Sunday, July 4, 2010

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms the Dismissal of the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress Case for Lack of Standing and Orders Attorney Apuzzo to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Assessed Damages and Costs

On July 2, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its precedential decision affirming the New Jersey Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case for lack of Article III standing which is required for the Court to have subject matter jurisdiction under that article. It also ordered that I show cause in 14 days why the Court should not find me liable for damages and costs suffered by the defendants in having to defend what the court considers to be a “frivolous” appeal. Neither the Federal District Court nor Obama/Congress et al argued that our case was frivolous. Nevertheless, the appeals court on its own gave me notice that it wants me to show cause why I should not have to pay for the defendants damages and costs incurred in defending the action.

The Court did not find that the merits of our case are “frivolous.” Rather, it found “frivolous” my appealing to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals the Federal District Court’s finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to ask that court to decide the merits of their claim that Putative President Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” that he has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii, that Congress failed to exercise its constitutional duty to properly vet and investigate Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status, and that former Vice President and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, were complicit in that Congressional failure.

On the standing issue, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not establish that they suffered an “injury in fact.” They said that the injury that plaintiffs allege is like that of Philip Berg’s and is not concrete or particularized enough to satisfy Article III standing. They found that these injuries are “too generalized” for Article III courts. They added that plaintiffs’ injuries are not “concrete and particularized” because they are “harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people.” Furthermore, the court said that plaintiffs’ injuries are “generalized grievances” which “are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch.” Like the District Court, the Court acknowledged plaintiffs’ “frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area…” But also like the District Court, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ “remedy may be found through their vote.” Finally, the Court stated that because plaintiffs failed to show they have standing, it need not address plaintiffs’ contention that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’. . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father.”

On why I need to show cause why I should not have to pay to Obama, Congress, and the United States damages and costs for filing a “frivolous” appeal, the Court found that “Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions.” They said that an examination of this precedent would have made it obvious to a reasonable attorney that an appeal from the District Court was frivolous since no law or facts could support a conclusion that the District Court erred. While the Court acknowledged that the Federal District Court did not “explicitly” state that our claims were frivolous, the Court believes that I had meaningful notice that the appeal was frivolous from the decisions of other courts which dealt with “similar legal theories” and imposed sanctions on those lawyers for bringing forth such claims.

I am now preparing my response to the Court’s show cause order which I will be filing before the deadline of July 16, 2010. As to what other action my clients may take regarding the underlying claims against Obama and Congress, we will be discussing that aspect and acting accordingly.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 4, 2010


Georgetown said...

I am sorry for our loss. I am sorry for the way the Court turned on us and attacked us.This is not the Government we once knew, loved and depended on to defend us. The anti-Truth, anti-American and anti-Justice is here now. We must vote them out. I'm afraid that we can't expect any favorable results until 2011. Please hang in there Protect yourselves.

You have my deepest sentiments and
prayers for a better outcome in the coming months.

jayjay said...


Remember what Benjamin Frankiln (IIRC) advised when breaking with King George (who was also a mind-addled despot). He said something like:

"We must hang together or we would surely all hang separately".

In fact, the quick decision may be a blessing in disguise since, if principals so decide, it will move things to SCOTUS more rapidly - and that's where the case has always been headed. We're now a bit closer to that.

cfkerchner said...

The court has presented us for the weekend celebrating the birth of our nation, and the liberty and freedom it once stood for as a shining beacon to the world, with a despicable example of what our government has turned into. Our branches of government no longer wish to hear from the People. We are to sit here and take it and just keep quiet. We will not.

The founders and all the men since who have sacrificed with their blood and even their very lives to gain and preserve our liberty and freedom will not have sacrificed in vain. We have lost a battle but not the war. We will stand to fight this battle to support and defend the Constitution. I took an oath to do so. And that oath was not just words to me. The battles will continue. And in the end the truth and the Constitution will win and the thugs and tyrants now controlling our government will face the justice of We the People who are the true sovereigns of this nation and government. These usurpers and thugs and their enablers will learn a lesson in the coming months and will be shown before the bar of justice of the People and in history for what they really are ... power hungry tyrants, thugs, and deceivers. This war will be won by We the People. So help me God.

