Motion to Dismiss:

"If Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the present response of their elected representatives, then voting is the mechanism in a democratic society by which such generalized grievances must be addressed -- not by invoking the jurisdiction of the federal courts."

So there is no such thing as First Amendment Right to redress of grievances?

Aren't they saying?:

"If you object to elected officials' abandonment of the Constitution, too bad; see you at the next election."

If I were the judge in this case, this position would severely test my impartiality. THIS IS GOOD FOR US!

PURGEQUEEN said...

I mailed a letter to Judge Schneider.Hand-written.I did not ref the case number or make it very formal.I woner since it was obvious the case I was speaking about if it can still be included in the record?
Also,way back I sent in a "point of order" to Senator Cornyn but the return receipt requested arrived back to me quite belated.I do not know if this can be used in the case.
also, I wonder if the Judge can determine that granting "standing" is appropriate by their determination using some legal backing or if the defense can shut down this judge citing some rules.Just curious as to how much authority the judge has I guess...

James said...

As expected, they came at you with Both Barrels. Hopefully, you had anticipated some of their arguments and will be able to present good solid arguments against their arguments. I don't know if you want to communicate with Philip Berg on the issue of standing as Berg has been studying, investigating and attacking the standing argument for months. It might also be helpful to get as many amicis briefs as possible to submit to the court on the attack of their arguments. The letters of many citizens to court might also help.

James said...

You might also want to consider your argument that you have been talking about for a while; that is the defendents (Obama) using DOJ Attorney's to defend them. As you have said before, since you sued Obama before he became President, Obama should not be entitled to any legal help from DOJ and must hire private legal counsel.

Georgetown said...

Not to worry there are execptions to Article III Standing:

1.Prudential Standing Rules-
Standing to Challenge
2. Nonconstitutional Governmental Action.—
And others-Link

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag18_user.html

Guy4013 said...

The brightest in the Obama government took 5 months to produce this document. Two extensions granted by the court and the only thing the judge gets is this nonsense.

Obama is British Born and NOT Natural Born!!

James said...

Could the Judge Roy Moore Foundation help you out?
http://www.morallaw.org/
They are greatly concerned with this issue.
Perhaps they would be willing the file and amicis Brief.

Pragmaticite said...

Does this [bogus] motion satisfy the requirement for a defense response by Monday, June 29th?

jayjay said...

Georgetown has some helpful tips - especially the second of the two.

The link is incomplete, however, but I'm sure you can find it OK.

roderick said...

Question: Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi sign on to support H R 1503? Answer: Because she knows it will adversely effect her dear friend and partner in crime barak obama.

Puzo1 said...

To Pragmaticite,

The defendants' motion does satisfy the requirement for a defense response by Monday, June 29th.

The defendants could have either filed an answer or a motion asking that the complaint be dismissed.

By not filing an answer and rather filing a motion to dismiss, the defendants want to avoid any discovery being conducted. In discovery, I could, among so many things, ask Obama for a copy of his long form Birth Certificate or demand that he sign a consent form that I be allowed to obtain the long form Birth Certificate from Hawaii along with a copy of all documents that are in his Health Department file. Of course, my getting such information would be devastating to Obama, for a reason that only he knows at this time.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

wipinitboss said...

I'm just a lay person, but since their 'standing' issue is stating that plaintiff cannot share the damages in their briefing, could you move the court to certify this to be a class action?

I'll be more than happy to sign on.

lonestar said...

"If you object to elected officials' abandonment of the Constitution, too bad; see you at the next election."

Yes, it sounds to me like that's exactly what they're saying. But isn't that the role of the courts (esp SCOTUS), to decide issues of Constitutionality when questions arise? The founders didn't say, if Congress violates the Constitution, better luck at the next election.

I'll admit I still don't really understand the whole "standing" issue. I understand what it means, but I don't understand how each and every American voter doesn't have "standing" in a case that involves our elections.

Given the fact that Congress did hold hearings about McCain's natural born citizen status, clearly demonstrates they knew it was an issue that needed to be considered, and to me shows that they knowingly sidestepped the issue with regard to BHO, who has himself stated that he had dual citizenship at birth. Congress' own conclusion in McCain's case was that he was a natural born citizen b/c BOTH of his parents were US citizens. The whole thing makes no sense.

Thanks for your continued efforts to keep moving this forward, it needs to be resolved.

mtngoat61 said...

Lonestar:

Good point. And during the election process the Obama side and the Congress kept telling people this matter is up for the courts to decide, not them, not the Congress, etc. They kept saying it was a legal matter. But Obama would not let anyone get to the merits during the election because he said this was a political matter at that time and you cannot challenge a candidate to run. Now after he won the popular vote by fraud and deception as to his real identity, he now is hiding behind another argument in that it should have been investigated by Congress before he was sworn in. It's a catch 22 argument that Obama and Congress are using.

They are totally mistreating the rights of the people and are ignoring the Constitution. It is a national disgrace and the dismissal motion is another disgrace in their arrogance to talk down to We the People and the Constitution the way they did. They are not Sovereign, the Constitution and We the People are.

Anyone who has not read the motion to dismiss and supporting brief should do so and see how little Obama and this administration and the cowardly and enabling Congress think of us. Here is a convenient link. Print it out and read it a couple times till it sinks in how arrogant the defendants are:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/

M Publius Goat
Goat's Ledge: http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=105

8by8 said...

It would be awesome to have the DOJ defending the Constitution as it should.

Let us move forward said...

I made a table of the cases that have been filed to date with the basis for each suit and what decisions were handed down.

A class action suit may be an excellent idea. A guy named Sullivan was filing cases in NC, trying different approaches. The last case was a class action suit, and standing was not mentioned in the reasons for dismissal although mootness, lack of jurisdication, and failure to state a cause for which remedy can be provided.

