Posted on 04/08/2010 7:00:00 PM PDT by Man50D
A federal court case that argues President Obama probably is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution of the chief executive officer, has been scheduled by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for June 29.
In a letter dated yesterday to Mario Apuzzo, the attorney representing plaintiff Charles Kerchner and others, the clerk of the court said the case has been "tentatively listed on the merits on Tuesday, June 29, 2010."
The notice said there is a possibility the case would have to be moved, and the court "will determine whether there will be oral argument and if so, the amount of time allocated for each side."
Those decisions would be announced later if necessary, the notification said.
On a blog dealing with the case, lead plaintiff Kerchner wrote that the case will be addressed by three members of the 3rd Circuit, but those names have not yet been announced.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
A well-thought-out and well-written brief. Godspeed, Mario.
Right on!!!!
This one has been scheduled. That means it has not been dismissed for standing. Yet, there is some hope, Apuzzo put together a pretty tight case.
Drip...drip...drip...
The Supreme Court refused each of those cases because they are not a Trier of Fact. They are a Judicial Review Court....ie they do not hear testimony arguing facts, they listen to arguements about points of law and how they are correctly applied to the case at hand....When a case is tried in one of the lower courts, the USSC will then take up the matter upon someone’s appeal and we will get a Constitutional ruling....not until then....I have full confidence that eventually it will reach our highest Court..... and Obama will be out on his ear!
Time will tell with regard to this latest attempt. I’ll leave the crystal ball gazing to you.
This one has been scheduled. That means it has not been dismissed for standing. Yet, there is some hope, Apuzzo put together a pretty tight case.
This one has been scheduled. That means it has not been dismissed for standing. Yet, there is some hope, Apuzzo put together a pretty tight case.
I don’t believe that any of the 7 cases (or for that matter any other case) was ever ruled on by lower courts....There has been no Court, at any level, that has actualy ruled that Obama is, or, is not, an NBC as per the US Constitution.
Of course I could have missed one .... could you provide me a link to any courts ruling on Obama’s NBC , so that I might educate myself, (and would love to read the ruling and it’s rational that Obama is an NBC).... A dismissal is NOT a Ruling....it is an acknowlegement of a defect in the suit’s filing....that says nothing of the underlying validity/non validity of the central question of Obama’s NBC eligibility...
Judge Carter, in dismissing Alan Keys suit, indicated that the proper court to bring his (Keyes) suit was the DC District Court and filed as a Quo Warrento brief.....have there been any cases so brought, and RULED upon? Or are attorneys so deaf that none have been filed?
In the cases you cite the plaintiffs sent their briefs directly to the USSC without fixing the defects in their filings, or by filing in the proper court, believing the validity of the brief would overcome the process....
It is therefore no wonder the Supremes refused to issue a Writ of Cert......as I said they are not a Trier of Fact....there must be a ruling of a lower court first....
Chief Justice Roberts’ fumbling of Obama’s Oath of Office, not once, but twice, tells me that he realizes Obama does not meet Constitutional Presidential requirements... maintaining Judicial decorum proved difficult for him......
Removing Obama must follow an orderly process with all i’s dotted and t’s crossed because of a prescedent setting removal of a sitting President by judicial ruling...It must be done with very strict, and within very narrow, grounds, because an intemperate ruling would wreck havoc upon our tradition of orderly Executive Office power transfer....a consideration that in the end, may outweigh the question of ruling upon Obama’s eligibility........
My crystal ball broke decades ago when I was 7...... Nonetheless I can still see farther than the ground directly in front of me......
Thanks I missed it, looking for ANY good news I can find these days.
A dismissal of a lawsuit because the plaintiff did not have legal standing to sue IS a ruling (an adjudication) by the court. If someone sued you and the judge dismissed their suit because they had no grounds to sue you, didn’t you still win?
Every one of the seven Obama eligibility lawsuits that was rejected for a Writ of Certiorari by the US Supreme Court was heard and dismissed at a lower level state or federal court. That is why they were appealing to the “court of last resort.”
(1) Berg v Obama was heard in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals before being denied by the US Supreme Court.
(2) Craig v US was heard by the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals and it was denied by the US Supreme Court.
(3) Donofrio v Wells was heard first in a New Jersey State Court, then by the New Jersey Supreme Court before being denied by the US Supreme Court.
(4) Herbert v Obama et. al. was heard in the Middle District of Florida US District Court and was then denied a Writ of Certiorari by the US Supreme Court.
(5) Lightfoot v Bowen was heard and dismissed by the California Supreme Court and submitted to Justice Kennedy at the US Supreme Court. It was denied by Justice Kennedy and resubmitted to Chief Justice Roberts. It was denieda again at Justices’ conference.
(6) Schneller v Cortes was dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and denied by the US Supreme Court.
(7) Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz was dismissed by the Connecticut state court and denied a Writ of Certiorari by the US Supreme Court.
Kerchner et. al. v Obama et. al was dismissed by US District Court in New Jersey and is pending in the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
Only two courts have rendered decisions on Obama’s eligibilty, The Marion County, Indiana Superior Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals. In the case of “Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels” the plaintiffs sued to stop Indiana’s governor from allowing Obama’s (and McCain’s) Electoral votes from being certified due to the fact that neither was a natural born citizen. The Superior Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that both Obama and McCain qualify for Indiana’s electoral votes as natural born citizens with respect to Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution. The plaintiffs argued that Obama was not natural born because his father was not an American citizen. The courts rejected that argument.
You can read the Ankeny decision at the following link. Scroll down to page 10, Section B “Natural Born Citizen” for the 3 Judge panel’s rationale.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Just last week the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.”
Thanks for the ping!
Lets see if I remember all this correctly:
(Assuming you don’t buy into the ‘born in Kenya’ theory)
The theory that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) is that his father was not a citizen, and he presumably has (or had) dual citizenship at birth. Natural Born and Born with Dual Citizenship being mutually exclusive in the opinions of those supporting this theory.
The theory that McCain was not a NBC is that he was born in a hospital in Panama. In some variations of this theory that makes McCain a dual citizen, and so like the Obama example above he’s inelligible for having dual citizenship at birth. In a second variation, it is admitted that his birth did not confer Panamanian dual citizenship, but the claim is made he is still not an NBC because he was not born in one of the 50 states. (Would someone born in DC also be inelligible?)
All arguments of this type are, in my humble opinion, destined to fail. Esoteric and obscure, little tested in law, based on ancient books - such definitions will not be used to unseat a elected POTUS by any Supreme COurt.
You are correct, sir!
For the record, in 1963 at age 2 Obama lost his British dual citizenship when Kenya became an independent nation and he lost his Kenyan dual citizenship when he did not elect to retain it at age 21. Kenyan law gives a person born with dual citizenship two years to make up their mind as to whether they want to be only Kenyan, so the official expiration date of Obama’s Kenyan citizenship was when he hit his 23rd birthday on August 4, 1984 and he did not elect to retain Kenyan citizenship.
Senator McCain was never a dual citizen.
PING for two weeks till D-day on yet another Obama eligibility case.
Appuzo’s brief to the 3rd Circuit of Appeals is about 24,000 words. This also happens to fall on the week of July 4th Independence Day from Great Britain. Ironic, since Obama was born an English subject. Hopefully, it will be the start of Independence from him.
PING for two weeks till D-day on yet another Obama eligibility case.
I hope. Apuzzo did a lot of things right to make it much harder for the judges to dimiss his/Kerchner’s case. Did they pick a city for hearing? It was supposed to be Philly then in NJ.
wasn’t there a thread on here recently that there won’t be a hearing but the case will be decided on the briefs?
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.