Kerchner v. Obama Lead Plaintiff Places Second Ad, Asks for Help
Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, had recently placed an advertisement concerning his case in the Washington Times. Today, the Times is running a second ad highlighting both his case and the eligibility issue as a full pager:
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Advertorial in 20090706 Issue Wash Times
Mr. Kerchner has recently set up a web site, ProtectOurLiberty.org, wherein he is soliciting further donations to help defray the costs of placing these ads.
As he puts it:
If the People want the usurper Obama out, they have to support people like me and Attorney Apuzzo at this point. I cannot do this all by myself. Attorney Apuzzo is donating his time for this case pro-bono. But there is still need for substantial amounts of funds to pursue efforts such as publicity for the case, now and going forward. Except for a few spontaneous donations in the last six months, I have carried the out of pocket cash financial load for this case’s legal service fees and court costs, etc., and the advertising, now for almost 6 months. The costs are now at a level that I need help. So I decided at this point to ask for help with the advertising part of the costs. Please spread the word of this new initiative. Thank you.
The site goes into a full explanation of the costs involved as well as the types of advertising that is being supported by donations.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
GeorgetownJD says:
July 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I understand State Law but I was interested in Nation Law, where although they were married in Hawaii according to the accounts, they became subjects to Indonesian Marriage Laws as citizens of that country. The Language in the divorce decree is standard language when children are involved. I am making statements of actions that preceded the divorce, where no AMERICAN Child could attend school in Indonesia as evident by the school records that surfaced from the investigative reporter. However, you have not listed Indonesian Law, which would have governed this marriage also, possibly more structurally than American Laws. We seem to be determined to present allegations that do not include the applicability of Foreign Law in our responses. You have declined to include that Barack name was change to Soetoro and that his mother was subject to Indonesian Laws and Marriage Laws upon entering Indonesia, even to the degree that she agreed to change Obama’s legal name to comply with that country’s laws. I am sorry if I assumed that you would have understood that point that I was attempting to make in my statement, as to why would Soetoro change Obama’s name to that of his family’s name if he did not view him as his son and as a citizen of his beloved country. Everything in this case is not predicated on American Laws; Kenya and Indonesia all have laws that are applicable also. Thanks for your response!!!
HD,
You can’t refute something against which you marshal nothing but gratuitous assertions…duh!
Wonder why Obama lovers like Georgeton JD have no problem with Obama hiding all his past life documents including birth, schools and senate, and have no problem with Obama asking money from citizens to put him in office, and they do not complain about all the lawyers being paid to help Obama hide these normally innocent documents, yet do not care at all for lawyers on the other side, trying to access normally available documents, getting financial help from citizens who are also wanting to see some proof of identity. An Alinsky tactic, making innocent behavior look evil and evil behavior look innocent. We are all catching on!
They seem a little lopsided in their thinking. If they support organized fraud, and are against organized efforts to end fraud, they might want to move to Chicago and blend in a little more.
They also seem a little troubled by Apuzzo’s ability to explain the argument and do not want Kerchner accessing the public. So they demean Apuzzo….making themselves look rather tragic.
The Obama lovers thought they had media under their control, so nobody would know what was going on. I can imagine how distasteful and worrisome it is that the truth is being printed in full page ads for public viewing. Who would ever have thought we had such great Americans as Kerchner!! Private citizens who single-handedly take on the mainstream media blackout and blast on through.
When I saw the list of law cases cited by the poor defendants, trying to justify keeping their case out of court, and flooding the plaintiffs with an overabundance of lawsuits, I saw the common tactic used in communist/socialist countries, where the lawyers try stall in order to gather too much information and too much misinformation, to overwhelm others with this quantity of infrmation to sort through, since they have no ground to defend themselves legally. They use over-information and misinformation to confuse the other side and exhaust their resources. What a pathetic tactic. Instead of fighting like a man, they hide behind the skirts of disinformation.
However, truth has always won, and those like Georgetown JD are sadly supporting fraud and the deliberate sealing of normally available documents, which obviously means there is harmful information in those documents. It will be quite fascinating, as they are revealed.
