Simandle responds to Apuzzo

EX-NAIDER RAIDER CITES COMPLEXITY OF ISSUES

By John Charlton

(October 2, 2009) — This evening Judge Jerome B. Simandle responded to Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s Letter of Inquiry, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, in the case Kerchner et al. vs. Obama et al..  Attorney Apuzzo’s letter had inquired regarding the Judge’s delay on two motions before his bench.

In his reply, Judge Simandle cites his need to complete his own legal research of the issues, and affirms that he is working on his decision, and that many issues were raised by both sides.

The case Kerchner vs. Obama is a case of first instance, regarding the right of military plaintiffs to seek mandamus regarding their de facto Commander-in-Chief, via the Article III Judiciary on the grounds of usurpation of office.  While it is legally impossible to deny the crime of usurpation, on account of the public admission by Obama of a British subject as a father, and the 4 Supreme Court cases citing the definition of a natural born citizen, which definition requires 2 american citizen parents; a ruling in this case against Obama would be a shock to the political establishment, which has with widespread distain and indifference presumed on its own authority to govern the nation at it sees fit, without regard to the requirements established by the U.S. Constitution, in Article II, Section i, paragraph 5.

0 Responses to "Simandle responds to Apuzzo"

  1. Pingback: Editorial: Oct. 7, 2009 — Endemic Corruption and what to do about it «

  2. jtx   Saturday, October 3, 2009 at 6:01 AM

    John:

    You surely have some well-researched and interesting material on your site. As a matter of curiosity, what are the 7 SCOTUS cases you mention citing the natural born citizen? I’ve only been able to think of a couple and would like to read the others. Thanks.
    ———–
    Mr. Charlton replies: These 7 cases I was thinking of are as follows (I was wrong not all are from Scotus):

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (A. D. 1814)
    Shanks vs. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (A.D. 1830)
    Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (A.D. 1875)
    Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill.,394, 402
    United States vs. Ward, 42 F. 320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890)
    U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (A. D. 1898)

    And Keith vs. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. A. D. 1899), which in saying that a son has the same citizenship of the father, results in the same conclusion that Obama is ineligible to be President, on the fact affirmed by him, that his father was a british subject at the time of his birth, and thus he is british, and not a natural born U.S. Citizen…

  3. JerseyPatriot   Friday, October 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM

    And if Mario wins….what happens next? It should be that Republicans in Congress call for Obama to step down. Impeachment is not an option because BO is a Usurper and the Constitution dictates that Obama will be arrested if he doesn’t step down as POTUS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.