Kerchner v. Obama: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Filed
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, reports that he has filed a Plaintiff’s Brief Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss:
Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 34 Plaintiffs Brief Opposing Defendants Motion to Dismiss
In the above, Mr. Apuzzo is also requesting that the Court “Alternatively to Strike the Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Supporting Cross-Motion for Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File the Second Amended Complaint/Petition.” According to LectLaw.com, here’s a definition of “nunc pro tunc:”
Nunc pro tunc literally means “now for then.”
Occasionally, a court or party to a divorce forgets to file the papers necessary to obtain the final decree (after the interlocutory judgment has been granted), and the result is that the divorce never becomes final. If the oversight presents a problem (for example, one party has already remarried, or there is a tax advantage to being divorced earlier), the court may agree to issue a nunc pro tunc order, which grants the final divorce retroactive to the earlier date.
This phrase is used to express that a thing is done at one time which ought to have been performed at another. Leave of court must be obtained to do things nunc pro tunc, and this is granted to answer the purposes of justice, but never to do injustice. A judgment nunc pro tunc can be entered only when the delay has arisen from the act of the court.
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?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- 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
Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Greg Goss:
Of course.
jtx says:
July 23, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Black Lion:
I see that you’re no more accurate (or truthful) than the pose you have on other sites – just one ad homenium after another.
Let’s see what the Aug 3 ruling comes up with, eh???
________________________________________________________________
JTX, I see that you are still ignorant of the law. We are all still waiting for you to explain how the British Nationality Act of 1948 superceeds the US Constitution, US Law, and SCOTUS rulings regarding citizenship. We are all interested on how foriegn law affects US law. You never address this question because you can’t. So as usual you have nothing to say.
And August 3, I forsee the same result that all of the other cases received, dismissed. And you will be 0 for whatever…
Hey HD, Hypothetical question here…..If Mario and Kerchner are successful, and Obama is removed from office, will you except that?
Black Lion:
I see that you’re no more accurate (or truthful) than the pose you have on other sites – just one ad homenium after another.
Let’s see what the Aug 3 ruling comes up with, eh???
C. n. natus:
Read what in Vattel? Are you now making up Vattel references now too?
HD,
English common law had a definition of “natural born citizen”?
You are very confused.
In English common law there is a definitino of “natural born subject” though…but that is not pertinent to the discussion, directly speaking, because citizenship in a republic differs from allegience in a Kingdom. Read Vattel….
Anyhow, I am always glad to get your ire up: it means my post cut to too close to the truth, and you have to sputter something out to attempt vainly to convince others not to pay attention…though they do…
By the way, your argument against Design was very faulty…
Civis,
The holdings of Scott v. Sandford and Chisolm have been overturned and the cases are no longer good law. Chisolm is inapposite anyways, given that it applied to sovereign immunity of the states, not the federal government. Kerchner does not cite those cases in support of his argument for standing, but rather for the merits of his case.
As for my discussion of Kerchner’s claims in re standing, can you please explain how they are flawed?
With regards to typos in a brief, when an attorney can’t even be bothered to spend five minutes proofreading his filings, what does that say about the time, effort, and care he put into researching and writing that brief?
C. n. natus:
It does not matter. The title of the chapter is not relevant to the dispute.
It remains a simple and incontrovertible fact that at the time of the framing of the Constitution, there existed one and only one definition of “natural born citizen.” And that definition is that of English common law; i.e. born on national soil. Full stop.
There was no other, and the definition preferred by birtherswas never even associated with de Vattel until ten years after the Constitution was framed, and thirty-years after de Vattel’s death. It was never once a product of either his pen or his mouth. As such it can have had exactly no influence on the phrase in article II.
Black Lion,
Apology, typing blackberry while commuting /work, no, Spell check: bb.
Should be; “wonderful!, Black Americans” as:
Where is your common sense? Are you happy that “obama” only abuses OUR
____WONDERFUL!!
BLACK AMERICAN CITIZENS,
_____ BUT HE; IN HIS:
SAUDIA ARABIAN- BILLION-AEIR- CONCIETED ELETE ARROGANCE, HAS PLANNED TO EXTERMINATE YOUR BABIES, YOUR’S AND MY PEOPLE
: IN EUGENICS:
Civis naturaliter natus says:
July 22, 2009 at 6:53 am
“He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were “born in the country of two citizens of the country”. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212[/quote]”
Yawn. You think you can sell this cr@p to the average American that watches So You Think You Can Dance, Rock of Love and Keeping Up with The Kardashians? “French translations, naturels, natives say what now? How’s that about reading the full context in French no less? This is America. What do I care about the French. Oh, Obama is a french communist native naturel?”
