Skip to comments.Update on Kerchner et als. v. Obama & Congress et als. (RE: Apuzzo)
Posted on 06/09/2009 11:05:24 AM PDT by rxsid
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Activity in Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case - 2nd Extension of time granted to Defendants
Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit - The motion by the defendants for the second extension in time to answer, move, or otherwise respond was granted. Their new deadline is June 29, 2009. You can read the full order at the link below. When you read the order you will see that the court addressed this second request for an extension in great detail in his five page order. I will comment in more detail later.
Link to a copy of the court documents for this latest activity: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16253400/
"The Court has also received and reviewed numerous letters from non-parties opposing Defendants motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24,25]."
Excellent! Shows that this issue isn't occurring in a vacuum!
"In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United States."
"In support of her present motion, Ms. Pascal argues that on April 24, 2009 she learned that Defendant Cheney requested and was granted representation by the DOJ. Ms.Pascal further argues that on April 9, 2009, she learned that Defendants Pelosi and the House of Representatives also requested representation by the DOJ, which has not yet been decided."
"Plaintiffs Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the Defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in the case is not simple and straightforward. Thus, since Defendants need more time to identify and engage counsel,their request for more time to respond to Plaintiffs Complaint is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances."
"The Court further finds that granting Defendants an extension of time will not prejudice Plaintiffs or materially delay the resolution of the case. The Court is confident that after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants,that the case will proceed expeditiously. Accordingly, for good cause shown IT IS on this 8 day of June, 2009 hereby
ORDERED that Defendants Motion Extending Time in which to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve their response to Plaintiffs Complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than June 29,2009"
I would almost guarantee that this judge is setting up the ruling that since the ‘elected’ inidividual has been sworn in by the subpreme Roberts court, the case against him as qualified is moot.
Hmmm... seems at least one case is moving forward. Maybe a few more will fall in line.
Maybe we are in for a surprise from a judge who has some balls.
Only takes one case with the correct premise, defendants etc to get the job done.
Advertorial run in the Washington Times .. June 1, 2009
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Advertorial in 20090601 Issue Wash Times
Zoom to enlarge, scroll left/right to see all text
June 29, 2009 .. Kerchner et al extension date.
Just a calendar note ...
U.S. President Barack Obama and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe will meet at the White House on June 29, the Colombian ambassador to Washington confirmed on RCN Radio Tuesday.
Difficult to read, but seems to cover most of the bases.
Thank u for the ping..