Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawsuit Targets Congress & Obama - Atty & Plaintiff on Andrea Shea King Show tonite
The Andrea Shea King Show ^ | Feb. 9, 2009 | Andrea Shea King

Posted on 02/09/2009 4:07:52 PM PST by patriotgal1787

On January 31st, World Net Daily reported on a new lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, this one targeting Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.

The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

It is being brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

TONIGHT --

Atty. Mario Apuzzo will be on the Andrea Shea King Radio show on BlogTalkRadio at 9 p.m. EST.

He will be discussing the new filing on the Kerchner et al v Obama et al, which is suing Congress for unconstitutionally and illegally confirming an unqualified (non-Article II natural born citizen) as the President.

Joining Apuzzo on the show will be Charles Kerchner Jr., the lead plaintiff .

Obama is on the suit as a "necessary party" since his removal is the ultimate goal of the suit.

They will discuss the new filing and will take Q&A on the matter of Kerchner v Obama. Please read the new filing at this link provided by Atty. Apuzzo so you know the details of the case if you wish to call in and ask questions, or see the other link below in this message. LINK to the show here.

We get underway at 9 p.m. ET, sharp.

*****


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; barackobama; bho2008; bho2009; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; blackhelicopters; certifigate; colb; congress; conspiracytheories; democratscandals; eligibility; ineligible; lawsuit; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamanoncitizenissue; tinfoilhats

1 posted on 02/09/2009 4:07:52 PM PST by patriotgal1787
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: patriotgal1787

Big BUMP to you. Stay on this story. It will take sustained and determined effort to expose this marxist fraud.


2 posted on 02/09/2009 4:11:30 PM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriotgal1787

Anyone know if Mario has a different angle to get past the spineless & corrupt judiciary denying standing to Americans as in WE THE PEOPLE Americans?


3 posted on 02/09/2009 4:12:24 PM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Mario Apuzzo? Godfather? /s


4 posted on 02/09/2009 4:15:17 PM PST by Vendome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: patriotgal1787

I am betting in an hour that O shills/BC deniers will be turning up in this thread.


5 posted on 02/09/2009 4:15:57 PM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

....a different angle to get past the spineless & corrupt judiciary denying standing to Americans as in WE THE PEOPLE Americans?
::::::::::::
It is an American tragedy that the SCOTUS has not heard the suits brought before it. It puts into question the veracity and dedication of the SCOTUS if they will not stand behind the Constitution and not recognized the STANDING of the American citizen, for whom the document stands for, and protects.


6 posted on 02/09/2009 4:17:57 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
It is an American tragedy that the SCOTUS has not heard the suits brought before it. It puts into question the veracity and dedication of the SCOTUS if they will not stand behind the Constitution and not recognized the STANDING of the American citizen, for whom the document stands for, and protects.

That is the greatest tragedy to date...it's not that Obama didn't prove he was eligible, it's that the court doesn't 'dare' question 'The One' to see if he is. Yuk

7 posted on 02/09/2009 4:26:30 PM PST by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Don’t know if you are on still or if you have someone operating your ping list.


8 posted on 02/09/2009 4:48:38 PM PST by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie; All

How about this? barry signed the SCHIP bill the other day, which includes a tobacco tax increase. The position would be, the new law (in particular the tax increase) is void because the man who signed it is not eligible to be POTUS. It seems to me that anyone who pays the tax would have standing. Any lawyers out there with an opinion on this?


9 posted on 02/09/2009 4:54:05 PM PST by shooter223 (the government should fear the citizens......not the other way around)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: patriotgal1787

I’m no lawyer (though Barry specialized in constitutional law).. but if I recall correctly, by law, he doesn’t have to present evidence that will incriminate himself.

If they can somehow get a hold of his birth certificate.. or present other evidence, then they’ll have him. (his phoney selective service card comes to mind)

.. of course, all of this is predicated on the justices actually having the spine to look at the case.

Again, the media and Federal enforcement agencies are awol. .. otherwise, they’d be fighting to get the scoop from Rezko et al.


10 posted on 02/09/2009 5:20:18 PM PST by DDLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
I am betting in an hour that O shills/BC deniers will be turning up in this thread.

I am not an Obama shill, but I am a lawyer, I have practiced in federal courts for 30 years, and I have some sense of how the federal courts work. This lawsuit will not go anywhere, because, under basic separation of powers principles, the United States Congress cannot be sued, and certainly not for a claim that they didn't do their job right.

The Senate and House met in joint session, presided over by Vice President Cheney, and decided unanimously that Obama is qualified to be President. The courts will not second-guess that determination, and certainly not in this kind of case.

11 posted on 02/09/2009 5:27:09 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shooter223
How about this? barry signed the SCHIP bill the other day, which includes a tobacco tax increase. The position would be, the new law (in particular the tax increase) is void because the man who signed it is not eligible to be POTUS. It seems to me that anyone who pays the tax would have standing. Any lawyers out there with an opinion on this?

