PDA

View Full Version : Appeals briefs scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge




lynnf
11-30-2009, 04:37 AM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117141


A briefing schedule has been announced by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president, according to an attorney handling the challenge.

...

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.

Now the attorney has posted an online statement that the brief on behalf of the appellants is due Jan. 4, 2010.

In an e-mail announcing the schedule, Kerchner wrote, "We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court."

He continued. "They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a 'natural born citizen' of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle."

"I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper," he wrote today.

Apuzzo earlier argued in his notice of appeal that the district court judge "avoided" a conclusion on the merits of the case.

"We allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II 'natural born Citizen' because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same," he wrote.

,,,,,,

-------------------

lynn

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-30-2009, 04:40 AM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117141


A briefing schedule has been announced by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president, according to an attorney handling the challenge.

...

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.

Now the attorney has posted an online statement that the brief on behalf of the appellants is due Jan. 4, 2010.

In an e-mail announcing the schedule, Kerchner wrote, "We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court."

He continued. "They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a 'natural born citizen' of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle."

"I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper," he wrote today.

Apuzzo earlier argued in his notice of appeal that the district court judge "avoided" a conclusion on the merits of the case.

"We allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II 'natural born Citizen' because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same," he wrote.

-------------------

lynn

Does anyone take this seriously? Anyone? The State is never going to rule in favor of the plaintiff! Never! One would think after Irwin Schiff this would be apparent...I guess not. Summarily dismissed.

Pepsi
11-30-2009, 04:48 AM
The Monroe County Grand Jury will hear these and other charges Tuesday December 1st

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17303

devil21
11-30-2009, 05:17 AM
On the flip side to AED's reply, this case could turn into a precedent allowing people of "questionable" citizenship into office. This case really could backfire horribly, or intentionally depending on the motives behind it. Even a dismissal could set bad case law "shaping" the definition of natural born citizen into something it was never intended to be.

lynnf
11-30-2009, 05:22 AM
Does anyone take this seriously? Anyone? The State is never going to rule in favor of the plaintiff! Never! One would think after Irwin Schiff this would be apparent...I guess not. Summarily dismissed.


oh, really. now, let's see, what was that recent court case in New Orleans?
keep on honking your horn with the same old tune,

in the meantime your buddy Obama's poll numbers keep on falling, falling falling....
and Climategate exposes the evil agenda and time keeps rolling on...

here's the court case:

Court: Army Corps of Engineers liable for Katrina flooding

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/18/louisiana.katrina.lawsuit/index.html


(CNN) -- The Army Corps of Engineers' failure to properly maintain a shipping channel linking New Orleans, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico led to catastrophic flooding during Hurricane Katrina, a federal court ruled Wednesday.

...


------------------------



lynnf

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-30-2009, 05:25 AM
oh, really. now, let's see, what was that recent court case in New Orleans?
keep on honking your horn with the same old tune, time keeps rolling on...

Court: Army Corps of Engineers liable for Katrina flooding

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/18/louisiana.katrina.lawsuit/index.html


(CNN) -- The Army Corps of Engineers' failure to properly maintain a shipping channel linking New Orleans, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico led to catastrophic flooding during Hurricane Katrina, a federal court ruled Wednesday.

...


------------------------



lynnf

Ooooh. Wow, a measly 500,000$. I guess the big-issues flew right over. Number one, the courts will always side with the State on important issues. Namely, taxation, and Executive. For the same reason Irwin is summarily dismissed so too will this. Do you honestly believe there is even a 0.0001% chance that Barack Obama is going to get impeached by the SCOTUS? How much do you want to bet this won't go anywhere and we'll get no answers. I'll bet you 2 OZ of .999 Troy Gold. You want to take?

lynnf
11-30-2009, 06:42 AM
Ooooh. Wow, a measly 500,000$. I guess the big-issues flew right over. Number one, the courts will always side with the State on important issues. Namely, taxation, and Executive. For the same reason Irwin is summarily dismissed so too will this. Do you honestly believe there is even a 0.0001% chance that Barack Obama is going to get impeached by the SCOTUS? How much do you want to bet this won't go anywhere and we'll get no answers. I'll bet you 2 OZ of .999 Troy Gold. You want to take?


no, I'm not going to bet that we have honest judges -- there is too much evidence to the contrary!


lynn

angelatc
11-30-2009, 06:44 AM
SCOTUS doesn't impeach.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-30-2009, 07:20 AM
SCOTUS doesn't impeach.

If they rule that he isn't eligible for Presidency, yes they do. What else would you call it?