CDR Charles Kerchner

Anonymous said...

John 10:1-2, 10
I tell you the truth, the man [USURPER] who does not enter the sheep pen [OFFICE OF PRESIDENT] by the gate [ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION], but climbs in by some other way [FRAUD], is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate [ARTICLE II NATURAL-BORN CITIZENSHIP - BORN IN THE COUNTRY, OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS] is the shepherd of his sheep [WE THE PEOPLE]. The thief [USURPER] comes only to steal and kill and destroy [THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES]…

Matthew 7:15
Watch out for false prophets [USURPERS & THOSE WHO SUPPORT USURPERS]. They come to you in sheep’s clothing [THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS], but inwardly they are ferocious wolves [WHO COME ONLY TO STEAL AND KILL AND DESTROY AMERICA].

Anonymous said...

Is a savings and loan association taken over by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board – without any notice or hearing and on the basis of an administrative record compiled ex parte by the Board – entitled to a post-deprivation hearing “upon the merits” as provided in 12 U.S.C. § 1464 (d) (6) (A) and as required by the Due Process Clause, or is the association restricted – in its first and only opportunity to be heard on the seizure of its property – to an attempt to prove that the Board action was arbitrary and capricious, based solely on the administrative record selected by the Board itself?

Anonymous said...

Are “We the people” entitled to a hearing “upon the merits” as required by the Due Process Clause when the “office of President” is occupied by a person who is not an Article II natural born citizen and thus not “eligible to the office of President” under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...”, or are “We the people” required – in its opportunity to be heard on the seizure of its property, the “office of the President”, by a usurper – to simply accept that Barack Hussein Obama is an Article II natural born citizen and thus “eligible to the office of President” based solely on the digital image of a purported Certification of Live Birth, which was posted on the internet by the usurper himself?

Unknown said...

“[R]emedy may be found through their vote.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

FOUR years of this corrupt, anti-American, Marxist
writing Executive Order after Executive Order,

appointing anti-American justices to the Supreme Court for life,

signing treaties that suspend more freedoms,

suspending our constitutional rights repeatedly,

continuing with his subterfuge and corruption with no checks,

planning to give amnesty to illegals (see Senator Grassley, et al, recent letter to Obama),

attempting to control the internet,

controlling what we eat, what we say, what type of energy we use (read "health care" bill and cap and trade bill),

punishing people who expose his corruption, i.e, inspector generals,

taking over banks and car companies,

punishing corporations and wall street,

killing our economy and refusing to deal with the REAL issues that are killing our economy,

spending us into oblivion to give to the lazy and take from the hard working.

With the damage he's already done in the first 18 months, they expect us to survive the rest of the four years????


Spaulding said...

Please Commander Kerchner and Mr. Apuzzo, move as fearlessly as you have, showing respect for the process as you have in the past. It is a bit of a charade, but a necessary one if we are to ressurect respect for the judicial system in the future. Then let us know exactly the amount of the sanctions and we, the real plaintiffs, will reimburse you.

A pen said...

While playing footsie with legal issues the courts are really not supporting the constitution but supporting their own powers. To prove they have power they threaten monetary harm. Who would dare challenge the authority of the court? This court has not heard like cases at all except for the fact that the constitution is being asked to be supreme over government and none of the government will allow it.

Was the constitution written for the average man or for licenced attys and judges to only read and understand?

Anonymous said...

The contrived doctrine of 'Standing', in this instance, has become an effective obstacle and bar to the American Citizens to exercise their right to Petition the Guv'mnt to cure a grievance.

