Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Activity in Kerchner v Obama Case - Motion to Extend Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond & Declaration of Counsel Filed by Defendants

Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit - Motion to Extend Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond & Declaration of Counsel has been filed by the defendants. The defendants have already had over two months to answer, move, or otherwise respond. As of the current deadline of May 5th they will have had 75 days from the time they were served to respond. In our opinion, that is an adequate amount of time to answer or move or other wise respond. An objection will be filed to this second request by the defendants for a further extension of time. More on that in a subsequent post.

Link to a copy of the court documents for this latest activity:

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT]
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906

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].


James said...

They are stonewalling. I wish you the best of luck, but I fear that they will stonewall for 4 years.

Pragmaticite said...

Was some activity due on this case yesterday, May 5, 2009?

Also, I saw a comment on RightSideOfLife which suggested that this case must somehow overcome a SCOTUS decision from Marbury v. Madison, but it gave no explanation. Any elaboration or explanation available on that or is it just BS?

JollyRoger88805 said...

So was the May 5th deadline extended or not ?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I served the Second Amended Complaint on the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey on February 17, 2009. Defendants USA and Obama had 60 days to answer or until April 20, 2009 (April 18 was a Saturday). On April 13, 2009, USA and Obama entered an appearance and requested a 15-day extension to file their answer. We did not hear anything from the Congressional defendants, who having been served on February 24, 2009, were required to answer by April 27, 2009 (April 25 was a Saturday). USA/Obama then obtained their requested 15-day extension to answer, making the new answer date, May 5, 2009.

USA/Obama then filed the currently pending motion on April 27, 2009, requesting a second extension for USA/Obama to answer (what is represented to be a 20-day extension). While no one has yet to enter an appearance for the Congressional defendants, the attorney for USA/Obama has also asked in the same motion that the Congressional defendants be given an extension to answer. She added in her motion papers that the Justice Department is reviewing the question of which of the Congressional defendants it will represent. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider will decide that motion on June 1, 2009. In the motion, all defendants (USA/Obama and the Congressional defendants) are asking for a 20-day extension to answer, to run from the day the motion is decided. That means that if Judge Schneider decides to grant defendants' motion on June 1, 2009, all the defendants would have until June 21, 2009 to answer.

Because of the return day on the motion (June 1, 2009), such a result will give USA/Obama 124 days and the Congressional defendants 117 days to answer the Second Amended Complaint. By court rule, government defendants are given 60 days to answer. While it appears as though USA/Obama only asked for a 35-day extension (15 + 20) and the Congressional defendants a 20-day extension, they each respectively will have gotten a 64-day and a 57-day extension if Judge Schneider grants their motion.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

mtngoat61 said...

Dear Pragmaticite:

To answer you bluntly it is more BS and dis-information by the O-Bot side citing a case with general remarks about same with no back up to their claims or mistating what the case was about and what the case established as precedence in the Supreme court's history. I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion and in discussing this with people in the know, the Marbury v Madison case will help the Kerchner v Obama case since it established the Supreme Court's power and role of "judicial review" of acts of Congress at the federal level and confirmed the Supreme Court role as the guardian of the Constitution at the federal level. Hopefully Atty Apuzzo will have time to answer your question in further detail. One thing is sure is that there is not historic precdence case to point to regarding the challenge to the Article II elgibility of an elected President and of the Congress not doing its duty to prove the President elect was qualified per the 20th Amendment. Those aspects of the case are original charges and historic in nature and this Kerchner v Obama & Congress case will create new precedence. Being the deadline for Atty Apuzzo to file his oppostion motion to further delays and since he has many other clients, he may be busy, but maybe he will have time to more fully detail the Marbury v Madison case and any impact on the case at hand. But I consider all such O-Bot tactics red-herrings and strawmen to confuse the unknowing public readers. The Supreme Court's opinon is the one that will matter anyway, not some O-Bot in a blog posting 24x7 that this case or that case will kill the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case. It all BS and smoke screen by the O-Bots, imo. This Kerchner v Obama & Congress case has real teeth and precedence setting charges which is why the defendants have repeatedly tried to delay answering.

Hope this helps.

M Publius Goat