“He’s not a citizen.” “Show us the Birth Certificate” was working so much better for you. Wasn’t going to accomplish what you wanted, but it was snappy and easy to remember. Naturales, natureles and natives, in the original French? HA.
Civis naturaliter natus says:
July 21, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Black Lion,
You are as bold a liar as HD, if you are not HD that is.
Vattel is inadmissable before Scotus!
That’s crazy: Scotus has cited Vattel on NBC, as Apuzzo’s filing states (giving 5-6 quotes and cases).
Read the breifing and stop posting screed that only makes you look stupid and dishonest…
________________________________________________________________
Please cite for us where they used it as the basis for their opinion. I doubt you will find that. The cases you will try and cite make a statement that some may infer from de Vatel that he may have meant that, but the Court declines to rule on that issue. Yes they reviewd it, but never based a decision on it. If we are discussing stupid and dishonest, you may want to reread your own posts.
The Real Black Lion’s Conscious’ says:
July 22, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Do you actually read what you write? I mean your post has to be the most innane post ever on this site. You make no sense whatsoever. If selling my soul means did I read the relevant parts of the US Constitution, US law, SCOTUS rulings such as Wong Kim and Perkins v. Elg and other relevant cases, then you would be correct. I did sell out. I decided to become informed and not remain ignorant. I hope you can do the same.
1Lishell says:
July 21, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Kerchner admits that he fails the Lujan test, because their only basis for standing is that they are United States citizens. He admits that any injury is hypothetical, not concrete, because he has not been recalled. Kerchner cites no mandatory, or even particularly persuasive, authority for his contention regarding the Vattelian definition of natural citizenship. Kerchner repeatedly confuses factual allegations-Obama is not a citizen-with legal conclusions-Vattel’s definition is correct. The court must construe all factual contentions in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, but the same is not true of legal conclusions or assertions. See also Morse v. Lower Merrion School Dist., 114 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997); Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 287 (5th Cir. 1993).
Even more explicitly, Kerchner admits that there is “‘invasion or ‘violation’ of personal indivisible legal rights” [sic]. Pet’r’s Br. at 29. Without such an injury, there is no standing. Way to go Kerchner.
Furthermore, although going to the “poles” may not be a valid way of protecting one’s rights and interests, going to the polls certainly would be. Nor has Kerchner shown how it would affect him should President Obama sign an invalid foreign “treatise.” For that matter, Kerchner has not even explained what an invalid foreign “treatise” is. Is it an invalid article appearing in an overseas journal?
Finally, there is the issue of Twombly’s plausibility test. Although Kerchner references Twombly in his brief, he does not cite to, or discuss, the holding of that case.
In fact, he cites an older case that was superseded by Twombly, and fails to explain even how the “reasonable reading” standard in that case is met.
To support his argument that there is no such thing as sovereign immunity, Kerchner cites Chisolm, a case that was overturned subsequently, and is no longer good law. Of course, the brief does not mention this.
There’s many, many, many more problems with that brief, but my brain hurts from the bad research, bad writing, and bad editing.
*******************************************************************************
Nice that you admit to your flaws finally!!! We all are aware of your “bad research, bad writing, and bad editing”!! Why are you back….Oh you need to go somewhere to get the truth….I see!!!
bob strauss says:
July 22, 2009 at 10:21 am
Maybe Dick Cheney will save the USA once again. With Dick Cheney, on the respondents side, of the law suit, he, and his lawyer, are in a position, in the suit,opposite of Obama. Mario Apuzzo may have Obama in checkmate, with the help of Dick Cheney.
*****************************************************************************
That is a great point Bob…..he may just allow the suit to proceed just because he doesn’t buy into BO’s BS either!!!!
ILilshell,
Regarding the cases you cite as overturned: be more specific.