I say let us do like Obama did, when he forced the painful divorce papers unsealed of his opopnent, in order to hurt, defame and destroy another human being….”the need to reveal is greater than the need to seal.”
We need to use his own sad tactics against him, as Solomon would say, I am sure.
Our need to know who Obama really is and what he is hiding is greater than his need to seal and conceal. He invaded his own privacy when he stepped into the public eye to campaign for the highest office. He tries to Alinsky people into thinking his privacy is being invaded. What a joke!
He does look rather tired these days. As if something is pursuing him relentlessly. It is……..the Truth.
GeorgetownJD,
Excellent comment. Thanks for your thoughts.
-Phil
Simple Interest,
“Where the discussion of the divorce papers in the early 1980s, it is clear that Mr. Soetoro did adopt Barack because 1) it was not necessary to list him as his child in the proceeding, for that purpose, unless he was the legal parent …”
The petition for dissolution did not list Barack as a “child of the parties” — the term for children who are born of the marriage or commone to both the husband and wife. Go back and take another look at the petition. It states that there are two children — one a minor, one the age of majority — who are DEPENDENTS of the wife and husband for educational costs. Big difference. Legally significant difference. A “dependent” is a legal term of art and does not necessarily refer to a child or even a relative by blood or adoption. It is someone who depends upon another for some form of financial or other support. An elderly parent, a disabled person, a foster child, a stepchild — all can be dependents.
Why would Barack be listed as a “dependent” of Lolo Soetoro in a divorce pleading? The answer lies in Hawaii law, which the birthers have apparently failed to research. By statute, under law in Hawaii, a stepparent has a legal obligation to provide support for his stepchild. Thus, there was nothing unusual, and indeed entirely consistent with the step-relationship between Soetoro and Barack, that the petitioner — Ann Dunham Soetoro — would seek some form of financial support for college expenses. In the end, of course, the court made no such award.
Sincere apologies for the typos.
Simple Interest,
“My question to you is “why do you openly show a difference in the matter?’”
Say what? If that question made any sense I could answer it. Take another stab at it. What difference? What matter?
“The Defendants were going to use standing and immunity in their motion because it has worked thus far and they already had 60 days to respond. They did not respond and have made 2 requests for extension of time, stalling the process, and at the end of this all, they cite all the previous cases that have been dismissed. I did not see a post where you stated why don’t they just file already; they know they are going to cite standing; so they should have been prepared, etc.”
I suggest that you re-read the United States Attorney’s motion for extension. The answer lies therein. A former federal officer such as Cheny does not simply pick up the phone, call the US Attorney’s Office, request to be represented, and then the Assistant USA gets right on it. Speaking as someone who spent eight years in the courts representing the federal government, I can assure you there is a process for consiering such a request, for researching and obtaining intra-agency legal opinions, for analyzing potential conflicts of interest, and the request to move up the chain of command for approval. Ms. Pascal was very clear that this was the reason for the requested enlargement of time — the various defendants’ requests for representation came in over a period of weeks and sign-off by those with authority to make the decision had not yet been finalized as to some. Nothing unusual in a government agency such as DOJ. Once the trial attorney was given the green light, she filed the motion to dismiss — days ahead of the extended deadline, I might add. If you see something nefarious in this process, please, enlighten us and tell us where the DOJ departed from its normal procedures.
The case law relied upon in the motion to dismiss is oft cited and predictable by any plaintiff. It is what legal professionals refer to as “hornbook” law — law that is so firmly established and relied upon that it is spelled out in law textbooks. The doctrine of standing in federal court has been around for, well, more than 200 years with an explosion of cases since the late 1960s addressing the doctrine. Most plaintiffs’ attorneys like me already have a stock argument that serves as the “foundation” for our responses to the standing argument (as well as stock Rule 8 and Rule 9 language, as these also are frequently raised by defendants in motions to dismiss). Little or no research on constitutional is necessary if the attorney is a seasoned litigator.
You may want to focus your research for Mario on the definition of “interested person” within the meaning of the quo warranto statute. That will be cruscial to establishing standing. You may also want to research how to get around the venue problem that exists in this case — why New Jersey and why not, as exlicitly provided in the quo warranto statute, the District of Columbia. That’s where the real battle lines are drawn.