That is at least plausible on its face-- the suit that is the subject of this article, in contrast, is a joke and will certainly be dismissed.

The challenge to the tobacco tax does get over the standing hurdle, but may face other obstacles. (Google "enrolled bill doctrine").

12 posted on 02/09/2009 5:30:11 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Sure you have. I have seen multiple posts by you but you never have said what will work. I wonder why but I tend to know why.


13 posted on 02/09/2009 5:40:20 PM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
I wonder why but I tend to know why.

Because this is a political question which was resolved by the House and Senate, and will not be revisited by the Courts under long-settled separation of powers principles.

14 posted on 02/09/2009 5:52:15 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Enrolled bill doctrine (Wikipedia): [i]f a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. How is someone ineligible for office an “appropriate official”?


15 posted on 02/09/2009 6:16:34 PM PST by shooter223 (the government should fear the citizens......not the other way around)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Not true but you always seem to come up with wonderfully supportive posts for Obama - every time like clockwork.

You did not answer my last question.


16 posted on 02/09/2009 6:51:55 PM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Sorry forgot to add that you are wrong see Dr. Edwin Vieira’s web site. He is a Harvard AB, MA, JD, PhD and Constitutional attorney. Eventually Obama will have to produce proof. It would be settled if he was actually POTUS but he is a not unless he has proof he is.


17 posted on 02/09/2009 8:22:28 PM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: patriotgal1787
Wow. These birthers sure have deep pockets to keep up all these lawsuits. I wonder how long before their money runs out...
18 posted on 02/10/2009 10:58:55 AM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
"I am betting in an hour that O shills/BC deniers will be turning up in this thread."

Well, the Birther shills are already here.

19 posted on 02/10/2009 11:16:13 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Wrong. A known and real Constitutional attorney named Dr. Edwin Vieira with an AB, MA, JD and PhD from Harvard says you are wrong. Are you also the guy on another web site claiming to be “Georgetown JD?”

It will come out. Read Dr. Vieira’s blog and you might learn something.


20 posted on 02/10/2009 11:33:38 AM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mlo

What took you so long? You guys need to be more prompt. Great Leader may replace you.


21 posted on 02/10/2009 11:35:00 AM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

My tap into Birther HQ was down this morning so I missed the latest conspiracy broadcast.


22 posted on 02/10/2009 11:43:26 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Was that at the DNC or the Starbucks near the DNC?


23 posted on 02/10/2009 11:45:24 AM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
Wrong. A known and real Constitutional attorney named Dr. Edwin Vieira with an AB, MA, JD and PhD from Harvard says you are wrong.

Then why has every single one of these cases been dismissed? Why has the Supreme Court denied review unanimoulsy in every case?

Are you also the guy on another web site claiming to be “Georgetown JD?”

No, not me.

24 posted on 02/10/2009 11:46:03 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Read Dr. Vieira’s blog and learn.


25 posted on 02/10/2009 11:48:28 AM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
There's a coterie of Obama people who exclusively post on these threads.

All we need is one case to break through to open up Obama's past.

26 posted on 02/10/2009 11:54:15 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Well the Obama fans who flock to these threads and people who play attorney on the Internet can read Dr. Edwin Vieira’s blogs and see why one of these cases will eventually get through. Probably within 6 months or less.


27 posted on 02/10/2009 12:05:15 PM PST by Frantzie (Boycott GE - they own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC & Universal. Boycott Disney - they own ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: shooter223
Here is the information I have compiled on standing, if you would like to form your own opinion:

A person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. In order to sue to have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for whoever is suing to be there. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.

In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues".

There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish in order to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".

There are three constitutional standing requirements:

1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.

3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially-created) standing principles. Congress can override these principles via statute, but Congress cannot change the three constitutional standing requirements.

1. Prohibition of Third Party Standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others, for example, a party suing that a law prohibiting certain types of visual material may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of others engaged in similar displays might also be damaged as well as those suing. Additionally, third parties who don't have standing may be able to sue under the next-friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract.

2. Prohibition of Generalized Grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.

3. Zone of Interest Test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the Zone of Interest : (a) Zone of Injury - The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute; and (b) Zone of Interests - The party is within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision.


28 posted on 02/10/2009 12:12:57 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of the Free Because of the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
"Was that at the DNC or the Starbucks near the DNC?"

No, the one at 17th and Pennsylvania Ave, near the OEOB.

Not many people know this but this whole birther thing is being run out of the White House. Berg is an operative for Obama. They are trying to keep the oppostion tilting at windmills, and they are good for a laugh.

29 posted on 02/10/2009 1:03:55 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Calling all trolls!

You guys better get busy and try to get this off the air.

30 posted on 02/10/2009 2:00:03 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I worked at a bank that sued the Feds because the Feds reneged on a deal to allow lower reserves if the bank took on failed savings and loans.

Justice prevailed in the supreme court, and stock holders were reimbursed by the feds for the damages when they took over the bank.