Are the parts cited by Apuzzo overturned, or other aspects of the case.
A decision which used arguments for standing and was overturned for other aspects, is not overturned regarding the arguments for standing.
Otherwise, your argument itself is flawed and Apuzzo’s stands.
Your quips about typos, however, make me doubt you are sincerely interested in the truth: ad hominems always reveal prejudice in a speaker..
Black Lion,
So how much did you $ell your soul to the “darth vader” dark side?
Oh come on,
now,
you remember, your innocence few;
days, “a long time ago?
Where is your common sense? Are you happy that “obama” only abuses OUR WONDER BLACK AMERICAN CITIZENS,
_____ BUT HE; IN HIS:
SAUDIA ARABIAN- BILLION-AEIR- CONCIETED ELETE ARROGANCE, HAS PLANNED TO EXTERMINATE YOUR BABIES, YOUR’S AND MY PEOPLE
: IN EUGENICS,
_________AS WORTHLESS
NON-HARVARD, INFERIOR BEINGS?
PLEASE, YOU and thousands others of additional wonderful Black Americas deserve to be our US: POTUS!
______, not mr. Sold out Puppet!
Black lion, you cannot be that STUPID!?
Even “Darth Vader”, admitted the price of your arrogance, stenches of stink to your soul,..
So, Black Lion,
Are you gonna climb out of your hole, and fight your addictions?
1Lishell,
Welcome back from your hiatus from my site! Glad to see you back — in typical form
-Phil
Maybe Dick Cheney will save the USA once again. With Dick Cheney, on the respondents side, of the law suit, he, and his lawyer, are in a position, in the suit,opposite of Obama. Mario Apuzzo may have Obama in checkmate, with the help of Dick Cheney.
‘Phil, Please Describe Why Any Of The Plaintiffs Accept Any Pleadings, WHATSOEVER, From “BO”: His Own Book He Was Adopted And No Legal Record Of Name Change: Barack Obama DOES NOT EXIST, Legally! says:
July 21, 2009 at 1:44 pm
KISS:, KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID,
Agreed…Lets keep it simple…Nowhere in any of President Obama’s books does he claim that he was adopted. You obviously have never read any of them or you would know that.
There has never been any record in the US of a Barry Soetero. There was never any proof of a name change by President Barack Obama to anything else.
WHY ARE NOT THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNIES’
_”SUPER PRE-EMPTING ALL MOTIONS
As a matter of Court Rules of Procedures and Codes:
1). Demand scanctions against defendants attorneys, for knowingly filing false ‘affidavits’ (universal fact that “he” acknowledged being “Barry Soetoro” as know fact he never legally changed his name!)
Simple. The President since his birth has been known as Barack Obama. There has never been any legally admissible evidence to show otherwise. He has never acknowledged being this “Barry Soetero” person nor had he ever legally changed his name.
2) Demand that defendants attorneys provide any proof of his identy where by they may sign for him, or power of attorney”
That is not how the law works. Thankfully we are a nation of laws. His COLB is considered proof enough.
HIS DRIVERS LICENCE IS SUSPENDED IN IL. FOR FALSE DOCUMENTS AND TICKETS:
Do you have proof to make this claim? Where is the source that shows that the President’s license was suspended for anything?
IT HAS NOT BEEN “LEGAL FOR ANY NOTARY TO NOTORIZE HIS SIGNATURE PRIOR WITH A SUSPENDED STATE I’d!, IE PREVIOUS SUITS BY BERG, BEFORE, FAKE WH I’d.
This claim is ridiculous.
SIMPLY: TO ARGUE THAT “BARRY” DECLARES THAT HE WAS ADOPTED BY “LOLO” SOETORO, AND HE WAS NO LONGER,
________BARACK OBAMA;
Please provide proof that the President has ever claimed that he was adopted or show proof that he was. If not this is inadmissible hearsay.
AND HE MUST PROVIDE PROOF OF NAME CHANGE BEFORE ANY PLEADINGS TO BE ACCEPTED OR REFER TO LOCAL PROSECUTORS FOR FORGERY/ FRAUD PROSECUTIONS??