Jackie Smith said...

If they don't start treating "we the people" with respect and do the right thing.....then it may be long past our time to take a page from the citizens in IRAN.....we must topple this out of control government who are responsible for the massive deficits and the fraudulent election conducted this past year!!!

squinlivan said...

Mario,

Could you consider calling the lack of action, by defendants, in redressing the vetting process, and complying with constitutionally mandated NBC status as a FAILURE TO DO THEIR REQUIRED MINISTERIAL DUTIES, since it is a required duty, and NOT a discretional action, which Immunity does not absolve from doing what the LAW requires...or is this a complete misunderstanding ...please address the duty aspect of these defendants versus the discretion they are entitled to...

I mean by their argument they can defy their respective mandated duties and claim immunnity for acting ...even arguably treasoness ....and the only way to fix this refusal to do what the law requires...is vote different next time???? Not Rational...I'm just say'in

squinlivan said...

Not to beat the subject to death, but they, these defendants DID do their duty, no matter how inept, RE McCain...but failed to do anything at all re Obama, For cryin out loud, Obama was a leader (co-sponsor) in addressing the McCain NBC....issue...remember they could not get their "binding resolution passed leading to SR511...and Marbury v Madison supports complying with NBC because nothing is redundant or superfluous(sp)..looking forward to your thoughts on their (as the Supremes would say) their "mandated ministerial duties" are different from their "discretionary actions..."

squinlivan said...

Mario,

WHAT A THOUGHT ????

What if you ask this court to certify the question to the US Supreme Court to define NBC because neither side ca continue without this "final decision" of NBC an original issue because if the court were to decide for either side it would have to KNOW what NBC meant to dismiss or how to construct an order requiring "complaince with the constitution" after all the defendants DID "vet McCain (right or wrong) they did vet him, BUT their result, "non-binding" clearly shows their lack of conviction re NBC,...don't ya think???

Puzo1 said...

Squinlivan,

Excellent point on ministerial duties and their relation to immunity. I will fully explore it and incorporate it into the brief. Thanks for you intelligent input.

Mario

cfkerchner said...

Copy of my latest email to Glenn Beck:

30 June 2009

Hi Glenn,

There has been important activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case. The defendants' have finally made a motion after over 4 months of stalling and not answering. It is what we expected as the next phase of this case and this will allow the case to get to that next step and beyond the defendants continued stalling phase. Mario is very confident we will defeat the motion by the defendants. Thousands of people are now aware of this lawsuit and have written the Judge personal letters. See link 2 below. This is a very important legal matter about the sanctity and sovereignty of our Constitution and the future of our Constitutional Republic. For more details see the post in Atty Mario Apuzzo's blog, link 1 below:

1. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/06/activity-in-kerchner-v-obama-congress_26.html

2. http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6404

Would you be willing to invite Atty Apuzzo, and/or the two of us, to be a guest on your show to explain the latest activity and our next action?

You can contact him at: "apuzzo@erols.com" or call at: 732-521-1900

He'd be very happy to do a 15 or 20 minute segment with you to inform you and your audience about this case. If interested, please contact Atty Apuzzo and arrange a mutually convenient date and time. He would be happy to appear on your radio or TV show show if you can provide him prearranged time slot. You pick the date and the time and provide the contact number.

Sincerely,

Charles Kerchner
Lehigh Valley PA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Jackie Smith said...

cfkerchner said...

Copy of my latest email to Glenn Beck:

***********************************

Mr. Kerchner.....I hope you get an answer...it would be a sell out show if he had you and Mario on TV...I'm positive we could advertise the show everywhere before the actual interview and Fox News would continue to wipe the other networks out of business!!!

cfkerchner said...

Copy of email I sent to the show producer for O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Cunningham, Fox News Specials, and many more:

30 June 2009

Dear Show Producer:

There has been important activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case. The defendants' have finally made a motion after over 4 months of stalling and not answer. It is what we expected as the next phase of this case and this will allow the case to get to that next step and beyond the defendants continued stalling phase. Mario is very confident we will defeat the motion by the defendants. Thousands of people are now aware of this lawsuit and have written the Judge personal letters. See link 2 below. This is a very important legal matter about the sanctity and sovereignty of our Constitution and the future of our Constitutional Republic. For more details see the post in Atty Mario Apuzzo's blog, link 1 below:

1. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/06/activity-in-kerchner-v-obama-congress_26.html

2.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6404

Would you be willing to invite Atty Apuzzo, and/or the two of us, to be a guest on your show to explain the latest activity and our next action?

You can contact him at: "apuzzo@erols.com"
Or call at: 732-521-1900
Or FAX at: 732-521-3906
Blog with my address: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

We'd be very happy to do a 15 or 20 minute segment with you to inform you and your audience about this case. If interested, please contact Atty Apuzzo and arrange a mutually convenient date and time. We would be happy to appear on your radio or TV show show if you can provide him prearranged time slot. You pick the date and the time and provide the contact number.

Sincerely,

Charles Kerchner
Lehigh Valley PA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Nick said...

Mr. Kerchner, perhaps you should call Glenn on his radio show and ask him about this live. It may force him to discuss the issue.

888-727-BECK (toll free)

9:00-12:00 EST weekdays

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/contact/

squinlivan said...

Mario,

While very old, its still good US Supreme Court law, Ex Parte Virginia, Re Immunity and acts done in performance of Judicial Duties versus Ministerial duties that the law requires and their performance according to law, not as this judge did by violating the laws "intent" EX PARTE VIRGINIA 100 US 339 (1880) hope this helps...After all what Cheney did by not asking for "objections" for example, is as big a parallel with what occurred in the cited case...