Part of the deal was the Congress passed a new law that over road all past deals.

I would say never say never. When it comes to justice, sometimes it becomes painfully obvious that a wrong has occurred and must be righted.

31 posted on 02/10/2009 2:22:41 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Paula Jones got her justice on a lower budget....
Proof that that president was molesting and or raping the help since he was governor.

Persistence pays off.

32 posted on 02/10/2009 2:26:57 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Did Paula Jones get justice? I thought she settled her case because it was dismissed in the lower courts and her lawyers knew she couldn’t win, and her legal fees used up almost her entire settlement. She didn’t even get an apology from Clinton, which is what she claimed she wanted most. I guess justice is in the eye of the beholder.


33 posted on 02/10/2009 2:42:40 PM PST by Crystal Cove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Crystal Cove
Did Paula Jones get justice? I thought she settled her case because it was dismissed in the lower courts and her lawyers knew she couldn’t win, and her legal fees used up almost her entire settlement. She didn’t even get an apology from Clinton, which is what she claimed she wanted most.

Wait, wait! You're forgetting something! As a result of her fame from her lawsuit, she did get invited to fight Tanya Harding on Fox celebrity boxing. Did you see that fight? I did. It was hillarious. I'm sure that appearance was worth a couple hundred thou, at least.

Oh, oh, and I think some magazine paid her a fair amount to pose nude for a spread, which, thankfully I never saw. I seriously doubt she would have gotten that gig without the fame from her lawsuit.

34 posted on 02/10/2009 2:53:06 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: patriotgal1787

Promising! One of these cases will hit!


35 posted on 02/10/2009 3:10:11 PM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Oh, I would bet everything I own that she would not have been offered a playboy spread, or even boxing with Tonya Harding, without the “fame” from her lawsuit. It sure seems to have brought her nothing but trouble, getting divorced, boxing with Tonya Harding, etc. Linda Tripp seems to be happy though.


36 posted on 02/10/2009 3:12:48 PM PST by Crystal Cove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Crystal Cove

And “fame” got her a top of the line nose job paid for by a “donor”............Justice indeed.


37 posted on 02/10/2009 4:10:58 PM PST by Nokia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I’m going to differ with you. All it takes is for one Judge to subpoena Obama’s birth certificate and other documents and then prove the fraud. There won’t be any other alternative than to remove Obama from office.


38 posted on 02/10/2009 5:32:20 PM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

So far, out of how many—15? 20? — cases, they haven’t found that “one judge.”


39 posted on 02/10/2009 5:33:53 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I’m not a lawyer, but from serving in the military, I know how strict the government is. If it can be shown from Obama’s birth certificate that his COLB is a fraud, they will have no alternative but to remove him from office.

His birth certificate will probably show him to be a natural born British citizen (Kenya was a British colony when Obama was born). His mother was to young to pass along American citizenship. The only evidence is that Obama was born in Kenya.

In addition, Obama lost natural born citizenship when his citizenship was switched to Indonesia when he was a minor child.


40 posted on 02/10/2009 6:08:29 PM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“All we need is one case to break through to open up Obama’s past.”

Exactly so.


41 posted on 02/10/2009 7:54:23 PM PST by Nipfan (The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it - H L Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: patriotgal1787

obumpa


42 posted on 02/10/2009 8:35:33 PM PST by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

Has anyone determined why Obama’s online COLB says “applied for” in the lower left corner, while other COLBs from HI say “accepted”?

I haven’t seen a followup explanation on this.


43 posted on 02/10/2009 10:04:14 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (Change is coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

You offer a good point! I’m not sure either, but ask the legal experts here (and Dr. Polarik, etc.).


44 posted on 02/11/2009 5:11:06 AM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Crystal Cove

When good old Boy Billy whipped it out and told his employee to kiss it, he never dreamed he would be impeached 10 years later after she started her law suit. It was a direct result from her lawsuit. And yes, she won money from BJ.

So yes, I think Billy boy would agree, she got some justice. Quite a few women got some justice from her actions.

I guess some people hate to see the truth. It hurts.


45 posted on 02/11/2009 9:00:07 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
There is no proof that Obama’s bc is a fraud,in fact Hawaii health officials said it was genuine. I can't believe you are in the military and you're so ignorant.
The government do a 6 month background check just for employees, let alone people running for office. Obama knows State secret & classified info. CIA, NSA and FBI knows how to tell a fake bc from a real one. You said” the only evidence is that Obama was born in Kenya” did you know that all the lawsuits stated this same absurd idea and they were all dismissed,or denied(no proof)you are contradicting yourself at the end, first you said “evidence of him being born in Kenya” and then “lost his citizenship when was switch to Indonesia”, Nope, American citizenship is a constitutional right and cannot be “changed” like that, not even a parent can relinquish or change citizenship of a child. Read the Constitution and educate yourself instead of posting stupidities,(unless you are another conspiracy theorist) nice try.
46 posted on 02/13/2009 8:44:52 PM PST by veracity85
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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