Today, March 8, 2010, putative President Barack Obama and Congress filed their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner appeal currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The brief may be viewed at this link. We now have until March 22, 2010, to file our reply brief which will address the arguments the defendants have made in their opposition brief.The defendants' brief is a presentation of general statements of the law of standing. Appealing to what other courts have done, the defendants basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all the other Obama cases have been dismissed. Its main point is that the Kerchner plaintiffs have not proven that they have standing because they failed to show that they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury.
The brief does not even acknowledge our factual allegations against Obama which are that he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born and that he has failed to even show that he is at least a “citizen of the United States” by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii. It is strange as to why the brief does not even contain these factual allegations within it, giving the appearance that the Justice Department does not want such allegations to be even included in any official court record.
Nor does the brief acknowledge let alone address what all our legal arguments are on the questions of standing and political question. Rather, it merely repeats what the Federal District Court said in its decision which dismissed the Kerchner case for what it found was lack of standing and the political question doctrine and asks the Court of Appeals to affirm the District Court’s decision dismissing our complaint/petition.
I will be filing my reply to the defendants’ brief on or before March 22, 2010.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 8, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
What a lame and empty defense. Basically they're saying Obama and Congress can totally ignore the U.S. Constitution and there is nothing We the People can legally do about it. No one has standing to right the wrong when Obama & Congress illegally violate Article II of the Constitution and seat illegally an ineligible person as President and Commander in Chief of our vast military power. We the People created the federal government and We the People are going to fix this totally broken and runaway federal government. These Progressive/Socialist/Marxists have gone a bridge too far in the disgraceful and unconstitutional 2008 election. This will not stand. We the People will not permit it.
ReplyDeleteCharles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
www.protectourliberty.org
As suspected, they used the Berg case extensively. You are going to have to differeite your case from Berg. Your reply should be almost entirely on STANDING. You are going to have show how the plantiffs were harmed and the particular injury they have. As I have stated in the past, they used the Berg case extensively. Hopefully, you have studied that case well and effectively punched holes in the decision long before this reply was submitted by the government.
ReplyDeleteMario and Charles:
ReplyDeleteYep - it looks like the "same old, same old" plus a few of the Berg, et. were pitched so this should be too.
It's just more of the DOJ CliffsNotes for violating the Constitution rather than honoring their Oath of Office.
And they merely ignore all of the numerous cites and legal reasoning that CLEARLY show the original Federal Judge made an erroneous ruling - as does this:
A Federal Judge takes 4 strikes!!!
This is what they needed an extra two weeks for Pleassssse!!!!
ReplyDeletei told you before. you dont have standing unless the corporation decides you do - because you are subject to the corporation and you are not its owner. the corporation being a "ship" on the high seas of commerce, it's captain may make any decision outside of whatever rules are in place for the corporation (you call these rules laws, but they are statutes, man made acts of fiction which only have authority over other fictions ie your name which is another fiction, provided you consent be it overtly or through tacit acceptance ie silence ). so if obama chooses he may overrule any "law" on the books. the only people who can stop him are the corporation's owners, and whilst it is your birthright that this is you, your names as plaintiffs are nothing more that legal fictions themselves (corporations) which are indebted to THE corporation. your debtor status is because you are subject to the corporation, instead of owning it. you need to figure out who the secured party creditors are that own the corporation if you want to move this forward - it will be the old school men of the States. alternatively, you need to change your own status to that of secured party creditor which can be done through a series of notices etc, and is known on the internet as redemption, and take back your "share" in the corporation, rightfully owned by you the MEN but held in trust by the corporation itself supposedly temporarily. one a secured party creditor i guess you do this in the same way you woud reclaim any other trust that someone else has taken possession of without your direct consent.
