Informaciones noticiosas y comentarios.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Obama and Congress Request and Obtain Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner Appeal
On
January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants' Opening Brief in
the appeal of Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that
the New Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling
that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obama's alleged eligibility to
be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents a
non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the Founder’s and Framers’
definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to
citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is not an Article II “natural born
Citizen” because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from
birth which is obtained when a child is born in
the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at
the time of birth. Obama’s father was only a temporary visitor to the United
States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen.
Not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama is not eligible to
bePresident and Commander in
Chief.
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008) or through other contemporaneous and objective documentation. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept him as a “natural born Citizen.”
The defendants had 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Defendants have requested and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file their brief. The Court has granted them until March 8, 2010 to file it. After that filing, I will then have a chance to file a reply brief within the next 14 days.
You may obtain a copy of my brief at this site . We will be posting here the defendants' opposition brief after it is filed along with my reply brief. I hope that many of you will take the time to read these briefs so that you may learn first hand what the legal issues and arguments are regarding whether the plaintiffs have standing and/or are precluded by the political question doctrine to challenge Obama on his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, and what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 12, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
If you can, help the cause.
CDR Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff
http://www.protectourliberty.org
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008) or through other contemporaneous and objective documentation. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept him as a “natural born Citizen.”
The defendants had 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Defendants have requested and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file their brief. The Court has granted them until March 8, 2010 to file it. After that filing, I will then have a chance to file a reply brief within the next 14 days.
You may obtain a copy of my brief at this site . We will be posting here the defendants' opposition brief after it is filed along with my reply brief. I hope that many of you will take the time to read these briefs so that you may learn first hand what the legal issues and arguments are regarding whether the plaintiffs have standing and/or are precluded by the political question doctrine to challenge Obama on his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, and what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 12, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
If you can, help the cause.
CDR Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Posted by Puzo1 at 4:56 PM 
Labels: Apuzzo, constitutional eligibility
president, Kerchner, kerchner v obama, Mario Apuzzo, natural born
citizen, political question,standing
Tags: OBAMA KERCHNER APUZZO
3 comments:
As Lead Plaintiff in this case it looks to me like the Defendants are having great difficulty finding a way to knock down the constitutional, historical, and legal arguments made by Attorney Mario Apuzzo in the Appellant's Opening Brief to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals filed in Philadelphia PA, the city where our U.S. Constitution was written in 1789.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19
The truth about Obama's constitutional ineligibility for the office he sits in, and the fundamental law of our nation, the U.S. Constitution, will win the day in the end.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26563415/Citizen-v-natural-born-Citizen-It-s-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell-20100208-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-15
It is only a matter of time before the fraud of Obama in the 2008 election will be revealed. And because of that the progressives are trying to run out the clock to keep him in office as the putative president as long as possible. But in my opinion Obama's days of deceit and fraudulently occupying the Oval Office are numbered.
Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Lawsuit details: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
To Help Visit this Site and Make a Donation to the Cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org
####
Indeed it looks as though you may be right. The defense couldn't even come up with a written request outlining WHY they needed more time ("because Barry wants it"???) but had to make a verbal request.
Seems as though their feathers may be ruffled. The wicket gets a lot
stickier for them from here on, I think.
Classic Legal Technique to stall things. They need more time but really probably don't need more time and are just stalling. Mario, remember to try to anticipate their plan of attack and be ready to combat it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post