Bob posted,
“You will be happy to learn that JeffM (and others!) are sharing with Apuzzo their vast knowledge of the law.”
Good. Looks like the birthers will finally have a winner!
GeorgetownJD says:
July 7, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Thanks for your response. The general template was formulated in anticipation of the Defendant’s filing on the standing issue, according to Mr. Apuzzo’s previous writings. The Order of the cases has been to file a Motion to Dismiss, and you recognize that once the Defendants cite case law, the Plaintiff must review their responsive pleading, research the case law, and file a response to show that their arguments are flawed, just as we do hear on a micro-level. Mr. Apuzzo has done exactly what I would hope that you would have done if you were the lead attorney for the clients also. My question to you is “why do you openly show a difference in the matter?” The Defendants were going to use standing and immunity in their motion because it has worked thus far and they already had 60 days to respond. They did not respond and have made 2 requests for extension of time, stalling the process, and at the end of this all, they cite all the previous cases that have been dismissed. I did not see a post where you stated why don’t they just file already; they know they are going to cite standing; so they should have been prepared, etc. I am sure that based on your response it was an oversight on my part or at least I hope that it was. Thanks again for taking time to respond!!!
Black Lion says:
July 7, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Let me say that you have stated your points clearly. However, your position rests upon evidence that you state is not proven. In 1981, Obama maintained dual citizenship with Kenya and also according to his school records was listed as a citizen of Indonesia, where there is no evidence that he ever renounced his citizenship. Where the discussion of the divorce papers in the early 1980s, it is clear that Mr. Soetoro did adopt Barack because 1) it was not necessary to list him as his child in the proceeding, for that purpose, unless he was the legal parent and 2) Barack did use the name Soetoro, even in school in Hawaii according to the documentary performed by CNN & Fox.
The 2 cases that you’ve cited are not applicable in this case. This is not a 14th Amendment Argument, where general citizenship is at the core. This is “natural born citizen”. You state that you believe in the Constitution; then I am certain that you will agree that the Constitution prescribes various levels of citizenship and does not reference the variations equally. The Dual Citizenship argument that you posed is null by Article 2, unless you are going to argue that Obama fits the “or citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” requirement (which is naturalized citizens). I am reading this document without attempting to prove my points, but just to see exactly what it said.
Regarding the marriage in Hawaii, an underaged young lady married a foreign national, with child prior to marriage. Barack and his mother did travel to Kenya, based on his statements. The question is “was she there when she was pregnant?” According to statements from his own family, prior to the gag, their accounts are that she was there and that his father had a wife there also.
I enjoy your posts. I think that you seem to want to pose facts when they tend to favor your position and discount facts from the same sources when they seem to provide conflicting accounts. My hope is that you and others will simply research the facts from credible sources and make your arguments. We don’t know what is admissible and what isn’t but we know this (& you have agreed):
1. He has/had dual citizenship with another country
2. His mother was 17 years old, when she married Obama’s dad and when she gave birth.
3. His mother married an Indonesian and moved to that country.
4. Obama changed his name to Soetoro, according to Indonesian documents.
5. His mother became pregnant with his sister, while living in Indonesia under the marriage laws of that country, and when she gave birth, she went to Hawaii to register the birth; his sister has a COLB also.
6. He traveled to Pakistan at some point prior to his 21st birthday.
7. In the divorce papers, he is listed as Soetoro’s child.
8. While in high school, he did not do well academically.
9. While attending Occidental College, he failed his course studies.
10. He applied to Columbia University and gained admittance.
11. He applied to Harvard University and gained admittance.
12. His father attended both schools on Student Visas.
When we just simply look at what we know (without looking at the person the information relates to), we can see that there are issues that exist. For one, each year, Columbia and Harvard are forced to decline admittance to some of our nations academic performers from high school to transfers and I cannot see how a person, who was an average student in high school and failed at a previous college, can gain admission to attend these prestigious schools, while competing with students who have simply excelled throughout their lives. This is important because he could have attended on a Foreign National Student Visa and that is one of the only ways to attend when your grades and past performance are questionable.