Not true. Unless you know of a section of the law that states that? I doubt it though. As usual just make some outragous claims with no sort of evidence whatsoever. Actually it is good that Phil allows these kinds of postings. It shows rational people how ridiculous some of the claims are and how disturbed some people are.
‘ Ben Franklyn: “most obvious common sense thing to do: is least commonly done”. ‘
It’s actually Ben Franklin…
S. RES. 511:
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
Senator Leahy:
“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen…”
Preamble: We the people of the United States …establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.
Article VI: The Senators and Representatives …shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support [DEFEND] this Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only …in adhering to their Enemies”
Barack Hussein Obahmadinejihad:
“I’ve now been in 57 States…”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
“I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced… So let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam”
“America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida.”
“We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. …We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country.”
“The United States has been enriched by Muslim-Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country… I know, because I am one of them.”
57 States: http://www.oic-oci.org/member_states.asp
Obama surrenders to the Iranian Mullahs: “My administration is now committed to diplomacy [appeasement] that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran [Mullahs] , and the international community [57 States]. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek engagement [submission to Islam] that is honest [deceptive] and grounded in mutual respect [deception]…”
The Islamic regime of the Iranian Mullahs is an enemy of the United States.
“Prior to [the] disputed presidential election in Iran, Barack Hussein Obahmadinejihad sent a letter to the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei …An Iranian with knowledge of the overture …told The Washington Times that the letter was sent between May 4 and May 10 and laid out the prospect of ‘cooperation in regional and bilateral relations’ ”
Barack Hussein Obama II was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”, as his father was a “citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies”. Thus, Obahmadinejihad is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
British Nationality Act 1948
Part II
Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Citizenship by descent.
5.—(1)…a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…
Barack Hussein Obama II is NOT “of the country” of the United States of America, and is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, as his father was a “foreigner”…
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…
[419] Again:
[420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.
The WONG court specifically stated that Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 established that “all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS]“. Hence, Obahmadinejihad is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States, as his father was a “foreigner”.
A “citizen of the United States at birth” is NOT synonymous with a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, …becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.
[35] That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS] does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”
Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The original french text in question:
http://www.thebirthers.org/img/Vattel.jpg
I cite a patriot from another blog, who makes the following comment, which confirms my reading of Vattel’s french, as stated the other week:
————–
http://www.thebirthers.org/
(see link under NBC, Vattel)
I just learned something new today from that site, after seeing the French version of Vattel’s Law of Nations (I’ve never seen the French version before):
[quote]“Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “[b]Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word “indigenes” for natives along with “Les naturels” in that sentence.
He used the word “naturels” to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were “born in the country of two citizens of the country”. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel’s use of the word “natives” in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212[/quote]
I was amused to see Apuzzo cite A. R. Amar. I like to cite Professor Amar’s article in Slate from Feb 2008, for his clear explanation of “natural born citizen”.
http://slate.com/id/2183588/.
I read Apuzzo’s brief.
Ms. Pelosi is being sued as the Chair of the Democratic Convention, i.e. not as Speaker of the House. The Political Party office offers her absolutely no claim of immunity. One of her duties was to certify Barack Obama candidacy, a duty that she performed as far as we know without properly vetting the candidate.
Personally I like the argument about the lack of Congressional scrutiny of Mr. Obama’s more questionable citizenship status whereas Mr. McCain’s citizenship status was examined prior to both in the last election and the election previous to the last.
May Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner have an open minded judge. Mr. O posted the sign announcing the NBC violation himself, daring anyone to challenge him and knowing full well that he was challenging the Constitution if he were to serve as President.
Next Time you pay for something with cash, be sure your money bills bear the Great Mark Of Obama – “Obama! Where is Your Birth Certificate?”
Black Lion,
You are as bold a liar as HD, if you are not HD that is.
Vattel is inadmissable before Scotus!
That’s crazy: Scotus has cited Vattel on NBC, as Apuzzo’s filing states (giving 5-6 quotes and cases).
Read the breifing and stop posting screed that only makes you look stupid and dishonest…
Kerchner admits that he fails the Lujan test, because their only basis for standing is that they are United States citizens. He admits that any injury is hypothetical, not concrete, because he has not been recalled. Kerchner cites no mandatory, or even particularly persuasive, authority for his contention regarding the Vattelian definition of natural citizenship. Kerchner repeatedly confuses factual allegations-Obama is not a citizen-with legal conclusions-Vattel’s definition is correct. The court must construe all factual contentions in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, but the same is not true of legal conclusions or assertions. See also Morse v. Lower Merrion School Dist., 114 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997); Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 287 (5th Cir. 1993).
