Kerchner v. Obama: Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, reports that the Defendants have filed their reply to his Opposition Brief:
Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 37 Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition Brief to Defendants MTD
Charles Kerchner, the lead Plaintiff, makes the following commentary:
As I read these documents and the docket, the motion decision dates are now scheduled as follows: on or about 3 August 2009 on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit and on or about 17 August 2009 on the Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to get leave from the court for the 2nd Amended Verified Complaint portion of the lawsuit Nunc Pro Tunc, which said motion the Defendants are opposing as the defendants want that 2nd Amended Verified Complaint stricken. Note: The 2nd Amended Verified Complaint was the only one served on the Defendants.
Atty Apuzzo will likely comment more on this later.
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)
This feels like the silence before a storm.
my favorite line is that “it is too long” to respond too.
ROFLMAO
what a bunch of crooks we have in office
I am tired of these defendents trying to get out of telling the truth about BO. He has to go. The founding fathers of this country fought the British to be free of British not to have a British subject take over the presidency. They have to give the plaintiffs a chance. This BO denying, delaying, destroying, lying, fraud, has to end. That forged BC is an obvious forgery. We have to show are picture ID to just enter a Govt bldg, while BO gets away with taking presidency with no real ID or BC to even prove he is a natural born.
Kevin J,
From a non-attorney opinion, because of the way in which Mr. Apuzzo responded, the Defendants had to respond in the way they did. I’m sure that doesn’t make it too much clearer, but there are different motions … in motion on this matter. That’s as good as I can put it at the moment.
-Phil
I have always thought and have mentioned before in previous motions before the court that wounded veterans who could or could not be recalled to action – veterans even with various degrees of injuries sustained during THIS presidency – would make visible and concrete evidence for standing. Such plaintiffs would also be hard for the general public to outwardly be critical of and would also influence the judge due to the obvious standing before him/her. Wonder of Orly has recruited or is trying to recruit such men/women who would wonder if the various orders – under the influence of the changing rules of war by THIS “president” – might have placed them in greater danger. They are no longer seen as “part of a whole” that wonders IF they are called to duty, but are living breathing individuals with real injuries.
Phil,
I’m lost on this now. Can you please give us non-lawyer-types your esteemed opinion about what has happened here with this latest court announcment?
Thanks.