Thanks again for taking time to respond and I look forward to continued dialogue.
GeorgetownJD said:
You will be happy to learn that JeffM (and others!) are sharing with Apuzzo their vast knowledge of the law.
Ramjet and Simple Interest:
My point is that other attorneys have no difficulty in meeting brefing deadlines, particularly when a challenge to standing is not only predictable but practically guaranteed and the plaintiff’s attorney has had several months — since what, February? — to perform his research (on oft-cited cases) and craft his response. You apparently don’t see the irony in Apuzzo’s requesting an extension after he formally opposed the defendants’ request for an extension? I do.
RE: JeffM post dated July 7, 2009 at 11:08 am –
Your research is terrific. I hope Mario Apuzzo cites those cases.
Simple Interest says:
July 7, 2009 at 10:40 am
Black Lion says:
July 6, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I can hear you loud & clear. You continue to define people as Birthers. You stated in that post “Since their entire case relys on falsehoods or inadmissible evidence like the US Travel Ban in Pakistan in 1981, Obama being adopted…” as if someone made mistatements, but these are Obama’s statements….SO are you calling him a liar because he stated that he went to Pakistan and he stated that Soetoro was his father and that he attended school there (have you seen the Soetoro divorce papers where it lists 2 children—Obama and his sister)???? You and some of the others….I would rather here your argument based upon how a dual citizen can be a natural born citizen, even when the mother who is an underage child herself can go travel to Kenya and marry someone who is already married in Kenya? Clearly you have a bias & I don’t because it’s not about Obama for me….just the Constitution that I have sworn to uphold. I don’t care who it is….it could have been the terminator or any other dual citizen….my argument remains the same, but based on your responses & dialogue, I don’t think that you would take the same position for others.
Let me try and address your points…First of all Obama does state that he did go to Pakistan in 1981. However my point was that there was no travel ban there for Americans. So he went using an American passport. No where in Obama’s book does he stay that he was adopted by Soetero. The divorce papers are not adoption papers. No one has even come close to proving that Obama was adopted by Soetero and the divorce proceeding is ambiguous at best. It would be inadmissible in court as proof of adoption.
I don’t need to make an argument about dual citizenship. The SCOTUS has already made the argument in Wong Kim v Ark., and Perkins v. Elg. You may want to read those cases again. US citizens are not bound by the citizenship laws of other countries. So Obama being born in HI makes him a US citizen. It doesn’t matter if some other country is trying to make a claim. US law superceeds the laws of other countries. Unless you claim differently.
Thirdly you do know that Obama’s parents were married in Honolulu. And no evidence has ever been provided that she ever went to Kenya. So that statement does not need to be addressed. It is simpley not true.
I believe in the Constitution. And it never addresses any of the points you just mentioned. Most people believe that anyone born on US soil is a natural US citizen. Yes that was not affirmed by the SCOTUS, but neither has it been disproven. So like you my argument remains the same.
To GeorgeTownJD:
Read the bottom by line of the advertisement.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17107553/
Mr. Kerchner placed the advertisement on behalf and in support of his lawsuit. The essay by his attorney included in that ad was written on April 23, 2009 in his blog during the period of stalling by the defendants for four months while they wrote their motion to dismiss, meanwhile working on dismantling the American system using the Cloward-Piven Strategy of manufactured and orchestrated crisis to push through massive spending bills to bankrupt the country and try to totally socialize the country and then move even further into fascism.
See that April essay in Atty Apuzzo’s blog at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html
But your point is to ridicule and insult not to inform and educate, correct? One can read more about the tactics of the Saul Alinksy drones and their Rules for Radicals debating and street tactics and their strategies at this site:
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ
GeorgetownJD says:
July 7, 2009 at 12:32 am
Okay, let me see if I got this straight … Mario Apuzzo had plenty of time to write a full-page advertisement for the July 6 edition of the Washington Times, but he had insufficient time to draft and file a response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss that was due the same date, and therefore had to ask the court to grant him an extension of time? Have I got that correct?
