Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress and the Media Have Placed America at Risk of being Attacked from Within
A Place to Ask Questions to Get The Right Answers ^ | October 17, 2009 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq

Posted on 10/19/2009 2:41:27 PM PDT by circumbendibus

Go to URL for article on Obama eligibility.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; kerchner
This is a good status report on Mario Apuzzo's Kerchner v Obama lawsuit.
1 posted on 10/19/2009 2:41:28 PM PDT by circumbendibus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pissant; Red Steel; LucyT; STARWISE; BP2

PING!


2 posted on 10/19/2009 2:43:24 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Where's the Birth Certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus; thouworm; rxsid; GOPJ; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

This is a good status report on Mario Apuzzo's Kerchner v Obama lawsuit.

.

3 posted on 10/19/2009 2:47:32 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; circumbendibus

Thanks for the pings.


4 posted on 10/19/2009 3:19:58 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus

Elapsed Time Since Judge Simandle's Motion Return/Decision Date of 3 Aug 2009

77 Days, 00 Hours, 21 Minutes, 51 Seconds.

5 posted on 10/19/2009 3:30:40 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

In this case, the MTD hearing was handled in written arguments. The attorneys did not appear before the Judge like Orly did with Carter.

Anyhow, Apuzzo wrote the Judge recently and politely asked, WTF?

The judge responded within 24 hrs that he was very busy and considering all the complicated issues and hoped to have his decision shortly.

If you’re interested, scroll back on this blog to Friday. Apuzzo and Kirchner were on a radio show talking about their case and also Orly’s. Interesting.


6 posted on 10/19/2009 7:44:34 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Where's the Birth Certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus

In listening to their talk show interviews their suit includes the two filings by DNC (w/Pelosi’s and Dean’s signatures and Notary).

One including the statement of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility and the other excluding it.

The Apuzzo plaintiffs were aware of this DNC conspiracy in January. Although it didn’t hit the Conservative Internet media until September:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15127

Also, their suit differs from some of the others in that members of Congress were included as Defendants, interesting.


7 posted on 10/20/2009 6:08:24 AM PDT by GregTM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GregTM
Many Americans, at home, in congress and in the media, have assumed that Obama meets all qualifications because the DNC said he did. But in 49 states, they never said it, at least officially

Yes. I hope the DNC is destroyed for what they did here. It is criminal. It is treason.

8 posted on 10/20/2009 6:34:24 AM PDT by circumbendibus (Where's the Birth Certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall

Per the great U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, the federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.

It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”


9 posted on 10/20/2009 9:15:36 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus

Better title: “Congress and the Media are Attacking America from Within”.


10 posted on 10/21/2009 11:30:45 AM PDT by MayflowerMadam (POWER TO THE PEOPLE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam

Did you click the URL today? Apuzzo’s case against Obama was dismissed. Lack of standing. Sh@#t!


11 posted on 10/21/2009 11:58:18 AM PDT by circumbendibus (Where's the Birth Certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: danamco

Did you click the URL today? Apuzzo’s case against Obama was dismissed. Lack of standing. Sh@#t!


12 posted on 10/21/2009 12:04:30 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Where's the Birth Certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GregTM

Did you click the URL today? Apuzzo’s case against Obama was dismissed. Lack of standing. Sh@#t!


13 posted on 10/21/2009 12:05:33 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Where's the Birth Certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus

Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.
The Hon. Jerome B. Simandle of the Federal District Court in the District of New Jersey at 10:39 a.m., on October 21, 2009, filed his long-awaited opinion dismissing the Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. complaint/petition. In the complaint/petition, we allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. We also allege that even if he was so born, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of which makes him ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We also allege that Congress violated it constitutional duty under the Twentieth Amendment to adequately investigate and confirm whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an “injury in fact.” It added that plaintiffs’ alleged injury is “only a generally available grievance about government” and “is one they share with all United States citizens.” Finally, it said that plaintiffs’ “motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. . .”

By way of footnote, the Court said that even if the plaintiffs could show that the Court had Article III standing, they would not be able to show that the court should exercise jurisdiction because prudential standing concerns would prevent it from doing so.

Finally, the Court again in a footnote said that it cannot take jurisdiction of the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Congress has acted constitutionally in its confirmation of Obama for President because the matter is a “political question” which needs to be resolved by Congress. The Court said that there simply is no room for judicial review of political choices made by the Electoral College and the Congress when voting for and confirming the President. The Court added that the plaintiffs’ remedy against Congress may be achieved by voting at the polls.

It is important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because of jurisdiction and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous. Given the nature of the Court’s decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief.