ReplyDeletepersonally, i think in due course the corporation will oust obama themselves, once he has served his purpose - so at some point they will allow SOMEONE to win.
back to secured party creditor - if you were one you would clearly have standing because the corporation would be your property. as a debtor it is the other way round so you dont. you may have money in the bank and owe "nothing" (again, with debts nowadays you are talking about fiat money - more fiction) but you are still a debtor in the corporation's eyes since they own your name (hence your obligation to pay taxes etc because anything you own THEY really own). you only have the "rights" the corporation allows you, meaning these are in fact only privileges and may be taken away at some point in the future.i believe it is social security that was the trap to make you give up your natural born inheritence of owner of the united states corporation. by tacit consent you gave the corporation authority to take ownership of your name (your company which you use to operate in commerce ie to buy and sell as a corporation which as MR J SMITH or whatever you are. MR J P SMITH is a corporation John-Paul:Smith would be a man). the corporation views everyone as fictions and therefore lifeless(hence they want rid of trial by jury too because there they must treat you as men under common law, but without it they dont) and therefore natural rights do not apply. hence no standing... you (ie your name) has suffered no loss, because nothing you have is yours anyway. as secured party creditor and part owner of the corporation it is yours and you have standing.
appreciate this sounds like conspiracy theory ramblings, but perhaps some will know what im saying here. i feel mario is close in his thinking,following his recent piece where he talks about mutual CONSENT being the root of citizenship. good luck. i dont expect anyone to take me seriously :)
I would like to point out that this appeal opens up a class action justification v. Obama if the Congress rams through the current atempt at a "Health Care" Bill. The defense in this opposition brief focuses our atention on the hair holding their sword of Damocles over their case:
ReplyDelete“‘[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government--claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest IN PROPER APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large--does not state an Article III case or controversy.’” App. 9 (quoting
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74). And that an Article III is
“an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
Healthcare tax via the Healthcare Bill, is a form of forced extortion upon and from employers. Employers, who would rather pay the fine than provide the more expensive plans, is an illegal form of taxation, and an actual legal invasion of one's First Amendment rights, as well as a violation of the Sixth and Tenth Amendments. Layoffs too, resulting as a direct consequence of the legislation is also a concrete harm.
Further, because of the scope and reach of the Healthcare legislation, and the questionale language of ambiguities that may allow some dictatorial empowerments, it can be challenged on the basis of needing both a super-majority and a legal United Staes natural-born citizen President that can sign the bill into lawful legislation. The Heathcare bill rises to the level of usurpation of First and Tenth Amendment rights of both individuals and States as neding to be pass as an amendment to the US Constitution in which a super-majority of both houses of Congress and of the individual states must ratify such or have it thrown out.
This challenge, via Healthcare, will enable funding and alliances heretofore unimagined, and allow us to tap into the heart and pulse of this pre-election 2010 nation's majority will, in which a US Citizens v. Obama and the Healthcare Bill legislation would quickly ally perhaps tens of millions to sign such a petition, and some perhaps donate. A legal action against the coercion of any signed Healthcare legislation and of Obama on the basis of the lack of a US NBC status will have real Article III legal "teeth" to it that will chomp the pro-Obama opposition arguments to bits before the eyes of Court. Please consider it.
It seems to me that no legislative body thus far has seen fit to establish any process or assign any responsibilities to any gov't office to enforce Art. II Sect. 1 of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteUnder the 10th Amendment do not the people reserve the power to enforce those provisions? Am I way off base here?
So after you file your reply, how long will it be before the judge renders some kind of decision? If he decides for the plaintiff, will there be discovery? A trial or hearings?
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteIf the Third Circuit reverses the District Court's dismissal, then the Third Circuit would probably remand the case to the District Court in Camden. While there we would engage in discovery and motion practice. Eventually there would be a trial.
so an injured patient has no standing as long as his physician injures all his patients and a tenant of a slum landlord has no standing as long as all tenants are injured.
ReplyDeleteI think a class action suit might do it, we are being forced into a cash cow position, we are not receiving this health care for 4 or 5 years while we will be paying taxes all of that time. I also feel the supreme court has been corrupted and if they are not doing their job, according to the constitution they can be removed from their position as well. You have a CFR member in the Supreme court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, which is a conflicit of interests since Obama was a member of the CFR too until he ran for President, she should not be looking at this case, and you have Sonia Sotomayer who is a known member of La Raza and for whatever reason Obama put her in there, probably to make sure the Hispanics , the illegals vote for Obama in the next election, another conflict of interest. I do know they can be removed if they do not do their job, maybe you ought to look into that. Obama is hurting people, or will be when he passes this health care bill. He is also commander in Chief and our boys are in harms way with no real leadership, if you read the roster of the CFR most of the generals and brass are members of the CFR too, something is wrong with this picture. I would have them removed from the bench.
