Skip to comments.Kerchner Eligibility Lawsuit Dismissed on Standing
Posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:35 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
United States District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle has dismissed the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit challenging President Barack H. Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant Defendants motion to dismiss."
Judge Simandle's full opinion is at the link.
Mario Apuzzo’s lawsuit dimissed.
Ping Barry’s enablers! High fives all around!
“Attorney Mario Apuzzo called me a few minutes ago. Judge Simandle has granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. More on this later. Mario will post some initial comments in the blog but he still has to read the Judge’s decision in full. I also need to read the full decision. But we will definitely appeal.”
It appears that no Citizen in America has legal standing in this case. What a CROCK of Fecal matter (this situation, not the president. That’s a whole differant “can of worms.”)
Another chicken sh*t reading of the law.
Time to join oathkeeper friends
It seems only the pro-0bama people have standing in the courts. Are we witnessing the rise of the 4th Reich?
I wish I understood who exactly does have “ standing”
So far citizens don’t, a presidental candidate doesn’t and active duty military don’t
OR as more likely all judges will rule for odumbo
In the meantime, we need to keep the pressure on our elected representatives to slow down the juggernaut, to organize our efforts for upcoming elections, and wake up our fellow citizens to the threat we are facing.
That what I’m thinking. Just who the He!! has standing?
No. It is simply the application of the law. If McCain had won, would you want the courts involved to throw him out because pro-Obama people were suspicious about him being a citizen, or NBC, or whatever?
parsy, who says it was the proper decision
If you read the federal rules of civil procedure, it becomes clear that we don’t have standing. There is no unique injury that is particularized and concrete to one plaintiff. Every voter suffers the same injury from an ineligible POTUS. And there is no remedy that the court can grant. The court can’t remove a sitting president.
That doesn’t mean Obama is eligible. It just means, we can’t pursue this method of removing him. We’ll have to find another way.
In brief, “standing” requires some personalized injury to the person suing. If it is an injury that befalls all Americans, then it is not personalized. This is one reason why individual taxpayers can not sue over gov’t waste. It is an injury that befalls all of us.
parsy, who hopes this helps
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Brief explanation of who has “standing”:
STANDING - The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person
must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.
There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).
Standing is founded “in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society. “ Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ “ Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
Now we need to decide if these suits are brought about by someone who has “standing”.....comments???
2) Are any of Orly's plantiff's significantly different? Does any of hers have actual orders that haven't been recinded?
3) Question: With regards to "Natural Born":
Can you read the decision and find anything that specifically is wrong? If so, I would love to see it.
parsy, who thinks the decision was well written
I am trying to understand that. But I think Keyes had a particular injury from odumbo running even while ineligible
I also thought surely an active duty military member would have particular injury having to take orders from an ineligible President.
Since this isn’t working it looks like all we have is election 2012
By then he will have done a ton of damage an by then MSM will have convinced a ton of people he really is the chosen one
Nope. Get to work in your state to enact legislation that requires presidential candidates to provide documentation proving that they are eligible to hold the office. That's what I'm doing.
More like the rise of the Cominterm in America.
More like the rise of the Cominterm in America.
Why do you bother implying that I support Obama? My posts on FR make it clear that I don’t. Your continued claims that I do make you look foolish.
That is important but will not be retroactive.
I am doing as many things to stop what odumbo is trying to do including trying to talk to people in other areas since I am in N. Texas and my rep and senators agree with me
I'd want the courts to rule on the issue, not hide behind "standing". McCain of course was born of two US Citizens while his father was serving the country in its military forces. It's very easy to make a case for such a person being a Natural Born citizen. Both Blackstone and Vattel, who disagree on a lot, agree on that.
Oh, and something else. Did you notice that none of us “trolls” and “pro-Obama” agents ever jumped on the lawyer in this lawsuit. And we never poked fun at the legal proceedings there. I wonder why that is? Oh, I know. The attorneys here may have had a questionable case legally speaking, but they pursued it like professional attorneys and did not trash the courts, did not trash Obama, file in multiple jurisdictions, introduce obviously phony evidence, and carry on like legal maniacs.