As promised, plaintiffs will be filing an appeal of Judge Simandle’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


14 posted on 10/21/2009 4:44:38 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

See post # 14!!!


15 posted on 10/21/2009 4:46:38 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: danamco; thouworm; rxsid; GOPJ; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

#14

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2366052/posts?page=14#14

.

16 posted on 10/21/2009 5:01:05 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

This is exerps of an e-mail I received:

From The Desk Of Gary G. Kreep
Dear Friend of the Constitution,
Barack Hussein Obama is not happy! When his taxpayer paid U. S. Department of Justice (”DOJ”) attorneys walked into court on October 5, 2009, expecting United States Federal District Court Judge David Carter to immediately dismiss the birth certificate case, he did not get his way! Their legal arguments were hollow and unconvincing. and after hearing hours of argument, Judge Carter “took the matter under submission.” He has still not issued a ruling, 14 days later!

According to the DOJ Attorneys: The President Is Above the Law and the Courts!

The DOJ attorneys told the Judge that no Court in the United States had the right to rule on whether Barack Hussein Obama was eligible to serve as President of the United States! In their view, he could only be impeached and/or disqualified from the Office of President under the 25th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

THIS IS NOT TRUE! As USJF pointed out to the Court, both in our pleadings and in our oral presentation at the hearing, both the impeachment statutes, and the 25th Amendment require a sitting President. However, if Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as President, he could not be, and never was, a sitting President, so those options for removal could not apply. Therefore the courts would have jurisdiction.

Monday, October 5, 2009, , at 8:30 a.m., in California, was a critical milestone for our entire legal and public relations effort to force Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate, as well as other documents, to prove whether he is eligible to serve as President of the United States. And with your support USJF was able to be there to argue the case.

This case has an excellent chance to survive the Department of Justice (”DOJ”) motion to dismiss, and it what has proven to be the best chance for America to have a hearing on the merits on this critical Constitutional issue.

What happened that day in Court? It’s very simple—the DOJ attorneys brought up every argument that they could to try to persuade the Court to dismiss this case

USJF provided sound legal arguments against all of the DOJ legal theories, and we were the only ones to do so; otherwise the whole case could have been over right then and there! The USJF oral arguments at the hearing may well be the difference between this case surviving or being dismissed.

The Judge raised issues critical to our case:

1. Did U.S. Senators question the eligibility of Mr. Obama? (Only USJF was able to tell the Court that Senators Coburn and Shelby and a number of House of Representative members had done so.)

2. Were objections made by Members of Congress when the vote of the Electoral College was certified? (Only USJF was able to tell the Court that NO, then Vice-President Cheney had not performed his required duty of asking for objections, so there could have been none raised.)

DOJ attorneys also argued that only Congress, and/or the Electoral College, could decide on the eligibility of Mr. Obama. Fortunately, the USJF legal team, and only the USJF legal team, filed pleadings pointing out that the DOJ legal arguments in this regard WERE WRONG! And, I was there to argue against those false claims.

People at the hearing and those who have found out what happened there since have been contacting USJF, thanking us for standing up for the truth!

But the fight is not over yet! We expect a ruling from the Court any day now. If we defeat the dismissal motion, then we’re immediately filing pleadings (”discovery”) seeking Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, his college records, and much, much more. AND, we’ll be seeking to depose Mr. Obama ASAP!

And if the Court grants the motion to dismiss, we’ll be immediately filing an appeal of the decision!

Judge Carter has set a trial date of January 26, 2010 in this case. To keep that date, we need to defeat the DOJ dismissal motion, and then, IMMEDIATELY, move right into the discovery phase discussed above. WE WILL NEED TO:
Retain attorneys in Washington, D. C., to take the Obama deposition.
Retain attorneys in Hawaii to take the deposition of those in control of the Obama birth records and school records.
Take the deposition of Occidental, College officials to obtain Obama school records
Retain attorneys in Massachusetts to take the deposition of Harvard. Law School officials to obtain Obama school records there.
Pay the cost of the court reporters for all of these depositions. Plus,
Pay the cost of serving the subpoenas on the various witnesses.

We expect the DOJ, as well as Mr. Obama’s private attorneys, to fight us every step of the way! Mr. Obama’s attorneys will file motions to block the depositions in each and every state, and the District of Columbia, trying to block us from obtaining the truth at every turn !
Question the issue of the passport files of Mr. Obama! We’re going after the records of how he traveled abroad without a United States Passport in the 1980’s, as he admits doing.
Question the issue of his alleged adoption by his step-father in Indonesia! We’ll be seeking records about that also!
Resolve questions about his Selective Service files! We’ll be seeking records concerning that also!
But, first, we have to get past the DOJ dismissal motion!