ReplyDeleteYou need to read this from Edwin Vieira re: standing..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
In all my 27 years of law practice, I do not believe that I have come across a more absurd, ridiculous, and frivolous legal argument. The United States Department of Justice has told the United States and the world that in America if all Americans are injured, which necessarily means that my clients are injured, no one can sue to vindicate their injuries. It is unbelievable to what extent some people will go to protect their politicians.
ReplyDeleteThe solution to the problem of standing may be a class action suit.
ReplyDeleteI read about some non-lawyer playing around with a challenge of Mr. Obama's eligibility, trying different legal approaches. Only his filing of a class action suit was not rejected on standing.
Mario & Charles..
ReplyDeleteI find several points interesting with the DOJ request to dismiss. Why would they mention (or point too..) the Allen V. Soetoro case? This case involves a FOIA request and not a challenge to Eligibility. Granted the “fact” Obama signed his sworn statement for acquiring his law license that he never has used another name in his past, therefore Mr. Allen requested FOIA for Soetoro based on Obama’s sworn statement. Again, this has nothing to do with NBC eligibility question.
Secondly, the DOJ points quite a bit to the Hollister case, later Berg. It’s interesting to note that Bob Bauer worked on this case defending Obama and the DOJ now using it as a matter-of-fact for dismissing the Kerchner case. In addition, Bob Bauer (in the Berg case the DOJ is pointing too) footnoted with an attempt to get “Judicial Notice” on the internet image Newspaper announcement and Factcheck website as the evidence of proof, and never produced (nor was it requested by Berg) any such evidence for verifying his claims of evidence. This attempt to “Trick” the court should have caused Bob Bauer to lose his license to practice law, a clear violation of the rules of professional conduct.
What would be truly welcomed is since the DOJ points to these cases as reason to dismiss the Kerchner suit, is by having the DOJ to produce the evidence they attempted to use under judicial notice.
Mario,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct with the unbelievable attempts by the DOJ actions. They are in essence saying that if Bernie Madoff would have screwed more citizens, then none would have standing to sue since he equally screwed the majority. I am surprised that the DOJ has not used any social security cases, since everyone is damaged under that ponzi scheme and therefore no one has standing to sue. What a messed up analogy.
I believe the courts and Obama’s lawyers are intentionally raising the bar of standing and juristication to an impassable hurdle when in reality it is not. If we are lead to believe the positions courts and Obama’s lawyers have on the standing and juristication issue, then it does seem quite impossible for any case to ever get to a federal court for resolution. All the party has to do is to submit a motion for dismiss on standing. Given the highly complex nature of standing, it likely that there would be virtually a 99% chance of getting the case dismissed on standing and juristication.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that a first year law student could have presented a better arguement than presented by the DOJ.
ReplyDeleteIf I was a law student and Mario was the Professor and this was the assigned homework and I presented what the DOJ summited, I would have received an F......
And the DOJ needs "More Time" to present this crap? Copy and pasted is all they did. Could have created this junk in less than an hour.
On an afterthought, one of two things must be correct. Either the DOJ is completely incompetent or by presenting such lame argument they have the confidence that the appeals court is on their side and therefore need no such correct argument needs presenting. It is highly unlikely that they wish this to go to court for resolve, but I have been wrong before.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Edwin Vieira can submit an amicis brief?
ReplyDeleteThe injury, is that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen as required by our U.S. Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIt is so simple that people over think it.
Tex-
DixHistory
Obama banks on 'no standing' decision:
ReplyDeleteMaybe we can get Barry by filing a Class Action Law Suit.
The US Citizens vs. OB, There is so much debt now and his polices
are bankrupting the USA. There should be enough evidence to
prove we are all injured by this imposter.
Dave
Mario,
ReplyDeleteI and you know that unless you defeat this "judicially created doctrine of standing then this case is DEAD......
PLEASE REVIEW .....
