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

Skip to comments.

Obama’s Straw Man Defense - Kerchner v. Obama, Article II, eligibility
drkatesview ^ | March 16, 2010 | Dr. Kate

Posted on 03/16/2010 5:43:10 AM PDT by opentalk

The appalling game-playing by Obama’s lawyers in the Kerchner vs. Obama and Congress appeal, including the Justice Department, is the kind of behavior that should draw disbarment and criminal penalties. It already makes a mockery of justice and of the Constitution we know that. But the case that Obama is ‘fighting’ is not the legal case that’s been brought against him.

Too cool to prove himself, Obama has created and is shadowboxing a straw man eligibility case–one that doesn’t exist.

Straw man. A fallacy in which an opponent’s argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be attacked or refuted.

An alert and astute poster named Fool Me Once, in a post sent to Commander Charles Kerchner, pointed out that Obama’s legal team is creating the illusion of refuting Kerchner’s argument by misstating it and then knocking down the fake case…

In this case, the government and Obama absolutely ignored the facts presented in Kerchner’s brief. Indeed, instead of addressing any of the factual claims, the government ‘makes up’ that there is an issue of standing and jurisdiction, the Constitutional issues presented be damned.

What Kerchner Presented

The basic case against Obama is actually quite straight forward:

Obama has not proven conclusively yet that he was born in the United States No state, or federal law enforcement agency, the media, or Congress vetted Obama to assure that he met the Constitutional qualifications for office

--Notwithstanding where he was born, Obama is not an Article II Natural Born Citizen because the British Nationality Act covered his birth and he therefore is British and his adoption by an Indonesian national would have required his naturalization upon return to the United States. Obama is at best a dual citizen;

--Support for the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ as contained in the Constitution is found historical development, sources and authorities on the Constitution, and that neither the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court, acts of Congress, nor any case law has modified this essential definition. The Supreme Court has never applied the term ‘natural born citizen’ to anyone who was not “born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

--Defendants violated plaintiffs’ right to petition for redress under the First Amendment; deprived the plaintiffs of a liberty interest without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment; deprived plaintiffs of equal protection; and violated plaintiff’s Constitutional rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

......The Significance of Timing

The initial filing in this case was filed at 2:50 am on January 20, 2009, after Congress had confirmed the electoral college vote of Obama but just before he became bound to the Constitution through his oath of office. This brilliant move provides numerous opportunities to crack the usurper’s charade, and frustrates the defense of Obama. It is also the most significant difference between the Kerchner case and all other cases filed on this subject.

First, the filing date and time occurred after the process had completed its course but before he took the oath of office and became bound to the Constitution. This process includes the election, the vote of the electoral college, and Congress’ action on January 8, 2009. The significant point here is that Obama as a private citizen, and as the President-elect, still had an affirmative obligation to prove himself constitutionally eligible for the office.

What this timing does is to eliminate Obama and the government’s argument that Obama cannot be touched because he is the ‘de facto office holder’, and therefore ‘presumed eligible’. It also eliminates Congress’ and Dick Cheney’s excuse of not being responsible as they too were under affirmative obligation, under the 20th Amendment, to ensure that Obama met the Constitutional requirements of office.

...The Government Misstates the Case

...Obama’s defense personalizes the case, and claims a set of issues and facts never stated in the original Kerchner complaint nor in the appeals brief. The government makes this case about standing and jurisdiction, wholly ignoring the Constitutional issue raised.

...This is an obtuse and arrogant response to Kerchner’s appeal. The government doesn’t argue the merits of the case–no information on the 14th amendment, no argument about the case law or supreme court decisions, no argument whatsoever.

Do they know that they can’t win if they take on the facts, and, do they know that we know they can’t?

Instead, the government argues that whatever the facts, the plaintiffs have no standing, no right to bring this action before the court, primarily because they haven’t proven a particularized injury that is different than all Americans. Thus the court does not have jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiffs have no standing, and well, the claim is ‘alleged’.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Politics
KEYWORDS: articleii; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; democrats; dnc; dnc4coupdetat; doj; doj4coupdetat; economy; eligibility; fraud; hawaii; holder; holder4coupdetat; identitytheft; ineligibility; israel; kenyan; kerchner; military; naturalborncitizen; obama; obama4coupdetat; obamacare; palin; politics; teaparty; usurper
Full article at link


1 posted on 03/16/2010 5:43:10 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk

An illegal usurper uses unlawful means
with others, meeting in illegal ways,
to overthrow the US Constitution
with a wink and nod from SCOTUS and DOJ.

Hmmmmmm. Hmmmmmm. Hmmmmmm.


2 posted on 03/16/2010 5:46:48 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Ping.


3 posted on 03/16/2010 5:56:15 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

This will ultimately destroy the Democratic party... they were derelict in their duty to properly verify the eligibility of a presidential candidate.

Lots of people need to go to jail over this one.


4 posted on 03/16/2010 6:05:09 AM PDT by flash2368
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
...to overthrow the US Constitution

It continues -- ignore constitution to pass unconstitutional health care, DOJ withholding information during confirmation, stopping investigation of Acorn,--House of cards.