That said, it IS NOT 'standing' alone, but the 'tri-vecta' defense that the Usurper is relying on, i.e., 'Standing, Political Question and Separation of Powers', which has become the Gordian Knot of a conundrum wrapped in a Catch 22.

My disappointment in the court not advancing on the merits is immense and increases my anxiety of my ability to advance the pursuit of establishing a 'legal definition' of natural born citizen as a 'citizenship question', but is also a reminder that no obstacle can halt the advance of 'truth'.

The Appuzo Brief of CMDR Kerchner's Complaint is, in a perfect world, perfect, but in order to offer a 'Question' SCOTUS 'may' entertain, the only suggesting left untried, is to strip away all of the references to the '0' and in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari ask the 'question', 'Do natural born citizens exist within in the American Population of Citizens...?', and if so; 'What are the conditions, circumstances and / or characteristics that make them identifiable and distinct from the Article I 'citizens', being otherwise equal, insofar as citizenship is concerned...?'

SCOTUS, if willing to accept the questions, could not deny that NBCs exist, for if they did there could be NO 'Eligible POTUS'. In answering in the affirmative they would be obligated to 'define' the conditions, circumstances and / or characteristics that make them identifiable and distinct from the Article I 'citizens', being otherwise equal, insofar as citizenship is concerned...

...and that is my 'comment' valued at approx. .02 cents..........

Guy4013 said...

Mario and Charles,

July 2, 2010 will be a day I won't forget.

Let's say I don't like the words "In god We Trust" I sue the government to remove such words from all government documents. The Courts take the case and then decide if they can remove the words.

Where is it where I have "standing" to sue and the court believes I have a "injury" from just seeing the word "God" on a document. I fail to understand it.

I estimate there have been dozens of such court cases and "STANDING" never stopped the courts from trying to remove God from our government and Country.

What the courts have NOW bowed too is Chicago Thug Politics with massive corruption bleeding into our Judicial system at an unprecedented rate.

The words from the 3rd Circuit Court are totally unacceptable and must be attacked by truth.

Do you have a means to poll your supporters on trying to raise funds to continue the historic fight. I have contributed several times but I am not a rich person.

So now the Court wants money to buy justice and to defeat their cowardliness.

I say,"Bring It On", you traitors in the Courts.

Take Care Mario and Charles and God bless.

Unknown said...

That's too bad, but if it's 'standing' the court wants why don't you add this in your own Motion Of Joinder, then you wouldn't have to argue 'standing' all you'd have to argue was wiether the court is acting as 'prophets' in stating the reprecussions of an overturned President.

New evidence, and a propoderance of finding 'damaged' people with standing is always a good issue to bring to the court a Motion for Reconsideration or a Joinder.
YouTube short Obogo Petition

I certainly wish the courts decisions was different, but it seems like many attorneys fighting this issue brought this argument on themselfs because they didn't want to represent a qualified candidate in the race and argue the reason the other main (R) candidate didn't bring the case to them, was because McCain sold his soul in Res. 511 and pretty well gave a reason for every R U.S.Senator to keep their mouth shut. Nevertheless, last I checked we still live in a Constitutional Republic, which is the greatest weapon against mob rule we could have ever been given.

Cody Robert Judy
U.S. Senate 2010 UT.

Born912 said...

The court’s position that less than point 3 percent of the population (Military Officers) is too large a class to be granted standing is unfortunate.

This position could be illustrated thus: If the congress passed and the president signed a bill to construct concentration camps complete with gas chambers and crematoriums and perhaps a sign over the entry, “Work Will Make You Free” and a Jew should be denied standing in a suit questioning the constitutionality of the facility because no Jew had yet in fact been cremated. And the court stated that the proper remedy was to vote a new congress and president to reverse the bill and abolish the facility.

Would that be a reasonable position of the court?

The courts have the sole obligation take action within their roll should the tyranny of the majority over the minority present itself.

Born912 said...