The United States Supreme Court has held that taxpayer standing is not a sufficient basis for standing against the United States government, unless the government has allocated funds in a way that violates a specific prohibition found in the Constitution.[18]
SEE Frothingham v. Mellon, NOTE UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALLOCATED FUNDS IN A WAY THAT VIOLATES A SPECIFIC PROHIBITION FOUND IN THE CNSTITUTION....
ITS time for Mario to, as Justice Scalia recently commented during oral argument before the court...you sir, must be looking to overturn 140 plus years of decisions and gaining a job as a Legal Scholar???
NOPE not looking for a job Justice Scalia, just seeking justice for my client......
CLEARLY what took place here in laymens terms is that "THOSE CHARGED with the ministerial duty to enforce and comply with the mandates of the constitution Re ELECTIONS failed to due their assigned duties, and these duties are NOT up to their discretion, BUT MUST comply with the plain language directives of the Constitution, and according to US Supreme COurt precedent in Frothingham.....
This is an argument for the life of the country
Mario,
ReplyDeleteDEVELOPE the FLAST test as related to this issue of "Constitutional Eligibility".....
Flast Test
The Court developed a two-part test to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. First, because a taxpayer alleges injury only by virtue of his liability for taxes, the Court held that "a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution." *479 Id., at 102, 88 S.Ct., at 1954. Second, the Court required the taxpayer to "show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8." Id., at 102-103, 88 S.Ct., at 1954."
Hawaii DOH is feeling the pressure and is complaining about it. Let's keep the pressure up and don't give them an inch:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/SB2937_TESTIMONY_JGO_02-23-10_LATE.pdf
HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IS COMPLAINING!!!!!! LET'S KEEP THE PRESSURE UP!!!!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/SB2937_TESTIMONY_JGO_02-23-10_LATE.pdf
HIT THEM HARD WITH UIPA REQUESTS!!!!
Mario,
ReplyDeleteYou know how to make a good argument...and to plug the "holes" no lets take the FLAST test to this ACTION...because their is a Nexus connection to the "unlawful disrepect for the Constitution" as exhibited by both Obama and the Congress WHO it can factually be said TRIED and temporarily succeeded in doing a "SAXBE FIX" regarding the NBC clause of the COnstitution.....Use the FLAST TEST because after all it was how the Supremes believedthat they were preserving the private right to prosecute a government offense of the law....wasn't it???
See below:
From OYEZ.....
Conclusion:
In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court rejected the government's argument that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers barred taxpayer suits against federal taxing and spending programs. In order to prove a "requisite personal stake" in such cases, taxpayers had to 1) establish a logical link between their status as taxpayers and the type of legislative enactment attacked, and 2) show the challenged enactment exceeded specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of Congressional taxing and spending power. The Court held that Flast had met both parts of the test.
According the Hawaii DOH, Repeated requests for Obama's vital records has been causing alot of problems for the small department. This is a significant development. It means our efforts there are definitely having an effect and causing a hinderance in daily operation. Pressure should be continued until Hawaii DOH releases the information we are entitled to know. According to Post and Email, Hawaii DOH has repeatly refused requests they legally required to grant under the law.
ReplyDeleteJames:
ReplyDeleteYes - it looks as though the average of less than 2 emails a day they bitch about has "overwhelmed" them!!!
No doubt they'll have to raise state taxes to hire another green eyeshade and buy 3 more #2 pencils or perhaps use one of the computers they used to make up the *.pdf you noted ...
James:
ReplyDeleteYes - it looks as though the average of less than 2 emails a day they bitch about has "overwhelmed" them!!!
No doubt they'll have to raise state taxes to hire another green eyeshade and buy 3 more #2 pencils or perhaps use one of the computers they used to make up the *.pdf you noted ...
Mario,
ReplyDeleteTRY THIS...my comments added to the original in BRACKETS!!!
FROM FLAST v COHEN:
We have noted that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does specifically limit the taxing and spending power conferred by Art. I, § 8...[notice how the 1st Amendment effects the limit on Article 1, sec 8, cause there is no actual words limiting what Congress may tax to raise money for its "lawful purposes."]
