Kerchner v. Obama: Plaintiffs Request Additional Time to Respond to Dismissal Motion
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, reports that he has asked the Court for additional time during which to respond to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss:
Defendants, Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint/petition. Their main argument is that the plaintiffs do not have standing and that all the defendants have immunity from all of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.
The current defense motion to dismiss the complaint/petition was returnable Friday, July 20, 2009. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due by Monday, July 6, 2009.
The defendants took over 4 months to file their motion. I was only given 2 weeks to respond. Given the critical importance of this case, the complexity and novelty of the constitutional issues, and the need to do a thorough job, I sought fit to request a 2-week extension of time to answer the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
I realize that by the extension we are losing two weeks, but winning the motion is more important than not losing the two weeks.
The new motion day is Friday, August 3, 2009. I will file our opposition papers at least 14 days prior to the new motion day, and the defendants shall file their reply papers, if any, at least seven calendar days prior to August 3, 2009.
I know that many of you have been posting on this blog your thoughts and analysis on how we can defeat the defendants’ motion. Your input is highly appreciated. I am asking that you continue to give me your ideas in this public blog. I encourage the open exhange of ideas so that we may all arrive at the best answer. Only stategy and personal matters will be treated confidentially. I will appreciate that if you do have a point you want to make, you provide a citation to support what you are saying, if a citation exists. If you do not have a citation, still make your argument. I will consider all comments and choose which points to incorporate into our opposition brief.
The points to research and comment on are standing and immunity. For a full reading of how the defendants are using these defenses to try to convince the judicial branch of government not to address the issue of Obama’s Article II “natural born Citizen” eligibility, you may clique on the link in this blog and view the defendants’ brief that they filed in support of their motion to dismiss.
The letter requesting a time extension follows…
Kerchner v Obama DOC 30 Ltr Request Ext Return Date to Aug 3rd 2009. Filed 20090706
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
Civis naturaliter natus,
Please cite the Article/Section/Clause to back up your assertion that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to interpret the Constitution.
-Phil
JVN,
The idiocy of your response is self-evident, as the Constitution has not given Congress any authority to interpret whether an act is constitutional, whereas:
In Minor Vs. Happert, the Supreme Court answers: a NBC is one born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents. In the Elg case it reaffirms this. In the Wong vs. Ark case it uses a new definition of “native born citizen” which is to be a class which encompasses more than just NBCs. In the Schieder case in 1964 it uses NBC as a subset of “native” following the precedent of the Wong case. It also says in the 1964 case that Congress has no authority to expand or restrict the rights of any class of citizen, but that is what they did on Jan 8, 2009, when then accorded the rights of a NBC to a native citizen (assuming O was born in Hawaii). Therefore that act is unconstitutional and he is ineligible. That this conclusion is SCOTUS supported. Whereas the contrary thesis, has no SCOTUS support.
Vattel: On Those Claiming Sovereignty of a Nation also Having to Respect the Fundamental Laws and the Constitution or Contract with the People
Vattel’s writings on the sovereign and sovereignty and the need of the sovereign to respect fundamental laws in which Vattel included the nation’s Constitution, and also when the People no longer owe obedience to the one claiming sovereignty if he breaks the Contract with the People:
The Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758, Vol.1, Chapter IV:
§ 46. The Prince ought to respect and support the fundamental laws.
. . . The prince ought to respect and support the fundamental laws. But when the sovereign power is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws of the state, those laws show the prince the extent and bounds of his power, and the manner in which he is to exert it. The prince is therefore strictly obliged not only to respect, but also to support them. The constitution and the fundamental laws are the plan on which the nation has resolved to labor for the attainment of happiness; the execution is intrusted to the prince. Let him religiously follow this plan; let him consider the fundamental laws as inviolable and sacred rules; and remember that the moment he deviates from them, his commands become unjust, and are but a criminal abuse of the power with which he is intrusted. He is, by virtue of that power, the guardian and defender of the laws: and while it is his duty to restrain each daring violator of them, ought he himself to trample them under foot?
and then in section 51 ….
§ 51. But the nation may curb a tyrant, and withdraw itself from his obedience.
. . . As soon as a prince attacks the constitution of the state, he breaks the contract which bound the people to him; the people become free by the act of the sovereign, and can no longer view him but as a usurper who would load them with oppression. This truth is acknowledged by every sensible writer, whose pen is not enslaved by fear, or sold for hire.
