Skip to comments.New eligibility suit filed: Kerchner v. Obama
Posted on 01/22/2009 1:22:47 PM PST by dascallie
"Activism, Eligibility, Kerchner v. Obama, POTUS » Kerchner v. Obama: Complaint, Petition Filed in NJ Federal District Court Thu, Jan 22, 2009
Mario Apuzzo, a New Jersey attorney, filed a case early Tuesday morning, a Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto:
On early Tuesday morning, January 20, 2009, at about 3:00 a.m., I filed a Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto on behalf of my clients, Mr. Kerchner, Mr. Patterson, Mr. LeNormand, and Mr. Nelsen, against defendants, Barack Hussein Obama II, United States of America, United States Congress, United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, Richard B. Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi. I filed the complaint in the Federal District Court of New Jersey and is now pending in Camden. It bears Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00253. The complaint seeks to learn the truth about whether Obama is an Article II natural born Citizen and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. On January 21, 2009, I filed an Amended Complaint for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Petition for Quo Warranto. The Complaint and the Amended Complaint can be accessed and viewed at the District Court of New Jersey and Pacer web site. I will also be uploading a copy of the documents at this blog site as soon as possible so that they may be more easily viewed.
The defendants have not yet been served. I am now in the process of requesting that the Court issue to me the summonses so that I can then serve as soon as possible the Summons and Amended Complaint on the defendants.
As you know, the courts have refused to reach the underlying merits of the many lawsuits that have been filed on the question of whether Mr. Obama is an Article II natural born Citizen and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. My clients and I hope that we will get a court to reach the underlying merits of this question so that the American people will be assured that Mr. Obama is their legitimate President and not an usurper. I will appreciate whatever comments anyone has on the merits of this lawsuit.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq."
As far as I can tell, there is zero evidence Bambi was ever adopted.
And no, a registration form in a private school doesn't count.
See post 79.
Let's play the birther drinking game!
Every time Berg gets another lawsuit dismissed, take a swig.
I'll tell you, with all the dismissals coming, if I play this thing, my liquor cabinette is going to get cleaned out in no time!
I thought you said there was zero. Certainly that is something.
This is getting embarrassing.
Obama is the President. Nothing less than an impeachment will remove him from office. These lawsuits are a complete waste of time, money and energy.
There is not a court in this country that has the power to remove Obama from office. Not even the SCOTUS.
There is a Keyes v Obama filed in CA.
The embarrassment should be Obama’s. Whether he is removed or not doesn’t matter to me at this point. But, we the people should know the truth about what he is hiding. These hidden documents (there is a whole list of them) were relatively unimportant and of little interest until the stonewalling began. The question remains “Just what is on them that he refuses to reveal?” It must be good, because he’s spent a lot of money to see that they stay lost.
Until the information is released it will become like the ‘holy grail’ and won’t go away. People feel they have a right to know about his past. Now that he is the President, more and more people will find it an important question.
This is the suit I mentioned to you in freepmail.
Fine you go off and be embarrassed.
Some of us are interested in the finding the truth and that the Constitution be observed.
No we aren't. We are talking about if he is eligible for that office. If he's not, then he's not President and not only need not be impeached, he cannot be for a couple of reasons. First the Constitution speaks of removing a President, which he would not be, oath of no oath. Secondly impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", AFAIK, there is no crime or misdemeanor of "unconstitutionally executing the power of the office of President". So he can't be impeached for doing so.
It's uncharted territory.
Where in the Constitution does it require the President to prove to anyone that he was a "Natural Born Citizen"?
Prove to me that any president has ever proven he was a Natural Born Citizen before taking the Oath of Office? Did Reagan? Did Bush? Did Lincoln? Did Jackson?
The first president to even have proof of "Natural Born Citizenship" was Jimmy Carter. All presidents before him were born at home or maybe... in some foreign country.
If you are interested in following the Constitution, maybe you should find some congressman who is willing to introduce a bill of impeachment.
But no. Like the Liberals you guys want the courts to do what you can't accomplish through the law. You want the courts to undo this election and bypass the constitutional procedures which you know will never happen.
Well I've got news. No court is going to undo this election. NONE. Anyone who really thinks that there is a court out there that is going to undo this election is delusional.
Tell me, do you REALLY think that any court is going to overturn this election and rule that Obama is ineligible?
If so, would you like to place a bet?
Why not, it's certainly "reason to believe", it's not proof, but it is such to cause a reasonable person to believe that he might have been. Thus discovery is needed to see if he was or not.
First of all Jackson was not a natural born citizen. He couldn't be because he was born in 1767. He could be President because he was a "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of" the Constitution". Which of the others had a non-citizen father? Which was raised during much of his formative years by a non-citizen stepfather in a foreign land? Obama is different, and he should have been treated differently. But it's not like it would be applying a different test to him, but rather that there is at least some question on the issue. A question that should have been resolved. And the possibility of his not being born in the US is only part of that question.
Can you explain why he took his name while he was in Indonesia?
I can't believe I'm reading this crap on Free Republic. We are sounding like the "Selected not Elected" crowd on DU.
Is this going to go on for the next 4 or 8 years?
Obama was elected. This is a reality we need to deal with. Pretending that we can overturn the election by filing frivolous lawsuits makes conservatives look as insane as the leftists that could never grasp the idea that Bush won the election in 2000.
Conservatives do not overturn elections by going to court. That is what liberals do. Conservatives lick our wounds and then fight to win the next election.
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.