They made their case, argued their reasoning and law, and lost like professionals. In addition, they did not have the entire country laughing at them the way it is at Orly. Nobody is getting sanctions filed on them here. Nobody is alleging Eric Holder met the judge in a coffee shop.
parsy, who thought this needed to be said
None, the equal rights amendment was never ratified. It doesn't exist.
That said, the 1790 act was replealed in 1795, as far as "natural born" citizenship" was involved. The 1795 and later acts required to US parents for citizenship. Later acts allowed for just one US citizen parent, with restrictions. But again, just for statutor citizenship, not Nautural Born (meaning needing no statute or law, citizenship.
Taken from here. http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/model-complaint-of-election-fraud-to-state-attorneys-general/
Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 881 (1983)
You are as stupid as you are transparent, gargles
Thats the whole point. There are some things courts can not rule on by law. Courts can not give advisory opinions.
parsy, who thinks you are over-reacting
Thanks. I’ve seen that before, but it doesn’t cover everything that needs to be filed. The Democrat Party broke so many laws in Texas is defies logic.
And another one bites, and another one bites, and another one bites the dust.
What I would want the court to do is to order the person in question to produce a full and certified piece of evidence of life birth. You know, that certified birth certificate that you have to produce to get a friggin driver’s license, mariiage license, or passport.
Just another reason to start by killing all the lawyers....
That is not entirely correct. In order to have standing then you have to have suffered real damages to a legally protected interest. In the Hollander v. McCain decision the judge seemed to indicate that McCain may have standing because as a serious presidential candidate he could well have been said to suffer damages by being beaten by an ineligible opponent. Alan Keyes, on the other hand, does not have standing because his chances of winning was zero regardless of who else was in the race.
Footnote 5 from the bottom of page 11:
"Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an injury in fact sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that even when the plaintiff has alleged redressable injury sufficient to meet the requirements of Art. III, the Court has refrained from adjudicating abstract questions of wide public significance which amount to generalized grievances, pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982). Plaintiffs claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs frustration with what they perceive as Congress inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.
To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the political question doctrine as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitutions provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices."
Basically, the judge says it is up the legislative branch to ensure a properly qualified President is elected. Since they have qualified him and installed him into office, the court has nothing to say about it.
Well, there you are citizens. Now shut up and move along.
The reason you never made fun of the lawyers in this lawsuit is that they lost and that is what you wanted. If the lawyers lose they do a good job. If the lawyers become troublesome and fight like hell they are discredited.
You are such a dishonest person. I’d hate to be you ten years from now.
Only if one is delusional enough to believe that Keyes had a chance of winning. Otherwise I could say that I suffered damages because I couldn't win the election due to Obama being ineligible.
In Birtherland, the only true test of conservatism is being a Birther.
John G. Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L.J. 1219 (1993)
Well what about former owners of car dealerships? oil servcie companies, GM stock owners.........i'm sure they and their accountants could show detailed losses.
Another clear cut example of the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘moral’. This decision is well written, well cited, and concise. It is legally correct.
It is, however, a moral abomination. It is a prime example of what is wrong in the US judiciary. There is a valid Constitutional question in play, here. And, to this point, NO one has standing? Bull Puckey!
It is decisions like this that will drive this nation to its next revolution.
‘stimulus’ comes to mind as harming all of us.
Nothing. The two are not related.
2) Are any of Orly's plantiff's significantly different? Does any of hers have actual orders that haven't been rescinded?
Not in California. She had that Captain in the Rhodes case who's orders weren't rescinded and who reported for duty about the time the judge dismissed the case.
What impact would the equal Rights Amendment have if the 1790 definition holds? Would the equal right amendment retroactively allow the Mother to pass "Natural Born" citizenry even though under age given the laws at the time?
The 1790 Naturalization law only defined natural-born citizen in the case of a child born overseas to two U.S. citizen parents. Citizenship of those born in the U.S. wasn't addressed. The Equal Rights Amendment, even had it been passed, would not have impacted citizenship laws.