Contributed by:
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
Kerchner: On all citizens inalienable right to defend their liberty — It is the inalienable right of all citizens of the nation to stand up and protect their liberty right and support and defend the Constitution, the contract made by the People to which they agreed to be governed by, and the fundamental and supreme law of our land, against those who claim sovereignty over it and claim to be above it and the law, and/or attempt to betray, trample, or ignore it. Our first recourse of course is to the legal system and courts who in our system are supposed to be the legal guardians of the sanctity and supreme sovereignty of the Constitution, protecting it from the usurping of powers not granted to the other branches under our system, and/or their ignoring the Constitution and thinking they are sovereign to it. The courts are their to speak out via taking legal cases brought to it and making legal decisions to correct the offenders when the Constitution has been wronged. The courts should not shirk their responsibility. It is time for them to stand and support and defend the Constitution as they took an oath to do so. It is not a time for them to hide behind bureaucratic legal technicalities to find a means to hide from their duty to the Constitution and dismiss hearing the merits of a case. I seek that remedy with my lawsuit to demand a legally binding definition by the federal court, and if necessary which it likely will, by the Supreme Court, as to what the framer’s intended it to mean for the Article II term “natural born citizen” and also to demand hearings from Congress thereafter to use that definition and the history of our Constitution, and then acting together, the Supreme Court and the Congress will remove the usurper from the Oval Office in a legal and constitutionally proper way, as they shall determine. And at that point in time, if SCOTUS and Congress declare Obama to be an illegitimate President and they cannot enforce their decision that he is constitutionally ineligible to be the President and order that he should step down, and the Usurper refuses to leave the office, I believe the People will enforce the step down and leave order, with the help of the military if need be. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so to the best of my abilities. History will record the events of these times. ~~~ Charles Kerchner
Above from post in Atty Mario Apuzzo’s blog:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ
Kerchner: On sovereign immunity:
In the case of constitutional issues the Constitution is sovereign, and/or “We the People” by amending it by the process provided in that Constitution, not a branch of the federal government which is ignoring it. We the People created the federal government enabled by the founding document the federal U.S. Constitution. The Congress or the President cannot arbitrarily ignore the U.S. Constitution and those branches of the federal government cannot hide behind sovereign immunity. For if they can the Constitution is then no longer the supreme law of the land and the Congress and the President have placed themselves above that supreme law. We would no longer be a nation of laws if the supreme law of the land can be ignored and not enforced by the whims of the simple political majority in control of Congress.
I believe that Article I, Section 6, clause 1 protects the individual Senators and Reps from arrest and/or charges due to their speech and debate. It does not grant sovereign immunity to the Congress as a whole or the Senate as a body or the House as a body to totally ignore the Constitution, the “fundamental law” as Vattel describes such laws, and the foundational law of our federal government and nation. The sovereign power in our Republic is “We the People” and the Constitution we established to limit the power of the Federal Government, and thus the Congress which is part of that. Thus the Congress as a body in our government is not sovereign and thus cannot have sovereign immunity regarding charges that it as a body did not do its constitutional duty and/or ignored parts of the constitution. Who or what is the USA. It is the several states and We the People and the Constitution. It is not the Congress and it is not the President. The Constitution is the supreme and sovereign law. Congress is not sovereign and neither is the President and thus they cannot use sovereign immunity to betray and undermine the constitution. If the Congress is sovereign, then Congress would be the ultimate power and even be above the constitution. That is not our system of government. And that is not what Vattel taught either and wrote about a republic with a written constitution. The elected officials are our representatives and we acquiesce to them to run the government as long as they obey the Constitution and not ignore any part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and that these elected representatives act in a way to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our patriot ancestors and many who have served since fought and died to obtain and keep for us. The written Constitution is supreme and sovereign as that contract was established by We the People acting through the several states. And it states it takes 3/4th of the several states via agreement of the People of those states speaking through their respective legislative body to change that sovereign law, the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution is the supreme and sovereign law. The President and Congress are not above the law. I did not swear an oath defend a man or any particular President or a piece land. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so.
Above post and prior post posted in Atty Apuzzo blog:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ
The Law of Nations, Vattel, pub. 1758, Vol. 1 Chapter III § 30 — Of the support of the constitution and obedience to the laws.
. . . The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquility, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigor and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires. It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard. Sudden revolutions strike the imaginations of men: they are detailed in history; their secret springs are developed. But we overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service to show from history how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of mankind: — impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim (no less essential in politics than in morals) principiis obsta, — they would no longer shut their eyes against innovations, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, may serve as steps to mount to higher and more pernicious enterprises.
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ
The fact is that the Congress is the final Constitutional actor and arbiter of the legality and constitutionality of the Electoral vote process.
Perhaps if the issue had been raised during the count and if the Congress had then voted to reject the objection the the President’s eligibility, THEN those members who raised the objection MIGHT have standing to seek Court intervention.
Congress has decided that being born in the United States grants one NBC status. They have done that in their role as the final constitutional arbiter without dissent.
The USSC nor any other court can change that determination.