It might be an interesting exorcise (and useful to Mario Apuzzo, Esquire) to review the 75 cases cited in Washington v. Alaimo
( and determine if any were based solely on the question of standing, particularly when the merits of the case were unambiguously in favor of the plaintiffs.

BlackSunshine84 said...

I saw this morning that a class action suit has been filed against Obamacare. Why has no one attempted a class action suit against the federal government over Obama's eligibility? Isn't the issue of standing a problem because Obama's probable ineligibility effects many more people than just the plaintiff? If there were millions of plaintiffs and every United States citizen is invited to join the lawsuit, would they have standing?

James said...

Below is the SCOTUS case on "Standing"

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

You can mine this decision too. It looks like Justice Blackmun dissented which means there might hope for reversal of this decision.

Dixhistory said...

The courts as I understand it are to rule shortly on the AG of VA in their action on Obamacare as to dismiss on grounds of a lack of standing.

We no longer have a Reublican form of Government. Standing as the
court's are using it is a door stop to the people as well as the states in our contract with each other. In other words the snake is eating it's self by it's own tail.


A pen said...

Mario, if you have to pay costs and penalties for seeking to uphold the constitution, wouldn't that be a concrete harm specific to an individual? Isn't that the standing you need? It sounds rediculous but that is what the court is doing, creating standing by acting tyrannical.

cfkerchner said...

Catch 22 in the two 3rd Circuit Court Precedential Decisions protect Obama.

See this essay: Give Us Liberty: Kerchner v Obama- All Is Not Lost

See this JPG for highlights:

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Ret)

Webmaster said...

The Courts have made the same mistake multiple times, In matters of the Constitution all Citizens have Standing. If it were otherwise, no Constitutional question could be settled by the Courts, and the Mob, that is a majority of the Voters would rule. That is what the Constitution is to guard against.

The Courts precedents on "lack of standing" do not apply to Constitutional matters.

Anonymous said...

The following headline:

PAPER: Obama and Justice Roberts on collision course

and link to the following LA Times article are posted on Drudge:

Obama and Supreme Court may be on collision course,0,7184862.story

Perhaps the article is prophetic..

Godspeed Mario and Charles

cfkerchner said...

Link to the Ad in Washington Times National Weekly edition this week. This is the 3rd run of the ad about the Tim Adams revelation. The experts say one needs to try to run each ad three times to gain maximum saturation in a publication. I'm working on a new one.

Washington Times National Weekly 2010-07-05 edition - full pg - pg 5 - Hawaii Sr Election Clerk says Obama Was NOT Born in Hawaii.

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Please donate to help the cause at:

Let us move forward said...


The following case was dismissed without any mention of standing, only mootness, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and res judicata:

Sullivan v. Marshall

The case was a class action case. There must be a different standard for standing in class action suits.

Your case was not originally filed as class action. Is there any way that you can convert a case progressing through the courts to class action?

The speed at which your case was dismissed by the appeals court is unusual. Was Hollister dismissed as fast?

js said...

the courts have committed fraud upon america...and have refused to defend the constitution...that they swore an oath to uphold...this is a great insult to every american alive today...because its telling us that we do not share an equal right to demand that our government abide by the constitution...we do have standing...but the 2 liberal judges sitting on the bench have created a new standard...that tells us that we have no right...or expectation...that congress...or the executive office...or the justice system...defend the an injury...because our forefathers fought and died to guarantee that right...they spilled thier blood that we might be free...and the Constitution of what guarantees our that injury?...our families have suffered immense that ignorance cannot that liberal activism is running away from...and that is the Truth...the part of Justice that we will pass to our it...what is the price of it worth passing to your children...and your childrens children...

Anonymous said...

That's just ridiculous...since the Constitution is not some vague historical document, but protects me specifically even today, when the political process does not check violations of that Constitution, then I am harmed, my protection is gone, & I want a remedy...I want the Constitutional requirements acknowledged & enforced, I want my security back.

vrajavala said...

