Simandle turns and runs: Dismisses Kerchner vs. Obama

BETRAYS LEGACY OF NAIDER’S RAIDERS, SIDES WITH TYRANNY & GOVT. SECRECY

by John Charlton

(Oct. 21, 2009) — It’s another judicial cop-out; but from a surprising quarter:  Judge Jerome B. Simandle, who began his citizen advocacy and legal career as a Naider’s raider, has sided with tyranny by granting the Motion to Dismiss, in the case Kerchner et al. vs. Obama et al..

The Plaintiffs issued this public notice, just 2 hours ago:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
21 October 2009

Re. Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al filed January 20th, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

Judge Simandle Has Granted the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss. We will appeal.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/judge-simandle-has-granted-dojs-motion.html

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.

Like in the Battle of Long Island in the Revolutionary War, we have lost a battle. But we have not lost the war. The real decision on this will ultimately be made by the U.S. Supreme Court on the real crux of this matter … which is a legal issue, i.e., the legal question of what is a Natural Born Citizen per Article II of our Constitution per original intent, and is Obama one. I say he is not. Read this as to why:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

Attorney Apuzzo will comment further once he has had a chance to read the full decision.  See his legal blog for more comments.  Link below.

We have lost at this initial step. But now Attorney Apuzzo can move the case up the ladder in the court system and file an appeal.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Attorney Mario Apuzzo made the following comments about the ruling:

The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an “injury in fact.” It added that plaintiffs’ alleged injury is “only a generally available grievance about government” and “is one they share with all United States citizens.” Finally, it said that plaintiffs’ “motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. . .”

By way of footnote, the Court said that even if the plaintiffs could show that the Court had Article III standing, they would not be able to show that the court should exercise jurisdiction because prudential standing concerns would prevent it from doing so.

Finally, the Court again in a footnote said that it cannot take jurisdiction of the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Congress has acted constitutionally in its confirmation of Obama for President because the matter is a “political question” which needs to be resolved by Congress. The Court said that there simply is no room for judicial review of political choices made by the Electoral College and the Congress when voting for and confirming the President. The Court added that the plaintiffs’ remedy against Congress may be achieved by voting at the polls.

It is important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because of jurisdiction and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous. Given the nature of the Court’s decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief.

The Post & Email will have more news about this, as it becomes available.

0 Responses to "Simandle turns and runs: Dismisses Kerchner vs. Obama"

  1. Aristotle the Hun   Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 7:55 PM

    Naders Raiders are cousins of ACORN. I know. I am the former director of MOPIRG. (Back in my former life as a misguided, idealist, young liberal.

    http://www.mopirg.org/

  2. citizenscott   Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 6:19 PM

    [An attack on subject matter jurisdiction can be
    either facial — based solely on the allegations in the complaint
    — or factual — looking beyond the allegations to attack
    jurisdiction in fact. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,
    549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). Where, as here, the challenge
    to subject matter jurisdiction is facial, the Court must, for the
    purposes of this motion, take all the allegations in the
    complaint to be true and construe them in the light most
    favorable to the Plaintiffs. Id.]

  3. Harry H   Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM

    Another case, another courtroom copout. The “political question” excuse is garbage. This is about what the Constitution says and whether what the Constitution says matters a tinker’s damn any more.

    And what is “prudential standing concerns” supposed to mean? That black people won’t like it if Obuma is forced to resign? Well, there are lots of us who don’t like it when people don’t play by the rules. The Constitution is our rules. If the constraints of the rules are not honored, all bets are off.

  4. Jack   Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM

    Orly’s two cases (District Cts. in Ga and Ca) are different now in key respects.

    Judge Land case is now all about Orly showing her case not frivolous, so as not to chill the rest of America. Checkmate against Obama!

    Keyes case does not have to seek the constitutional nightmare of ousting Obama, just recovery of damages (even nominal) will do the job. Checkmate against Obama!

    Take heart (and if I’m wrong here it’s literally all over for America).

  5. Marie Devine   Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 3:51 PM

    Fear Not, You are made strong in your weakness. God has not brought us this far to leave us. This is so disgusting and abhorrent, that people will go to the poles in November and elect only non-democrats. It will cut off their base and majority. In time all Democrats will be out of office throughout the nation.

    Democrats are Liberals and they go against God’s word. (abortion, gay issues, more government)

    Republicans and some others are Conservative and generally go toward God’s word.

    Barack Obama got in power because people of God thought God works without them. Their leaders are in error and deceived them, so they sat back and watched. Now they can see how important their vote is. NOW, we only have to select those leaders who will best use God’s word to overcome the world problems we created with our system, not just those that will say, Amen.

    Marie Devine
    http://www.divine-way.com

  6. Noway2no   Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM

    They are going to leave us no choice.

  7. Margie   Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 12:27 PM

    Another sad day in America. Where are the checks and balances our fore Fathers laid out for us? It is time to storm the Supreme Court and demand answers. God Bless America.

  8. NewEnglandPatriot   Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 12:10 PM

    Very disheartening. I was hoping that Judge Simandle would see the wisdom in hearing the case to settle the matter once and for all as to Obama’s eligibility.

    It is starting to look as if we cannot depend on any court to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, we the people will do it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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