The answer to your question is NO!!! You use the screen-name “GeorgetownJD” and if that is so, you know well that it is the Plaintiff’s right to request for additional time & it will be granted for fundamental fairness. His clients have the right to request an extension, just as the Defendants were granted the exact rights (except it was additional Months instead of Days that were sought and eventually granted). More importantly, the organization that has placed its ads, via its 1st Amendment rights, is separate from the case and is not listed as Plaintiff or Defendant. More importantly, the organization was created by the lead Plaintiff, not the lead Plaintiff’s attorney. So it is unfair to attack Mr. Apuzzo with such nonsensical statements. I guess when all else fails, it leaves no other choice but to participate in unsavory commentary!!!
C.n. natus
I refuted all three of them several days ago. You need to go back and look.
Ramjet:
well, if you insist on copying and pasting your stuff into multiple threads, I guess i will just have to correct your falsehoods on multiple threads:
And not a single edition in existence anywhere on the planet in any language even contained the phrase “natural-born citizen.” De Vattel never used it, and neither did any translator until 30 years after he was dead, and ten years after the Constitution was written.
It is impossible for de Vattel to have had anything to do with the definition of natural-born citizen as understood by the framers of the Constitution.
Unless you believe in time travel.
Here’s one for the quo warranto right and standing:
Rowan v. City of Shawneetown, 38 N.E.2d 2:
Interest in the question can be one of the following:
1. Direct interest via conflicting orders or employment
2. Individual would be directly harmed by the usurpation, i.e. runner up candidate
Additional information can be found here:
Union Pacific R.R. v. Colorado E. R.R. Co. 46 – This requires evidence of harm to the public for quo warranto
Wilson v. Blake, 260 – DA must show lack of action on the complaint of quo warranto
One more just for clarification:
People ex rel Ray v. Lewistown Community High School Dist.:
That covers 2 items in the response:
1. The evidence of standing
2. Burden of proof is on the defendant
3. Citizens can file quo warranto in special cases that are a matter of grave public interest
Phil,
“The nature of Mr. Apuzzo’s business as a lawyer representing Mr. Kerchner is likely protected by confidentiality. Therefore, perhaps you should contact Mr. Apuzzo directly on this issue, if you’re so inclined.”
Not inclined, so I’ll decline your invite. As an attorney, I meet deadlines imposed by the court and the rules of procedure. And when I do request an extension, I make sure my flanks are covered — I obtain a stipulation from opposing counsel and I sure as hell have a better excuse than “I was so busy drafting an advertisement for a newspaper that I didn’t have time to research the law and draft the pleading.” Don’t think that the judge won’t take notice of Apuzzo’s time management issue.
Black Lion says:
July 6, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I can hear you loud & clear. You continue to define people as Birthers. You stated in that post “Since their entire case relys on falsehoods or inadmissible evidence like the US Travel Ban in Pakistan in 1981, Obama being adopted…” as if someone made mistatements, but these are Obama’s statements….SO are you calling him a liar because he stated that he went to Pakistan and he stated that Soetoro was his father and that he attended school there (have you seen the Soetoro divorce papers where it lists 2 children—Obama and his sister)???? You and some of the others….I would rather here your argument based upon how a dual citizen can be a natural born citizen, even when the mother who is an underage child herself can go travel to Kenya and marry someone who is already married in Kenya? Clearly you have a bias & I don’t because it’s not about Obama for me….just the Constitution that I have sworn to uphold. I don’t care who it is….it could have been the terminator or any other dual citizen….my argument remains the same, but based on your responses & dialogue, I don’t think that you would take the same position for others.
Phil, you are right. I missed where he said that. That is on me. However my original question still remains. Which is how does solicting for an “ad” help in his case against President Obama? And I am not talking about his reason. I am talking about rationally. I have never heard of advertisements assisting in a lawsuit because all suits must be judged on the merits of the case. Unless I am wrong about that also.
GeorgetownJD,
The nature of Mr. Apuzzo’s business as a lawyer representing Mr. Kerchner is likely protected by confidentiality. Therefore, perhaps you should contact Mr. Apuzzo directly on this issue, if you’re so inclined.
-Phil
Black Lion,
Did you actually see the link to http://www.protectourliberty.org and subsequently click on it?