This has been over for quite a long time guys…
Oh, and the response to any Writ of Quo Warranto would simply be the written attestation of the President’s taking the oath of office. No need to satisfy anyone’s demand for “proof of eligibility.” The simple fact that he was certified by Congress and sworn in by the CJ would be all the “proof” the Court needed to show that he is lawfully exercising his office…
ramjet767 says:
Same thing, over and over. You guys fall in love with your tortured legal theories, right up until the dismissal — and sometimes still after that. The combination of the multiple non-starters merely gave the defense opportunity to object to the prolix nature of the complaint.
You do not need leave of the court to bring a Quo Warranto count if it is not brought as the only count in the case. Under the “All Writs” federal code, other counts such as Quo Warranto can be used in conjunction with other charges and counts, which Atty Apuzzo has done in his case.
Did you all see this?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17107553/
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ
JeffM says:
Given your record, JeffM, we should expect the opposite of your review’s conclusion. We o-bots, on the other hand, have a really, really good record at telling in advance how these legal actions go.
Apuzzo neglected to petition for leave to file quo warranto. The defects with the quo warranto complaint included that the plaintiffs can’t bring it, this court doesn’t hear it, quo warranto can’t remove the president, and President Obama’s warrant is immaculate.
The Kerchner et al vs. Obama and Congress et al case has a “Quo Warranto” count in it. See count XI on page 65 and the Prayer for Relief beginning on page 69:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-at-250-am-20Jan2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09Feb2009
http://www.thebirthers.org/
RJ
brygenon said:
Individuals don’t have standing using writ of mandamus such as Berg, Donofrio, etc.
Individuals do have standing using writ of quo warranto. I have reviewed at least 5 cases already where writ was granted to citizen(s), and quo warranto places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the defendent. Of the five cases, one involved a governor and the another a supreme court justice, both as defendents.
The bottom line is quo warranto is the proper and appropriate writ to file with regards to eligibility and fitness of officials in municipal offices, i.e. elected positions of public trust. There is much confusion over this, so you might want to complete some extensive research before making blanket statements with regards to standing.
In Analogy’
Abusive, PARENTS, ARE PROSECUTED, IMPRISIONED, OR AT THE VERY LEAST:
100% ABABDONED BY “VICTIM SUB-ORDINATES,(in this case US Citizens”) for their own well being, mental health, and opportunities to recover, and go on with life: from said abuse:
Should we be “masochist” and continue to be “MARRIED TO OBAMA ET/AL”
_______ NOT!:
What are your thoughts?
________And!:
What security provisions, of “watch-dogs, could be mandated, upon all RECOVERY effectiveness of:
________ THE ULTIMATUM:
OUST: THE OBAMA DNC FRAUDS,
GIVE US A REPLACMENT ELECTION
AND GIVE US: NOT BS; BUT REAL ACCOUNTIBILITY TO RID 99% CORRUPTION!
Or, ELSE: as the secession result, Obama is reduced the Mayor, of Corrupt DC, with his 20 trillion dollars of his OWN debt:
__________and all 50 States Seceded!
_Obama, as result, is, Just another: Mayor / Crack – Head of DC!
*********++++++++++++++******
**** OMG: ALBATROSSES 1 TO 10:****
1). APUZZO, TAITZ, CRAIG, BERG, ETC.: MAXIMIZE MOMENTUM EFFECTIVE JUDGEMENTS
2).Poll numbers for Obama fast going to zero, like all other: Marxist! And: LEO DONOFRIO: IS DETERMINED TO BE OBAMA’S DISTANT COUSIN, MORE IMPORTANLY, HE IS OBAMA’S MASONIC MASTER , DEMANDING OBAMA RESIGN.
3). OBAMA TO RESIGN UPON FILLING OF CIVIL SUITS AGAINST HIS TWO DAUGHTERS AND MICHELE AND ALL OF (BOTH) THEIR RELATIVES AND TO HAVE THEIR ESTATES
Confiscated back to US treasury, violation of profiteering from biggest felonies in world history!
4). DICK CHENNY TO TESTIFY AGAINST OBAMA!
BLOOD SWORN OATH TO WRONGFULLY WACKED: SCOOTER LIBBY!
5). GEORGE BUSH SAYS HE WAS BLACKMALLED BY PELOSI/OBAMA!
6). OBAMA GETS A HIGHER PAYING JOB OFFER: IN IRAN TO REPLACE AHMADINEJAD!!
7). LAW SUIT AND DOCUMENT CONFICACTION OF “FACT- CHECK.ORG”. REVEALS MULIPLE FAKE DRAFT COPIES OF COLB, MIXED WITH CONDOMS IN THEIR “GAY-ROOM”
8). MICHELE CONVERTS TO REAL CHRISTIANITY(from back/ slidden Agnostic), AND CANNOT BARE THE SLAUGHTER OF MILLIONS OF MINORITY BABIES TO BE SLAUGHTERED BY BARACH/SORROS!