Whether the Constitution contains other specific limitations can be determined only in the context of future cases. [This is the future case, as Congress is charged with "insuring" that the President is eligibil and competent, and may not work around "his infirmity" OR can they?] However, whenever such specific limitations are found, we believe a taxpayer will have a clear stake as a taxpayer in assuring that they are not breached by Congress. Consequently, we hold that a taxpayer will have standing
Page 392 U. S. 106
consistent with Article III to invoke federal judicial power when he alleges that congressional action under the taxing and spending clause is in derogation of those constitutional provisions which operate to restrict the exercise of the taxing and spending power. [Congress must comply with the ministerial mandates of the Constitution, re NBC, which to date they have not] The taxpayer's allegation in such cases would be that his tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against such abuses of legislative power. Such an injury is appropriate for judicial redress, and the taxpayer has established the necessary nexus between his status and the nature of the allegedly unconstitutional action to support his claim of standing to secure judicial review.
[ So come on now Mario, additionally you need to argue that the Judicial decision would result in the relief you seek, that there is a "concrete question regarding the plain language limits imposed upon the Office of the President, THAT CONGRESS MUST conform to....alittle Judicial notice pointing out, States in increasing numbers laying new laws requiring proof for canidates, that this issue will not go away, that the truth will be resolved, and as difficult as it is, if later the COurts have been found to have shorked their responsibiliy over such a grave matter, the earlier this issue secures a judicial resolution the less of a crisis it will be...}
SO MARIO< am I losing the force of argument here or can this merit your attention????
Thanks Shawn
Mr. Apuzzo:
ReplyDeleteWhat right does a citizen of the United States have to tell a private corporation (Corporation Amerika) who can be its president? "We" only work for the corporation, we don't sit on its board or anything. Those we elect do not represent "us", they're just board members.
This is why Michelle-the-snot said there's nothing we the people can do about this corporate appointment.
Wouldn't it really be better to do a couple-million-person sit-in on the corporate offices in DC and shred everything and reimpose our original Constitution?
Charles & Mario,
ReplyDeleteThis link was posted elsewhere, by someone whom I think posts here as well. In any case, this lawsuit shows that at least in Texas, state party chairs have standing to contest the eligibility of a candidate to keep a name off the ballot. Furthermore, political candidates have similar standing if they believe their opponent is ineligible.
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/459/582/489588/
I of II
ReplyDeleteI just left this comment at Dr. Conspiracy's blog:
"SFJeff,
Why do I see so many disclaimers on this site that the commentators are not lawyers. Do you expect to get a license to say things that are incorrect because you claim not to be a lawyer?
Why do you invent things by saying that Wong Kim Ark defined what a "natural born Citizen" is? Wong Kim Ark is no bullet. It is not definitive and it is no precedent for what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. You are the one that is speculating and stretching things to make Wong Kim Ark controlling on the question of what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.
I do not believe that Wong Kim Ark is wrong in how it defined a "natural born Citizen." Do not conveniently put words into my mouth. Again, the decision did not define a "natural born Citizen." I believe that it is wrong in how it mischaracterized what the Founders meant to do when it came to defining national citizenship. Justice Gray simply took the old English common law definition of "natural born subject" that prevailed during the colonies (which by the way under the English common law also included naturalized citizens) and used that to define a "modern" (in 1898) "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment. The Framers would never have done that. Rather, they would have expected natural law and the law of nations to provide the rule of decision on defining the new national citizenship.
Justice Gray avoided natural law and the law of nations by saying that all the civilized nations were not in agreement as to its meaning. This was disingenuous given that the Framers and Founders used mostly Vattel to inform them on what the law of nations said. For the Founders, there was no split on what the law of nations said on defining "citizens" and "natural born citizens." Even Chief Justice Marshall, one of the Founders, in The Venus (1814), relied upon Vattel to define domicile and national citizenship, defining a native or indigenes as a child born in the country to citizen parents. Clearly, this was the same definition that Pufendorf and Vattel gave to these citizens. Justice Gray did not even mention Chief Justice Marshall's reliance on Vattel and all the previous Supreme Court cases that cited Vattel also. Justice Gray did not address why Minor said that there was no doubt that a "natural born Citizen" was a child born to citizen parents and that there was doubt whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the only U.S. Supreme Court case that up to that time relied upon English common law to define U.S. national citizenship. It stands alone in history on that score.
