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

Skip to comments.

Kerchner Eligibility Lawsuit Dismissed on Standing
U.S. District Court, New Jersey ^ | 10/21/2009 | Judge Jerome B. Simandle

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.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; kerchner; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamatruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-290 next last

1 posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:37 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mlo; Non-Sequitur; parsifal; Pilsner; Drew68; curiosity; Sibre Fan; El Sordo; MilspecRob; ...

Ping.

Mario Apuzzo’s lawsuit dimissed.


2 posted on 10/21/2009 9:04:16 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Ping Barry’s enablers! High fives all around!


3 posted on 10/21/2009 9:05:09 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; April Lexington; ...

“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.”

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


4 posted on 10/21/2009 9:07:23 AM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.”)


5 posted on 10/21/2009 9:07:31 AM PDT by Fighter@heart (Government, the most inefficient entity to ever exist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Another chicken sh*t reading of the law.


6 posted on 10/21/2009 9:11:25 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighter@heart

Time to join oathkeeper friends
oathkeepers.org


7 posted on 10/21/2009 9:12:07 AM PDT by manonCANAL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

It seems only the pro-0bama people have standing in the courts. Are we witnessing the rise of the 4th Reich?


8 posted on 10/21/2009 9:12:16 AM PDT by CoastWatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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

Who does?
OR as more likely all judges will rule for odumbo


9 posted on 10/21/2009 9:19:37 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Disappointing. I hope this continues through an appeal process.

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.

10 posted on 10/21/2009 9:20:31 AM PDT by Think free or die (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money - M.Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

That what I’m thinking. Just who the He!! has standing?


11 posted on 10/21/2009 9:23:16 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente (NRA Life Member & www.Gunsnet.net Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CoastWatcher

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


12 posted on 10/21/2009 9:24:30 AM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

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.


13 posted on 10/21/2009 9:24:55 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

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


14 posted on 10/21/2009 9:26:53 AM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”


15 posted on 10/21/2009 9:27:23 AM PDT by Dryman ("FREE THE LONG FORM!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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???


16 posted on 10/21/2009 9:27:47 AM PDT by illiac (If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
1) So what does this mean for the California Case?

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":

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?
17 posted on 10/21/2009 9:28:23 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

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


18 posted on 10/21/2009 9:28:55 AM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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


19 posted on 10/21/2009 9:29:42 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
What a poseur you are! You don't want your obamessiah removed and take joy when each of these suits is dismissed on the same specious grounds that no one has standing. Whom you pinged reveals where your allegiance is festering.
20 posted on 10/21/2009 9:32:07 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-290 next last

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