Posted on 10/01/2010 10:41:23 AM PDT by STARWISE
Complete title:
Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit
_______________________________________________
*snip*
Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC, on behalf of plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ.
Plaintiffs are challenging the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, which affirmed the dismissal by District Judge, Jerome Simandle, sitting in the Federal District Court, Camden, NJ, of plaintiffs’ lawsuit in which they charge that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has NOT conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and that he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born Citizen of the United States
Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama's father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident.
Obama's father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship.
Rest @ link
(Excerpt) Read more at puzo1.blogspot.com ...
None were submitted because Cheney never asked for them. That’s the problem. People have tried to say that they had to be submitted IN ADVANCE, but that just isn’t true, according to the law. The law only says that the VP is to ask if there are any objections and objections must be in writing signed by one person from the House and one from the Senate.
So I ask you again: Why didn’t Cheney ask the question? If there were no objections to be submitted then the legal process would be complete. So why didn’t he do it? Why didn’t Pelosi MAKE him do it?
Your questions of why Hagmann hasn’t presented the affidavits he claims just shows you don’t get what I’m saying. If the scenario I’m wondering about really happened anybody who came forward would initiate the crashing of the entire world economy. Do you think anybody in such a scenario would consider themselves a hero or welcome that fame? You just don’t seem to be comprehending this.
In ‘81 and ‘92 SCOTUS had pending cases regarding the President-elect and still invited him to an ex parte meeting? Please tell me the name of the cases pending.
Settled law? That’s why Thomas said they are “evading the issue”? That doesn’t sound “settled” to me.
Tell me the names of the investment banks who made a run on each other.
As to whether economic variables can be manipulated strategically on a large scale, your protests don’t mean much when Soros has already done this in multiple countries. I don’t have to be an expert to see what is in front of my face.
When you become an expert on musical composition and the laws and rules in Hawaii, THEN you can complain about me not taking the time out right now to become an economic expsert. But point me to the documentation which shows which banks made the run on each other in September of 2008 and with the help of my friends I will dig through it.
When will you dig through the Hawaii DOH Administrative Rules and the Hawaii Revised Statutes?
And when will you come up with some answers that really DO fit Occam’s Razor regarding the questions I’ve asked?
So Cheney, SCOTUS, Hagmann and all the others are keeping silent because if they don’t the bad guys will collapse the world econonmy - just like they threatened to do in 2008?
I’ve just spent the last several posts explaining (patiently) why such a scenario doesn’t make sense but you seem to be ignoring them. In the spirit of good debate, I’ll summarise my points once again:
* The investment banks used toxic assets to bulk up their capital ratios.
* The collapse in asset values had two effects. Firstly, it began to undermine the inv. banks’ balance sheets and their capital ratios. Secondly, that began to cause a loss of confidence in their ability to satisfy depositor demand.
* The inv. banks began to withdraw the deposits they kept with other inv. banks to bolster their own balance sheets.
* This was a flawed policy because it amplified the uncertainty and enhanced the idea that all depositors should withdraw their money.
* Stability was restored when the Fed said that it would guarantee those banks liabilities.
That last one, AND IT’S THE IMPORTANT ONE so read CAREFULLY, means that a threat to destroy the system by engineering a run on banks can be completely nullified merely by the government announcing that it will guarantee deposits.
Now tell me, how can a threat that can be negated so comprehensively be used to stop Cheney, SCOTUS and Hagmann in their tracks?
Given that the steps necessary to negate such a threat were indeed put into place (for entirely innocent reasosns), why have Cheney, SCOTUS and Hagmann kept silent?
I’ve already given you the names of some of the banks in a previous post. In essence, the list contains the large Wall Street Investment Banks.
Name me the 5 countries where Soros has crashed their economies through the engineering of ‘runs on banks’. I know he’s made a fortune speculating on currency appreciations / depreciations but that’s not what you’re alleging here.
When I start making unfounded and outlandish claims about music compostion or HDOH processes, I’ll give your counter arguments the respect they deserve. It seems you are unwilling to return the compliment.
Here’s the book you should read (again):
http://www.amazon.com/Too-Big-Fail-Washington-System/dp/0670021253
No doubt you would prefer a set of anonymously written web sites full of speculation. The good thing about this book is that it contains a huge amount of first person testimony from people on Wall St and the Fed who were at the very center of the storm and is annotated and fully referenced.
Enjoy.
“Why didn’t Dick Cheney ask the question?”
Simple answer: I don’t know. With no on planning to object, maybe he simply forgot to follow the formal procedure. Has anyone asked him?
“After all that run-up and the court cases and all why did nobody make sure that Dick Cheney asked the question?”
Simple answer: Because no one knew he’d overlook it?
“Why, when they realized Cheney never asked the question, did nobody ever have him ask the question once they realized it? Why has the question to this day never been asked?”
Simple answer: Because none of the 500+ members of Congress had any objections?
“Why didn’t SCOTUS just rule on the merit of a case - any case - and be done with it?”
Simple answer: They did rule on the merits of the case by kicking it to the trash heap. That some folks can’t accept this doesn’t change the fact that it happened.”