Has anyone contacted General McChrystal to see if he might be interested in joining the lawsuit? Clearly, he has standing, and has suffered damages.

js said...

Article VI..."This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;..."

The Constitution is only the supreme law of the land if you have "standing" to enforce it.

Obviously, Congress has no interest in such things, as they have ignored the peoples cry for its enforcement. Certainly the Senate doesn’t either, because they have not acted to certify that our President is, indeed, qualified to hold that Office. This is obvious by the failure to acknowledge and resolve this situation by members of both Houses. It goes without saying that the Executive Office, usurped by Obama with the help of both Houses, would not seek to enforce the constitution due to an obvious and direct conflict of interest. Can it not be said the same about the DNC in its totality, controlling both houses of the Legislative branch, constituting a monopoly of power which to this point; having a conflict of interest in finding the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing BUT the Truth, thereby committing to a treason against our Constitution?

Absolutely! With this ruling, it is now safe to conclude that all 3 Houses of our Government have usurped the power of the Constitution

Robert said...

Which of these grievances set forth in the Declaration of Independence would not have passed the court's standing test? (I omitted a few because of blog character limits)

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured...

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering...
FOR protecting them...
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us...
FOR transporting us...
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated..
HE has plundered...

HE is,...

HE has constrained...

HE has excited...

IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

Robert said...

You should read the Declaration of Independence and apply the courts standing test to the facts submitted by the Founding Fathers. Imagine if they had given up because they were told they did not have standing.

jayjay said...

cfkerchner et al:

One should also read the live link in the article at "reminder (which should be read)" as it gives a more complete background.

In fact, if any of you are active on FreeRepublic, you might start a new "Crocodile" thread using a few words from the TP&E under the Fair Use Doctrine which is (from editor Sharon Rondeau of TP&E when asked about posting a bit of the article and then linking to it):

"Yes, you can post up to 200 words (about two good-sized paragraphs) as long as it says at the top "Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email, Inc." with an active link to our site. Then after the two paragraphs, put "Read the rest here" with a link under the word "here" which brings the reader directly to the article at our site. That is called the "Fair Use Standard."

A posting of such a lead-in for a FR thread would create some lively comments, I'm sure, but I don't post there. Anyone else???

cfkerchner said...

When is the Constitution like a Crocodile?

An essay by JTX @ The Post & Email

cfkerchner said...

To be served at Obama's Next Beer Summit :-)

Kenya My Country, Tusker My Beer

Charles Kerchner
CDR USNR (Retired)
Help the Cause if You Can:

Mick said...

jayjay said,

"A posting of such a lead-in for a FR thread would create some lively comments, I'm sure, but I don't post there. Anyone else???"

Freerepublic is not very friendly to the dual allegiance line of thought. It has a very Catholic base, and as such does not wish to offend fellow Catholics (Hispanic). They do have some posters that are very educated on the subject though.

jayjay said...

Mick and others:

It's on FR now - here's the link:

Might be worth a peek if you have 2 cents to offer.

Christinewjc said...

I was looking through my blog list tonight and found this!

The Right Perspective: Obama “Kenyan-Born”: Sunday Standard In 2004

Guess the ObamaBots forgot to scrub that article!

Mick said...

jayjay said...
"Mick and others:

It's on FR now - here's the link:

Might be worth a peek if you have 2 cents to offer."

I was banned there for making a post about Jindal not being a Natural Born Citizen. FR is beholden to it's Catholic base.

BlackSunshine84 said...

I can't find it now, but somewhere on this site I saw it stated that a judge had dismissed an eligibility case because Obama has been thoroughly vetted numerous times. How could a judge know that without discovery?

BlackSunshine84 said...