Continued ...
II of II
ReplyDeleteThe Wong Kim Ark decision is also suspect given that Justice Gray was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Chester Arthur who was born in 1829 presumably in the United States but, unknown to the public, to confirmed alien parents. “At the time of the birth of the future president, Arthur's father was an Irish subject of the United Kingdom of Scottish descent, who naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843.” Cf. William Arthur's certificate of naturalization, State of New York, 08-31-1843, in: The Chester A. Arthur Papers, Library of Congress, Washington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur#cite_note-2. At that time, Chester Arthur’s U.S.-born mother would have become a British subject when she married her British husband. The position that the Government took in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a U.S. citizen also existed in 1881 when Chester Arthur became Vice President and President. Some argue that Chester Arthur hid the fact that he was born to alien parents from the American people when he ran for Vice President. With Chester Arthur not even being a citizen of the United States when he was born, he surely was not eligible to be President. These indisputable facts put a cloud of suspicion over the Wong Kim Ark decision."
Stupid me, but the political question is answered that the congress became a defendant by not performing their duty to qualify the persons seeking office. And, isn't part of the duty to install the VP elect in case of failure to qualify? Is the court able to ignore the plain letter of the amendment by allowing no qualification to occur? Why did they include the option unless it was a duty to enforce?
ReplyDeleteAnd, as a lay person, isn't the defendant saying that my co-defendant has refused to perform their duty, therefore, it is no one's concern but my co-defendant whether or not the duty to perform ever gets done?
Just my $.02
Bob Searle
wipinitboss:
ReplyDeleteActually you seem better-informed than the original Federal District judge whose ruling is being appealed.
To understand just what is being appealed in the Kerchner et al case it would be helpful to read this legal analysis:
A Federal Judge takes 4 strikes!!! and, following that, if you go to the Mario Apuzzo website and actually read the Initial Appeals Brief of Jan 19, 2010, you're in for a real eye-opener (as are the DOJ attorneys "defending" Obama using our tax money).
That's doubly ironic since these attorneys - and their bosses - took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic but they are now in the position of actually attacking that very document rather than defending it and are trying to get an obviously ineligible man to remain in an office he has never shown himself to be eligible to hold.
The wonderful Apuzzo Brief is a primer on both Constitutional law, the meaning of it, the Founders' intent vis-a-vis Article II of the
Constitution and a forceful put-down of the lies and misinformation put forth by the Obama Flying Monkeys such as "smrstrauss" and others.
I’d urge everyone to read the Initial Appeals Brief from Attorney Apuzzo’s website along with the many essays by both Mario Apuzzo AND his Lead Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner. While there, it would really help to donate even a small amount to the publicity/education fund presently used only for full-page newspaper ads in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition.
The Brief gives a very good overview of the original action AND it puts the lie to the many false arguments by the Obot Flying Monkeys about why BHO is either (their words) eligible to hold the office he now occupies OR that it (their words) doesn’t matter that he is not eligible.
Your understanding of the relation of the U. S. Constitution to We The People will be forever enlightened.
Actually, Obama's whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.
If you'd like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data - more than we've seen from Obama.
In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like "Our Boy" and really strikes a chord.
Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC - but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:
Three Little Words
Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!
” Word now is that the 3rd Cir is going to grant review; hold that the parentage concepts incorporated in the “Natural Born” requirement were eliminated by the born in the USA provisions of the 14th Amendment.
ReplyDeleteWhen 2012 rolls around and the state election officer starts to work on the issue of compliance with state eligibility for ballot rules, the question of Obama’s eligibility is now res judicata—already decided. Forget about that challenge. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2466870/posts?page=14#14
Any truth to that?
The defense attorneys are misstating the "standing" concept in any event and they are merely attempting to use the time-honored liberal tactic of taking what they viewed as an "incorrect" conservative opinion in a seminal lawsuit (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife) with the Court's opinion written by one of the more detested Justices (Scalia), turning it around (inapplicably) and attempting to beat all conservatives over the head with it to protect their own liberal positions (or, in this case, their ineligible holder of the Oval Office).