Even more explicitly, Kerchner admits that there is “‘invasion or ‘violation’ of personal indivisible legal rights” [sic]. Pet’r’s Br. at 29. Without such an injury, there is no standing. Way to go Kerchner.
Furthermore, although going to the “poles” may not be a valid way of protecting one’s rights and interests, going to the polls certainly would be. Nor has Kerchner shown how it would affect him should President Obama sign an invalid foreign “treatise.” For that matter, Kerchner has not even explained what an invalid foreign “treatise” is. Is it an invalid article appearing in an overseas journal?
Finally, there is the issue of Twombly’s plausibility test. Although Kerchner references Twombly in his brief, he does not cite to, or discuss, the holding of that case.
In fact, he cites an older case that was superseded by Twombly, and fails to explain even how the “reasonable reading” standard in that case is met.
To support his argument that there is no such thing as sovereign immunity, Kerchner cites Chisolm, a case that was overturned subsequently, and is no longer good law. Of course, the brief does not mention this.
There’s many, many, many more problems with that brief, but my brain hurts from the bad research, bad writing, and bad editing.
hopefully the judge will not be in the pocket of the DemoCRAPS and give the Plaintiffs a fair shake!!!
Judge Jerome B. Simandle was nominated by George H.W. Bush.
After all of the time Apuzzo had to come up with his motion to dismiss, this is the best that he can do? Apuzzo is the best lawyer of the birther bunch? You have to be kidding me. His motion looks like he did a copy and paste from Berg’s failure. He still did not address the issue of standing. He did not address how a possible if improbable recall could create an injured party.
In addition he cites de Vattel, which any attorney knows is inadmissible for the SCOTUS to use in order to even consider. Also in citing Wong Kim he neglected to include the natural born aspects of the case. He didn’t mention Perkins v. Elg and the affect that would have on his argument. He has supplied no admissible proof to support his “forged COLB” claims.
It is actually funny reading this case. It is a little better than Orly’s crap, which was copied from Berg. Unfortunately without being able to address the standing issue, this will not survive a motion to dismiss.
How many of you getting pulled over for a ticket can claim that you are “John F. Kennedy” or someone that you are not; and you think that you be proclaimed “Messiah” because you are a “CREATIVE LIAR”!?
KISS:, KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID,
WHY ARE NOT THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNIES’
_”SUPER PRE-EMPTING ALL MOTIONS
As a matter of Court Rules of Procedures and Codes:
1). Demand scanctions against defendants attorneys, for knowingly filing false ‘affidavits’ (universal fact that “he” acknowledged being “Barry Soetoro” as know fact he never legally changed his name!)
2) Demand that defendants attorneys provide any proof of his identy where by they may sign for him, or power of attorney”
HIS DRIVERS LICENCE IS SUSPENDED IN IL. FOR FALSE DOCUMENTS AND TICKETS:
IT HAS NOT BEEN “LEGAL FOR ANY NOTARY TO NOTORIZE HIS SIGNATURE PRIOR WITH A SUSPENDED STATE I’d!, IE PREVIOUS SUITS BY BERG, BEFORE, FAKE WH I’d.
SIMPLY: TO ARGUE THAT “BARRY” DECLARES THAT HE WAS ADOPTED BY “LOLO” SOETORO, AND HE WAS NO LONGER,
________BARACK OBAMA;
AND HE MUST PROVIDE PROOF OF NAME CHANGE BEFORE ANY PLEADINGS TO BE ACCEPTED OR REFER TO LOCAL PROSECUTORS FOR FORGERY/ FRAUD PROSECUTIONS??
‘ Ben Franklyn: “most obvious common sense thing to do: is least commonly done”. ‘
Mr. Apuzzo did an awesome job….I am looking forward to a judge reading his brief….hopefully the judge will not be in the pocket of the DemoCRAPS and give the Plaintiffs a fair shake!!!
[...] This post was Twitted by Justonepeople [...]