9). David Letterman cannot spell: “replacement POTUS: COLAN POWEL:”
10). ALL 50 STATES JUST SAY NO TO CRACK-HEAD-OBAMA; AND PROCESS SECESSION FROM DC TO FORM “FREE AND CLEAR OF Sorros/Obama et/al: LUCERFIERIAN’S: {Reborn USA!}
Teapot Tempest asks:
The dismissal memorandum and order in Berg v. Obama (the first) has a detailed explanation, with citations: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/28/
So you have your answer.
How is it that after all these months and all these dismissals, you guys still have not figured out “standing?”
Teapot Tempest says:
July 6, 2009 at 10:46 pm
“I have a dear friend in Kentucky who wrote Sen. Mitch McConnell, only to get back a response that the Hawaiian State Government’s proof of the certificate was enough. My conservative friend believes that if there is an attempt to remove the usurper from the White House that the blacks will riot in the streets. He has given up hope.”
Are you kidding me? “Blacks will riot in the street”. That is such a ridiculous, insulting and ignorant statement it defies belief. Your friend obvious has no problems. Maybe McConnell understands the law and realizes that the COLB is suffcient proof of birth because he knows that is the only proof that the state of HI will provide.
A response like that basically means that even if everything is proven and Obama is eligible he really isn’t because government officials are afraid of “some rioting Blacks”…So no matter what eveidence Obama provides there will be some that will believe that he was not born here and guilty of all of the made up charges that the birthers have come up with.
Please forgive me if I am not up to snuff on just when this case was originally brought before the court, but if the eligibility was challenged BEFORE any kind of Constitutional protection could be set in motion, then isn’t there an argument for justice being delayed to the plaintiffs? Shouldn’t the current proceedings be necessarily linked to the original time and circumstances of this challenge? And wouldn’t those circumstances at that time set up a different standard for standing of the plaintiffs?
Then, from another angle, it would appear that there is no precedent for this particular court action within our Presidential history. Thus it logically follows that there is also no historical precedent for such a request of immunity in these completely new and unique circumstances for the court to legally rely upon. Therefore there is no historical foundation of immunity for such defendants to use in such current circumstances. How can they claim immunity under the Constitution when the actual eligibility for such a claim remains historically questionable? And it, eligibility for such requested immunity itself, as yet still needs to be established and clarified by a court.
Allowing Obama, who was born to a British subject who was never a u.s. citizen, comprimises and injure’s
the inherited status and exclusive “right” of a “natural born citizen” to run for President against another “natural born citizen,
as only “natural born” citizen’s are eligible to be President.
It create’s un-just competition.
Dan Smith, L.I.,NY
Oops, “supreme court” should be changed to “Constitution”!
The claim that the average citizen does not have standing to seek from the courts a redress of a congressional act which impinges upon him personally would violate the substance of the 10th and 1st Ammendments, and negate the very first sentence of the Constitution.
Indeed, since no determination of the Supreme Court is without effect, there must be a mechanism for questioning the constitutionality of the Congressional vetting of a Presidential candidate chosen by the Electoral College, even when that choice is made wihout any objection, otherwise the founding fathers would have written that the President must meet certain criteria for eligibility, as the pleasure of the Congress, if they decide to enforce this, otherwise not. But they used a more strict expression, that “no one shall be”, implying judicial oversight in all cases of the constitutionality of the joint Sessions decision.
Now it is obvious that in the hypothetical case of there being no objections, and yet an unconstitutional act, there would only remain the 1st Amendment (right of redress) and the 10th Admendment to fall back on to justify a judicial review. There would also only remain the possibility of private citizen action, because the new govt so constituted would not question itself.
Thus, there must be admitted, at least in this case, the privelege of exemption from the doctrine of standing…
(If this argument has value, someone who can post on Puzzo’s blog is kindly asked to do so…)
Useful quote about claim of immunity by Congress, Cheney & Pelosi:
Source: Article I, Section 6 US Constitution; see http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec6.html
Quote from above:
“Defendants, Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint/petition. Their main argument is that the plaintiffs do not have standing and that all the defendants have immunity from all of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.”
How does any U.S. citizen not have standing? The laws and the Constitution apply to everybody and everyone of us. But not to someone after he or she has been elected to office? They have more rights than we do after they take an oath of office? The office we elected them to?
What is this immunity the defendants have that they do not have to comply? We have all been taught that no one is above the law. But Pelosi and Cheney, the members of the House and Senate ignored the simple “rules” of vetting the usurper. How can the elected officials and the judges at every level believe that if they ignore us this problem (well it’s likely just an annoyance to the people with power) will go away?
I have a dear friend in Kentucky who wrote Sen. Mitch McConnell, only to get back a response that the Hawaiian State Government’s proof of the certificate was enough. My conservative friend believes that if there is an attempt to remove the usurper from the White House that the blacks will riot in the streets. He has given up hope.
I cannot give up.