-Phil
Historian Dude in name only …
Vattel was published in 1758 and founders and framers and other leaders of the time such as Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, both influential in the Constitutional framing process were diplomats to France during the Rev. War and were fluent in French. Ben Franklin personally was given three additional copies by Dumas, the editor in 1775. Also, the esteemed John Jay who is responsible for the New York constitution and was responsible for the Natural Born Citizen phrase being in Constitution, was a descendant of immigrant French Huguenots who settled in the colony of New York.
We cannot overlook the French influence and European thought in the founding of our republic, particularly that of Vattel. It was the French who were our allies in the Revolutionary War. Frankline and Jay were diplomats to France for many years during the war. And it was the French Navy which helped us force the surrender of the British Army trapped at Yorktown by driving off the British fleet sent to rescue them.
Read this article on Vattel’s influence on the Natural Born Citizen term of art and on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at this link and the next one:
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
and more such Natural Born articles and News and Essay articles at this link:
http://www.thebirthers.org/
Also read this writing by Publius which show the pertinent definition by Vattel of the meaning of natural born citizen in French in 1758, reprinted in 1775, and translated into English in 1797. But the key founders and framers read French and used the French edition from the early 1770s to 1797. When able scholars and the learned will always choose to read such great works of as Vattel in the original language:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1169
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=105
HistorianDude is here not here to reveal history but instead to confuse and obfuscate it to do the bidding of his lord and master, Mr. O. He is obviously an O-Bot operative working for ACORN or the Obama legal team or internet cyber-warfare psy-ops campaign dis-information team, which has never shut down. Obama and crew are in continuous campaign mode.
RJ
Okay, let me see if I got this straight … Mario Apuzzo had plenty of time to write a full-page advertisement for the July 6 edition of the Washington Times, but he had insufficient time to draft and file a response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss that was due the same date, and therefore had to ask the court to grant him an extension of time? Have I got that correct?
HD, your comment shows that you are ignorant of some facts, as the arguments were marshalled lest than 7 days ago, on a thread you read. And no one refuted them.
Myson, what is a NBC? Your answer will explain your question….
hate that typo.
Kerchner pays for an ad. Now he’s begging for money. And advice. Ok. I suppose I don’t know how law suits usually work.
Phil, you are entitled to your opinion…You say the following…
“There is neither nothing wrong with asking for legal assistance nor is there anything wrong with asking for monetary assistance for certain initiatives. Further, while you seem to opine about how ignorant individuals sympathetic with questioning this President’s eligibility are, you’re similarly ignorant to the fact that the posting upon which you’ve commented has to do with soliciting money for an ad, not for the actual case.”
Where exactly does it say that the funds are for “an ad”? What does an ad have to do with an eligibility case? I must have missed that class on the law. Maybe I missed how solicting funds are germaine to proving or winning their “cases”. When I read the requests for money because Kerchner or Berg or Orly are “close” and as long as “real patriots” continue to send monatary support they can continue. Or WND and their joke of a billboard campaign. You might not agree but I am just calling them as I see them.
Black Lion,
Frankly, I think your comment is off the mark. There is neither nothing wrong with asking for legal assistance nor is there anything wrong with asking for monetary assistance for certain initiatives. Further, while you seem to opine about how ignorant individuals sympathetic with questioning this President’s eligibility are, you’re similarly ignorant to the fact that the posting upon which you’ve commented has to do with soliciting money for an ad, not for the actual case.
-Phil
“Civis naturaliter natus says:
The Obots who comment on this blog know it too, since they never even attempted to refute the SCOTUS cases I marshalled against Obama on the other thread, they just moved on to other threads and silly non-consequential objections….”
Would you be so kind as to repeat the citations of those SCOTUS cases for us here.