The DOJ’s motion to dismiss also claims that our clients have no “standing,” and that the matter is “political.”

But, if we as citizens of the United States have no “standing” to verify the citizenship of the man occupying the White House, who does? If our Federal Courts have no jurisdiction to hear this case, who does? It’s not a “political” question, it’s a CONSTITUTIONAL question!

Last November, people said we were crazy to pursue this issue. Now, we’ve been shown to be right in our pursuit of the truth. It’s not just the original birth certificate that they’re refusing to release. Barack Obama’s legal team has spent, according to published reports, over $1.4 million dollars so far to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, and many other documents.

WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn’t he just release these documents to prove if he is a natural-born citizen and therefore qualified to be president — especially his actual birth certificate?

When Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, apparently, a “pretender to the throne.” According to the Constitution, only a “natural born citizen” can occupy the presidency.

Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama is NOT legally the President of the United States, unless he can prove that he is a “natural born citizen.”

What’s more, every action taken by him while he occupies the White House may be invalid. If he cannot legally be President, every law passed by Congress will be null and void because the Constitution clearly requires that all laws be signed by the President... and, without a legally elected and sworn in President in office, that becomes an impossibility.

This Constitutional crisis must be ended! And it must be ended NOW!
And that’s just what we’re fighting to do. The United States Justice Foundation is spearheading a campaign to protect the United States Constitution... and your liberty.

We have to press our case to stop Barack Obama from, apparently, illegally holding the Presidency, despite the ongoing threats against us. We are speaking of filing additional lawsuits and administrative actions, over and above the dozens already filed, if you will help us today.

Are you willing to see the Constitution shredded by the Left? Will you sit back and do nothing while a foreign-born person may be illegally occupying the White House as President of the United States?

Our country is on the fast track to disaster. This is the biggest political cover-up in American history! It would be so simple to release the documents to PROVE Obama is a natural-born citizen… IF THEY HAD THE DOCUMENTS!

America has never before faced such a threat. Everything we hold dear is at risk with Barack Obama sitting as President without him releasing his actual birth certificate, plus the dozens of other documents that he refuses to produce.

Please remember that we are fighting in the California Appellate Court system.

Barack Hussein Obama thinks he can get away with DUPING the American people and DESTROYING the U.S. Constitution.


17 posted on 10/21/2009 5:34:18 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Given the nature of the Court’s decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief.
~~~
Some of us know...:0/


18 posted on 10/21/2009 5:47:37 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: circumbendibus

TITLE would be more accurate as:

CONGRESS and THE MEDIA Have Placed America at Risk

BY ATTACKING OUR FOUNDATION AND FREEDOMS FROM WITHIN!


19 posted on 10/21/2009 6:06:08 PM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: danamco

INDEED.


20 posted on 10/21/2009 6:08:06 PM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: danamco

Thanks for your post.

“Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama is NOT legally the President of the United States, unless he can prove that he is a “natural born citizen.”

Let’s consider the other side of the argument above. O is President because the Congress certified him as such, and only the Congress can “decertify” him.

The Congress is not so inclined, of course, and the question is who brings the action?
Not sure the USSC can say no party has standing.
Inasmuch as lower courts - pending Judge Carter’s decision - have determined that other presidential candidates and active military officers have no standing, perhaps two or more members of Congress would have standing.

As intended by the founders, the Judiciary has found action by the Congress unconstitutional on numerous occasions so clearly there is precedence.
What action/inaction by Congress might be unconstitutional in this regard?
The fact that on January 8 the Congress did not adhere to its statute, 3 USC 15, that describes in detail how it is proceed at the Joint Session.

Are there persuasive legal arguments allowing Congress to ignore its statutes? One would hope not, this statute is not a mere housekeeping provision that can swept aside.

If there are no such arguments, and in the face of this national controversy, the USSC may find Congress proceeded improperly and without authority to certify O as president. If enough members agree, the Congress could vote to perform the duty it was bound to perform on January 8 and ask O to arrange for the production of verifiable birth documents. If a majority of the members do not so agree, the nation (including the Armed Forces) will know precisely where it stands.

See the petition at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/1st-amendment-petition.html.

If the petition or something like it, along with a motion is presented by a member of Congress and the Congress fails to take action it seems arguable that the Congress is proceeding on the basis of at least a grievous error and that each member is subject to damage.


21 posted on 10/21/2009 7:01:08 PM PDT by frog in a pot (It's a myth, folks. The frog will jump out and he will be pi$$ed. Ever had big warts?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

Looks like this is going to USSC unless Kreep and Taitz prevail. Congress is corrupt. They don’t even read their bills. Thanks for your post.


22 posted on 10/21/2009 8:19:55 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Where's the Birth Certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson