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.
Judge Simandle Has Granted the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss. We will appeal.
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 , we have lost a battle. But we have not lost the war. The real decision on this will ultimately be made by the 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:
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.
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.