“Why did they instead deliberately “evade the issue”, as Justice Thomas said?”
Simple answer: Justice Thomas was clearly making a joke, as his hearty chuckle attests. That some folks can’t accept this and must add it to their web of conspiracy doesn’t change the matter.
“Why did Chief Justice Roberts invite an ex parte meeting between Obama and the entire SCOTUS when cases were pending - a breach of ethics?”
Simple answer: No cases were pending and this type of visit seems to have become something of a tradition. This has been explained before in a manner more thorough than I can replicate.
“Why did Obama post a forged COLB?”
Simple answer: He didn’t. Arguing that he did requires invoking a rather vast conspiracy involving the complicity of thousands of individuals across the political spectrum and all branches of government.
Hmmm… A Vast All-Wing Conspiracy. VAWC.
“Can you describe a viable mechanism that a conspiracy used to achieve what you claim?”
It’s complex, but it involves wearing a monocle and stroking a Persian cat.
So you’re saying there is no possible way for the economy to crash, because the US guarantees to take care of everything, even though just our own national debt is more money than exists in the entire world?
I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Pretty neat magic if the US, which is already hopelessly in debt itself, can promise to pay up anybody else’s debt also if they get in a bind, and that instantly makes everything all better.
My peon mind would think if there was another run on the banks which were now insured by the US, it would just mean that it was the US who ran out of money and couldn’t pay out, rather than the banks who ran out of money. Either way, there’s not enough money in the world for all the promises of money that are on the books.
Kanjorsky did a comparison of the total amount of toxic assets and TARP. Not even close. Do you suppose when the government needed to pay up for some bank that it guaranteed, the government could give the person trying to make a withdrawal a nice 2-story home located a couple states away instead of cash, because that is the asset that exists? On paper it may say half a million exists, but in reality what exists is a home that may sell for $100,000 if anybody could afford to buy it. If somebody tried cashing in on the half million that supposedly exists, both the bank and the government that insures the bank would be in trouble.
Do you have quotes from trusted economists who say that the world economy is absolutely secure right now because the US insures all the banks? Because I remember reading from some economists who are saying that the national debt is actually making the economy insecure, and that the derivatives market is ready to blow up in our face any day now because there is not enough money in the world to account for the value supposedly floating around in derivatives either. It’s all just imaginary. If a lot of people at the same time began demanding something real rather than just this imaginary value on paper that doesn’t actually exist, we’re sunk. That’s what I’ve been hearing the economists saying.
And it seems you’ve dropped all pretense of Occam’s Razor on any of my questions.
My opinion, based on my reading of the relevant sections, is that the most "correct" solution would be McCain as President and Biden as Vice-President. The two offices are voted on separately by the Electoral College. Therefore, Biden's election is still legitimate. However, Congress is required by the Constitution to choose from the top 5 candidates receiving electoral votes if none has a majority (and with the ineligibility of Obama, this leaves only McCain as a qualifying candidate).
However, as a matter of pragmatism, Congress, as the final arbiter of the election, would almost certainly declare the office vacant, with Biden then assuming it, submitting a nominee to the Senate for a replacement Vice-President.
When in doubt, change the subject...
ES, your answer is straight Alinsky: deny whatever facts you have to in order to make the issue go away.
Everybody “just forgot” to follow the law for all this time? No biggie. Right. If you forget it for one day, that’s one thing. If you “forget it” for about 400 days and running, that’s something else.
No cases pending before SCOTUS? Get real. I think Orly’s case was supposed to be 4 days later.
Thomas’ unsolicited comment about “evading the issue” means nothing because he smiled afterwards?
The Factcheck COLB isn’t forged because that would be a conspiracy? So tell me one simple thing: why is the Factcheck certificate number 2 higher than the Nordykes’ when the “date filed” is 3 days earlier than theirs? Occam’s Razor. Why don’t the dates and the cert numbers match up?
The guy is claiming that the economy is secure because the US insures the banks. I’d be glad if that was true. It would mean that economic terrorism has been defeated.
The trouble is that it doesn’t match what I’ve seen economists saying, and it also defies logic. Seems more like fabricated “facts” to try to make an argument go away. Kind of like the “cable” that the Passport Office came up with, that defies every other piece of documentation we have. Sheer Alinsky. I had to call him on it.
“I might remind you that Nebraska lost to Texas last year because the refs put one second back on the clock... That one second only got put back on the clock because it altered the outcome of the game.”
Butterdezillion, I’m one of your BIGGEST fans.
However, the reason that one second got put back on the clock is because... (Drum Roll)... McCoy’s incomplete pass fell dead out of bounds with... (Here it is now)... One second left on the clock!
Replays confirmed it.
Grapes are sometimes sour, I know. (OU still sucks.)
You’ll get your chance for vengeance in two weeks.
Hook ‘em!
You'll figure it out someday, B.
For now, if you can make statements like: “Thomas’ unsolicited comment about “evading the issue” means nothing because he smiled afterwards?”
It either means you have never bothered to watch the video and understand the context of the event or you simply too focused on your agenda to properly evaluate information.