I can't find it now, but somewhere on this site I saw it stated that a judge had dismissed an eligibility case because Obama has been thoroughly vetted numerous times. How could a judge know that without discovery?

andy g said...

mario your a great guy. it really is a sin that the people who are put into office are hippercrets. and only out to make as many pensions as they can. the courts are a disgrace. we have to put up with guy who thinks he is beyond god for two more years. the mac daddy that he is couldn't be trusted by me even if i saw him walk on water. he is a pawn and he makes cancer look good .the country is going doen the tubes and it is becasue of him . bending over to kill the consitution and he is doing just that. how can he put a law suit against arizon for useing the constitution to keep the borders safe . and ilegal is a criminal and has to be deported back to where they came from including there children even if they wwere born here. america first . god bless america . a veteran ....

Unknown said...

Mr. Kerchner,

To me the response is asking Mr. Apuzo to affirm and insist that they are the standing. There is no flow in the response, as if they are lookn for more help from Mr Apuzo. Might not want to post or respond right away, because this may be a very good tact. We must carry on on break through this thin defense.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

In an exclusive interview with Yahoo! News and the Huffington Post, Warren Buffett credited his father with teaching him how to live, and explained that all parents can make a "better human being":

"The power of unconditional love. I mean, there is no power on earth like unconditional love. And I think that if you offered that to your child, I mean, you’re 90 percent of the way home. There may be days when you don’t feel like it — it’s not uncritical love; that’s a different animal — but to know you can always come back, that is huge in life. That takes you a long, long way. And I would say that every parent out there that can extend that to their child at an early age, it’s going to make for a better human being."
Warren Buffett.

See this link for a full story and YouTube:

jayjay said...

Here's the item that was posted on FreeRepublic ...

Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email, Inc.

When is the Constitution like a Crocodile??

Apparently it is when you are a Federal Judge with lifetime (taxpayer paid) tenure on either the District Court of New Jersey or the Third Circuit Court of Appeals level as is clearly demonstrated by case 09-4209 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al. If you remember in the District Court, judge Simandle took it upon himself at the behest of the DOJ lawyers striving to defend Obama (who was initially sued before he took the Oath of Office and while still a private person) by repeatedly violating his judicial oath (meaning violating the Constitution that he swore to uphold).

In case you weren’t aware of that debacle, here’s a reminder (which should be read) so that you’ll have the background required to grasp what’s going on.

Read the rest here ...

cfkerchner said...

Mick and JayJay,

Here is that link as an active link to the discussion at Free Republic.

William said...

What I find amazing, is that the liberal SCOTUS Court found that the EPA law suit had standing to regulate "carbon", not only by the States Citizens, not only by the Entire US Citizens, but had standing by the worlds Citizens!

How is that a particularized injury and not a general one?

bdwilcox said...

Washington went from a den of corruption to a brothel of shameless whores. I'm sorry, but there is no justice to be found there, anymore.

From Christian Adams' testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

"But Mr. Adams leveled an even more explosive charge beyond the Panther case. He testified that last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice's Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal "Motor Voter" law -- Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

According to Mr. Adams, Justice lawyers were told by Ms. Fernandes: "We're not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it."

The American Pet said...

One question I have is how can the court dismiss with prejudice based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction AND require you to provide information to help it make a decision that can only be made if that court HAS subject matter jurisdiction?

Joe said...

Look out now. A mexiacn born candidate for US Senate was required to show proof of citizenship to the MO Sos or be removed from the ballot.

He complied and asked to see Obama's...No reply...Lawsuit alert!!

jayjay said...


The situation you cite merely indicates the ttuth of the fact that "standing", etc. are merely instances of judicial artifice to create and use those artificial barriers that the Courts themselves create (and, when they desire, use them for their own purposes ... nothing more).

Larry said...

We are living inside the rotting corpse of what was formerly the greatest nation in history. R.I.P. U.S.A.

Joe said...

Recent article on Obama's background in World Tribune

Joe said...


"Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg."

cfkerchner said...

An Essay - On The Issue of Standing ... | by the

Current Front Page Link:

Permanent Link: