Kerchner v. Obama: Certain Public Commentary To Be Stricken From Docket
Update: Attorney Mario Apuzzo has linked to the following document regarding “non-conforming” documents via his web site:
Update: It appears that WorldNetDaily’s recent article concerning public comment on this case was, at the very least, misleading. The following is a full explanation by a concerned citizen who had recently heard Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner on The Chalice Show:
Family Security Matters and other bloggers:
Hello. I’m writing you all because of various post(s) on your websites pertaining to a letter writing campaign to a judge in the Kerchner v. Obama case.
There has been reporting about letters being sent to the judge and added to the court record; see http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3582/pub_detail.asp and http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6404 for two examples.
However, some points need to be clarified so that people get this right and don’t waste their time by making critical errors. Kerchner and his attorney (Mario Apuzzo) were on a radio show tonight (June 28th) at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/06/29/The-Chalice-Show and discussed this letter writing campaign.
First of all, the judge did not solicit these letters; people sent them on their own initiative and they were added to the record. We don’t actually know why the judge added them, or if any will be added in the future (they might be, they might not; we don’t know for sure). In fact public letters being added like this is a very rare thing. Typically if an outsider wants to comment on a case, it has to be done via an amicus curiae brief. But for some reason, these letters were added to the record, and Kerchner is now encouraging people to send more letters. We don’t know if they will be added to the record or not, but they may.
Second, June 29th is NOT the letter deadline. There is no official letter deadline. June 29th was just the due date for the government’s response; they responded last week by filing a motion to dismiss, so June 29th is now out of the picture. The court will rule on the government’s motion to dismiss on July 20th, so people definitely need to get their letters in before then, and certainly they should do so as soon as possible.
Third, messages sent via fax may not be accepted. They might, but they might not. http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/FAQS.html#faxpleadings states that procedure requires original documents, so sending letters via USPS or FedEx is far more reliable if people actually want their letters to possibly be added to the record.
Fourth, letters need to be addressed not only to Judge Joel Schneider, but also to Judge Jerome B. Simandle. Judge Schneider is the referring magistrate judge; he is outranked by the presiding district court judge, Judge Simandle. Any letters should be addressed to BOTH judges. A good form is this:
The Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle, presiding
The Honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, referring
Mitchell H. Cohen Building & U.S. Courthouse
4th & Cooper Streets, Room 1050
Camden, NJ 08101
That address comes from the official court website at http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/dir/JudgeListCamden.html
People also need to remember when writing their letters that this has to do with the Constitution and nothing else. If the judges gets letters saying things like “You have to stop Obama or else we will be destroyed by socialism,” it can only cause damage to this case. The courts are not a political branch, nor should they be. The courts are there to apply the law, not dabble in politics. The purpose of this letter campaign should be to highlight the significant Constitutional matters at hand and urge the judges to hear the case on Constitutional grounds and render fair and impartial judgment accordingly.
As an independent blogger, I also do my best to get things as correctly as possible before posting; that sometimes means that incomplete information gets posted and concerned citizens — from both sides — let me know what they think. Further, while I overall respect the efforts by WorldNetDaily and similar organizations, the bottom line to me is that if they get something wrong, then they get something wrong, and they need to change when appropriate.
Mr. Apuzzo also mentioned that the Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss:
The defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit was received today and is posted on the PACER system as Document 27. A copy of the motion and the supporting brief from the defendants’ attorney is available in the right frame of this blog. After months of stalling, this was the next expected tactic and has been the typical tactic used by Obama when he was just a candidate. But when he became the President Elect, and then was sworn in as the President, his position changed from being a mere candidate exerting his 1st Amendment political right to run, to becoming the President Elect and thus having to prove he is eligible under Article II of our Constitution. And the Congress failed us all by not vetting Obama as was their duty. Knowing their tactics, it was expected that they would try to move for a dismissal in this case too and we have been preparing for it. The motion return date is July 20, 2009. We of course will file a document opposing their dismissal motion prior to that date.
The following is the actual Motion:
It is definitely worth a read. Basically, the Defense moves according to the following:
- The Court does not have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to this case;
- The Plaintiffs have no standing to bring this case;
- Federal officials have immunity against cases such as this;
- The Second Amended Complaint should be stricken because, essentially, it’s too long (and, hence, an unreasonable burden is placed on the Defendants to give an answer) and wasn’t filed properly
I’ll be looking forward to seeing how Mr. Apuzzo responds to the above.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
232 responses to Kerchner v. Obama: Certain Public Commentary To Be Stricken From Docket