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.
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.
What took you so long? You guys need to be more prompt. Great Leader may replace you.
My tap into Birther HQ was down this morning so I missed the latest conspiracy broadcast.
Was that at the DNC or the Starbucks near the DNC?
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.
Read Dr. Vieira’s blog and learn.
All we need is one case to break through to open up Obama's past.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
You guys better get busy and try to get this off the air.
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.
Persistence pays off.
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.
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.
Promising! One of these cases will hit!
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.
And “fame” got her a top of the line nose job paid for by a “donor”............Justice indeed.
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.
So far, out of how many—15? 20? — cases, they haven’t found that “one judge.”
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.
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.