ReplyDeleteThe Lujan case had to do with governmental regulations (e.g. laws, statutes, or Congressional actions) that were being litigated against by a group attempting to overturn a regulatory effect/law passed by Congress.
Scalia's opinion - a good one and well-written - applied to the instance then at hand ... an effort to overturn a Legislative (and/or Executive) act due to not having (in the words of the opinion) "standing". Ever since Lujan has been cited by liberalfolk as meaning, in effect, you conservatives can't sue anyone.
That's great - except that's not the situation in the Kerchner et al action. Here there IS no regulatory or statutory or executive thing to be overturned so it is abject nonsense to claim (as the DOJ has done) that there is no "standing" since what is being complained of is not that which does not exist (the statute or action they pretend exists) but a violation of the Constitition which is (as I'm sure they know but will not admit) supreme to any Legislative or Executive act - nor is there any interpretation of the language of the Constitution required ... it very clearly calls out the 3 eligibility requirements.
So the DOJ is merely trying to use the Arthur Conan Doyle aphorism of "the dog that did not bark" by misapplying the Lujan opinion to Kerchner et all which is about a completely different set of facts and circumstances not addressed by Lujan at all.
Let's hope that they are not allowed to misapply the law in this fashion. That's even in view of the almost equally egregious attempt to present Berg (etc.) as some identical form of pleading when it is not at all. It's all just liberal misdirection run amok ... sort of a soft shoe dance for America-haters.
The Declaration of Independence was issued in July of 1776. Once again, it's time for action, not mere words. "Ultimately, the states collectively determined that the British monarchy, by acts of tyranny, could no longer legitimately claim their allegiance." This time it is Washington that is guilty of "acts of tyranny", which must be addressed by the Citizens in no uncertain terms. To ignore the constant stream of tyranny flowing from Washington would constitute a grave error in judgement.
ReplyDeleteI have just heard from Stephen Bright, a professor of law at Harvard University. He also seems to be having trouble locating any records at all showing the Usurper was ever a student there. Being a far left liberal, I doubt Professor Bright will publicly disclose his findings.
ReplyDeletemedical:
ReplyDeleteUnless Prof. Bright is political to his core, he certainly SHOULD disclose his failure to find the Big O as having attended Harvard. Even if he IS political to his core, why not be intellectually honest as it is becoming increasingly clear that ALL citizens have been lied to and defrauded by a shyster ... and there ARE, indeed, penalties in our laws for such things - some of them quite severe.
Some of these sorts of laws even apply to those conspiring and/or colluding with such a person (or group).
Let's just get this national nightmare over with ASAP. Putting it off merely makes things worse.
THe COnstitution DOES SAY that Congress MUST BE IN SESSION for at least ONE day.....so if Congress decides to take a recess for 14 months does that mean that NO CITIZEN has a right to hold them to account under our right to petition the government for redress of this violation of the COnstitutional mandate...it does if we accept the argument of the DOJ in defending a lack of standing fr anyone to question the governments lack of compliance with the supreme law off the land....and any COurt that accepts this reasoning means the end of the rule of law and the begining of the rule of men......is this the end of the greatest republic the world has ever known ?
ReplyDeletesquinlivan:
ReplyDeleteI believe you've missed the point that the DOJ has mis-applied the law by using it ("standing") where it does not apply AT ALL.
If you check my post just above on the matter you'll get some insight into WHY it is not meaningful as they try to (mis) use it.
one need wonder...if these men file to protect the man who would be president...then the courts could have no constitutional authority to remove a valid president...it would be an issue of standing...however...it is against the man...not the office...that this is about...the man who committed fraud against all americans who voted for POTUS...a constitutional right...guaranteed to each and every one of us...a civil right nobody can take away...and we dont have....standing...to protest the fraud...in the courts in our country...that are sworn...to uphold our laws...and are opposed by the very arm of the law that also swore an oath...to protect our rights...our constitution...against any threats...foreign or...domestic...this isnt about standing...its obstruction...its an overt attempt to undermine our constitution...by undermining our courts....our legal system...and our rights....
ReplyDelete