5 posted on 03/16/2010 6:19:50 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Commander Kerchner's Statement on the Opposition Brief :

--What a lame and empty defense. Basically they're saying Obama and Congress can totally ignore the U.S. Constitution and there is nothing We the People can legally do about it. No one has standing to right the wrong when Obama & Congress illegally violate Article II of the Constitution and seat illegally an ineligible person as President and Commander in Chief of our vast military power.

-- We the People created the federal government and We the People are going to fix this totally broken and runaway federal government. These Progressive/Socialist/Marxists have gone a bridge too far in the disgraceful and unconstitutional 2008 election. This will not stand. We the People will not permit it.

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

6 posted on 03/16/2010 7:06:44 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
there is nothing We the People can legally do about it.

A Dem stating there's "no controlling legal authority" is no surprise.

7 posted on 03/16/2010 7:51:53 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; OldDeckHand; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

0bama’s Straw Man Defense - Kerchner v. Obama, Article II, eligibility

The appalling game-playing by 0bama’s lawyers in the Kerchner vs. 0bama and Congress appeal, including the Justice Department, is the kind of behavior that should draw disbarment and criminal penalties.

It already makes a mockery of justice and of the Constitution we know that. But the case that 0bama is ‘fighting’ is not the legal case that’s been brought against him.

Too cool to prove himself, 0bama has created and is shadowboxing ..."

. . . . Interesting article.

[Thanks, Red Steel.]

8 posted on 03/16/2010 9:40:09 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

*Bump*


9 posted on 03/16/2010 9:51:31 AM PDT by Diver Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Interesting on the date and time of filing. He was just an ordinary non-office holding “citizen” (of some country) for two months between the time he resigned as Senator on Nov. 16, ‘08 to Jan. 20, ‘09.


10 posted on 03/16/2010 10:41:02 AM PDT by bgill (The framers of the US Constitution established an entire federal government in 18 pages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
his adoption by an Indonesian national would have required his naturalization upon return to the United States.

So then if there are no records of this naturalization, is he even an American citizen???

11 posted on 03/16/2010 10:49:35 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill
--filed at 2:50 am on January 20, 2009, after Congress had confirmed the electoral college vote of Obama but just before he became bound to the Constitution through his oath.--

Must be very significant legally to case. - includes congress, small window before he is president, it was also before his executive order.

12 posted on 03/16/2010 10:54:59 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

This case appears to have been well thought out.


13 posted on 03/16/2010 10:57:27 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Probably why the Obama machine will not answer the substance of the case. Still doing the standing dance.
14 posted on 03/16/2010 11:21:34 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Amazing! There are only 14 posts to this thread.

The trolls who would normally have driven this thread up to a hundred or more by now must be busy on the very urgent health care issue on the various blogs and message boards.

That the trolls are missing in action today is an indication to me that they are, indeed, professional PR people and attorneys who are employed by the Obama machine.

15 posted on 03/16/2010 11:48:57 AM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
I have never seen anything in Kerchner’s case that pleads that Obama is not eligible because he was not born in the geographical territory of the several states.

The argument about his father being a British citizen; the arguments about his dual citizenship or all the other defects in his loyalty position; are all very interesting but are losers at the Supreme Court level.

Under circumstances where you now have real record proof that he was born in Mombasa, it is suspicious that Kirchner pleads a case which is generally understood by the lawyers as a loser and ignores the case which everyone understands is Obama's real vulnerability.

16 posted on 03/16/2010 12:05:13 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David
I have never seen anything in Kerchner’s case that pleads that Obama is not eligible because he was not born in the geographical territory of the several states.

The lawsuit seems very thorough, (-I'm not a lawyer)

Law suit overview Table of Contents - 12 counts.

Not Born in USA Page 10

complete lawsuit

Talks about COLB and Birth Certificate.

#34-- Obama has not met his burden or otherwise adequately shown he was born in the United States of America.

#48--There is no Hawaiian hospital that has verified and confirmed that baby Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu.

17 posted on 03/16/2010 2:38:05 PM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: opentalk; LucyT
To your #17:

Good. What I have seen about that case has not been as complete as that.

There is this strong direction that he ought to be out because his father was not born in the US or because of his flopping around on citizenship. I agree that ought to be so. But as a lawyer, I can tell you that if we ever do get to a judicial resolution, the only thing that counts is where he was born.

His legal help is very good. They know he would have a problem with a number of the states in a reelection campaign and they have a scheme for how to deal with that problem. Not clear in my mind what they do.

18 posted on 03/16/2010 5:59:41 PM PDT by David (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: flash2368

Examples need to be made of anyone complicit in this. I don’t think it will be many to jail though if any.


19 posted on 03/16/2010 8:11:08 PM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: flash2368

The fall out will be so ugly. Entire history books will be written on this scam.


20 posted on 03/16/2010 9:19:18 PM PDT by MadAboutPalin (You betcha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

§ 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


21 posted on 03/17/2010 12:37:57 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed –if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
22 posted on 03/18/2010 6:17:53 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

23 posted on 03/18/2010 8:33:25 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | 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