Thanks
OfByFor.US.com has made a donation…
As with all of the individuals suing Obama (Berg, Kerchner, and Orly), it always seems like they are solicting there poor followers for money or legal expertise. No cases have been successful but the demand for more funds is always out there. If it is not the individuals it is World Net Daily and their “Phoney Billboard Campaign”, it seems like the entire birther camp is about money. These birthers don’t realize that the “long con” is being perpetuated on them and that the chance of removing a sitting President by any means other than Congressional impeachments is next to impossible. The other funny part is that they actually believe that there is a judge out there that will allow them to use the discovery phase (if any of these cases gets past the dismissal phase) to compel Obama to produce documentation. That shows their ignorance of the law. No judge will allow that. They forget that they would have to provide compelling admissible evidence that would contridict the COLB that Obama has produced. Since their entire case relys on falsehoods or inadmissible evidence like the US Travel Ban in Pakistan in 1981, Obama being adopted, and the tape of his grandmother not to mention that the COLB was issued by HI and is the only document that they issue I don’t forsee any case where a judge will require Obama to release private personal documents. To think otherwise just shows how many people don’t understand the law.
john,
Here’s a great reference book re. quo warranto:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gHY8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA693&lpg=PA693&dq=%22quo+warranto%22+-obama+%22united+states%22+citizen&source=bl&ots=wzJE4co08Q&sig=tf8yHZcXZu2moXP5A7kaW1XPutQ&hl=en&ei=ajpSSr3vJ4TysQPqsMSqDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9
Pay particular attention to 22 R.C.L., section 15, page 680.
Excellent comments. Excellent initiative.
Thanks Phil for helping spread the news about Obama and his Chicago gang of cronies trying to ruin America. Your site is one of the best on the net despite the attempts at scrolling your comments sections by Earl and HD with constant posting of O-Bot talking points and obfuscations and dis-information psy-ops tactics.
Here is the URL to learn more about the mew Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit publicity campaign and fund drive initiative. I sent in my donation.
http://www.protectourliberty.org
It has a link to the new Series 2 advertorial in the Washington Times National Weekly edition on the street today. I really like it. Nice punchy headline and bullet boxes. And that picture of Obama is classic Obama. The man is arrogant and thinks we ordinary Americans are “sheeple” and he’s fooled us all. As an idea, print out the advertorial and use it for a flier at Tea Party or other group events, put a stack at your barber shop or hair dresser,if they will let you, or pass them on to interested friends. Email people the above link. We can all help by circulating the above URL to blogs we frequent. Let’s help the case and initiative go viral on the net. Sooner or later the Main Stream Media will have to cover this eligibility issue. The people will force them too or their credibility will go down with all the rest of those engaging in the CYA and cover ups of this issue. Beck is awakening, but he’s still not totally on board with talking about this. I think the FNC legal department is still “banning in Boston: this eligibility issue. But it is like holding a beach ball under water. Sooner or later this issue is going to pop to the surface. And then the Hurricane will start and wash the phonies all out of town.
Obama speaking out and siding immediately with a far left Honduran dictator trying to destroy the Constitution of that country and become President for life like Hugo Chavez did, and taking sides right away with Castro, Chavez, and Ortega, and not speaking out forcefully for days and days to help the Iranian people fighting for freedom shows his true loyalties. And it is not to our Constitution. Read one of the first bills his far left Dem buddies in Congress introduced after Obama got into the Oval Office, to repeal term limits for the President. Me thinks he wants to be President for life too. And don’t believe them when they say they don’t support this. Obama and Gibbs smirk, lie, ridicule, and smile while saying one thing and doing another. That is their m.o.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj111-5
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ.
C. n. natus…
You must not have been back there for a week or so. All three cases you “marshaled” were directly addressed several days ago.
I encourage all to support this appeal.
We patriots know Obama is not NBC.
The Obots who comment on this blog know it too, since they never even attempted to refute the SCOTUS cases I marshalled against Obama on the other thread, they just moved on to other threads and silly non-consequential objections….
That’s really why there are here, to distract us from the evidence and issues…in a vain attempt to save their Furer…
Kerchner welcomes any legal advice that can defeat the defendents motion to dismiss: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/
Please read the motion and try to pick it apartt. With 20 or 100 people studying this, so with legal expertise, we have really good chance at defeating this motion.
This motion can be defeated and hopefully it will and the case won’t be dismissed.
Once the case is not dismissed, the discovery phase can start and Charles and his lawyer can start getting in possession of Obama’s documents which will prove once and for all that he is a usurper and ineligible to be the POTUS.