Well, I guess you’ve figured things out then.
Just out of curiosity, what happens in two weeks?
I think the answer to your query is the photo(on FR) of Obama comfortably being palsy-walsy with SC justices in Robert’s chambers. I think this was before the election and when there were legal cases against Obama which might have come before the SCOTUSA. Hearing now of Robert’s oil investments makes me wonder.
lol. I know, I know. But how many times did the clock accidentally tick off an extra second during the game? If we wanted to go scrutinize it all I’m sure we could find a place where a second should have been taken off, and that would have neutralized the one time of scrutiny where the second was found to be rightly added (and yes, the replay showed that the second was rightly added at the end).
It’s just a little bit like the recounting of ballots, and the democratic poll worker asking how many votes they needed to come up with. It’s easy to scrutinize and scrounge up the seconds, or votes, when you know how many you need. Not so easy to show the same scrutiny for EVERY second, or vote, when you don’t know how critical it could end up being.
It was really just poor clock management on McCoy’s part, an unexpected gift to Nebraska anyway, that the clock ran out. It was kind of a relief for his sake that it didn’t end up costing Texas the game. But the principle of all the other seconds that may not have been exactly accurate coming back to bite us in the butt because we didn’t scrounge around for seconds the whole game long is what stung.
We could have made that game a living hell if we had contested EVERY SECOND of the clock. If the people running the clock had screwed up because we didn’t have a chance of winning anyway, and the refs refused to let us contest the running of the clock because we “couldn’t win anyway” we would have suffered an injury - whether or not the game came down to one second or not. If we get cheated of one second we get cheated of one second, even if one second doesn’t cost us the game. Being cheated of anything rightfully ours is an injury. That’s the main point.
And I still love Texas and Texans (my in-laws are Texans so what can I say? lol)
Actually, I let the Thomas comments go by the wayside because of the comments others had made about how raucously he laughed and how obviously it was a joke. The computer I was on at that time wouldn’t let me view video so I just forgot about it. I’m on a different computer now while my other one awaits virus clean-up and I was able to actually see the video. What I noticed immediately was the uncomfortable, awkward silence, and the look of confusion on the face of the guy Thomas was talking to. They both were taking it seriously. After the discomfort was painfully obvious Thomas smiled.
Now that I’ve seen “Braveheart” it reminds me of the scene where the clan heads are discussing how one was killed by Wallace in his sleep. One of them says they don’t know who will be next. With a look of sheer hatred in his eyes Robert the Bruce says, “It could be you.” And then he shrugs and smiles and says, “It could be me.” The shrug and smile in no way negated the seriousness of his comment, “It could be you.” It only covered it up a little.
And that’s the sense that I got from Thomas’ smile/laugh. Thomas had deliberately made everybody suitably uncomfortable for a while, which was all he wanted. And then he smiled so everybody could claim it was never really meant. He meant it and they knew it. That’s why they were all uncomfortable, and he let them be comfortable for a while so they would know he meant it. This was not a jovial exchange.
What Roberts oil investments?
Should have said he let them be UNcomfortable for a while so they would know he was serious.
Well, good luck getting anywhere with that interpretation of events.
Whoa.. what sort of bipolar world do you inhabit? Did I say that there is no way the economy can crash, ever? Did I say that the US Government can protect every asset on the planet. Did I even hint at it?
You were talking very explicitly about the crisis that engulfed the investment banks in the fall of 2008. I have described very clearly how the run on those banks was halted and the banks stabilised by the actions of the federal government, primarily through TARP - in other words how they negated the threat of those banks failing.
You really don’t want to believe what I’m saying, that is very clear. You’ve decided, despite your own admission that you have only the sketchiest idea of what’s going on, that the ONLY sensible conclusion to be drawn from those events is that a conspiracy manufactured the crisis and then used it to get a headlock on the federal government.
You’re right, I did decide not to keep on with Occam’s Razor - mainly because you evidently have even less understanding of it than you do of the world of finance. However, since you are so keen to bring it back up, let’s have it.
Here’s as good a definition of Occam’s Razor as any:
“When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.”
Let’s apply it to the Dick Cheney point.
Your hypothesis requires the following assumptions:
* 50 years ago, the communists hatched a plan to destabilise the US economy through the generation of toxic assets. (There are about a trillion, trillion individual assumptions within this one but we can let that pass for brevity’s sake).
* That Obama, depsite being foreign born or at least having difficulties in establishing a legitimate claim to NBC status, required a mechanism to threaten solid conservatives in the Executive and the SCOTUS to surrender the country to his regime.
* That the economic plot came to fruition (after 50 years) just at the right moment to both affect the election and to provide a tool with which financial armageddon could be threatened, thereby ensuring that everyone went belly up.
* That no one has ever spoken openly about this plot.
My hypothesis requires the following assumption:
* Cheney received no written objections, as required by law, so decided that he didn’t need to call for any.
Which of the two hypotheses satisfies Occam’s Razor best?
Since we’re chasing each other up on failed responses, have you dropped any pretence of claiming that Soros has crashed the economies of 5 countries through creating runs on banks?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.