“NO BASIS IN LAW OR FACT”
(Jan. 22, 2011) — To Mr. “Jedi Pauly:”
I will address your points briefly. I will not go into all the legal details of the Kerchner case because I do not think it is necessary to show that you are wrong in what you write. You continue to attack me, my work, and the Kerchner case for some unknown reason. The last time you attacked me, you said you thought I was Dr. Conspiracy. But now you are back at it in your grand pseudo scientific style.
“You MUST have all FIVE of these:
The Court must have TERRITORIAL jurisdiction over all of the parties listed in a suit.
The Court must have PERSONAL jurisdiction over all of the parties listed in a suit.
The court must have SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over the issues being adjudicated. And such matters must be raised by the plaintiffs in their petition.
There must be stated a specific non-general INJURY and an injuring party.
The court must be able to provide a REMEDY that is within their powers to provide.
That is it. There are no other jurisdictional issues or areas. This is the sum total of all world-wide legal systems as concerns “standing.” They are all the same.”
I will now address you points:
Territorial jurisdiction: This was not an issue in the Kerchner case. The defendants did not raise it as a defense and correctly so. The court also found no problem here.
Obama, Congress, Cheney, and Pelosi can all be sued in the Third Circuit where all the Kerchner plaintiffs live. The Rules of Civil Procedure designate where one can sue the government and its agents and I followed those rules.
Personal jurisdiction: This was not an issue in the Kerchner case. The court acquires personal jurisdiction over the defendants when they are properly served in accordance with due process. I properly served all the defendants pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants did not raise it as a defense and correctly so. The court also found no problem here.
Subject matter jurisdiction: This is where standing came in. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found no Article III standing. The court said that the Kerchner plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact. I will discuss this point in the next heading.
Non-general injury and an injuring party: As I have stated above, this is part of standing and so under your scheme belongs as a part of subject matter jurisdiction and not as a separate category. As we all know, the courts found that plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact. Hence, it found no standing. I argued that the plaintiffs did suffer an injury in fact. The court did not agree with us. The court said that the Kerchner plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact because they like all other Americans would be injured if Obama is not eligible to be President. It said that if all Americans are injured, then the court has no jurisdiction and the case belongs with Congress and the voting booth. Of course we know that Congress said that only the courts could resolve the eligibility issue. I argued that if my clients were injured, it did not matter how many other people were also injured. I also argued that in a Constitutional Republic we cannot resolve questions of constitutional interpretation and meaning in the voting booth. If the court found that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact, of course it will also find that there was no “injuring party.” Hence, it is superfluous to argue about an “injuring party” when injury in fact is already a requirement.
Remedy: This is also part of standing and so also belongs as a part of subject matter jurisdiction and not as a separate category. The Kerchner court never reached the issue of remedy, for it found no injury in fact. Finding no injury in fact, it is not necessary for the court to analyze remedy. In any event, I adequately presented the requested remedy which was injunction, declaratory relief, mandamus relief, and quo warranto relief, all proper remedies in such a case. I showed how Obama was not adequately vetted by anyone during the election process, including the media, the political institutions, the Electoral College, and Congress. I argued that Congress violated the Twentieth Amendment by failing to assure my clients through adequate investigation and hearings that Obama was eligible for the offices of President and Commander in Chief. I argued that Obama and Congress violated my clients’ unalienable Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and their First and Ninth Amendment rights for allowing a person to occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief who never proved he was eligible for those offices, never conclusively proved he was born in the United States, and that in any event, cannot be eligible because he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born. I argued that Congress violated my clients’ equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment for investigating the “natural born Citizen” status of John McCain but not that of Barack Obama. As part of the declaratory action, I asked that the court declare what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, declare that Obama does not meet that definition, and provide the definition and its findings to Congress so Congress could take appropriate action against Obama. As part of the mandamus relief, I asked that the court order Obama to produce his contemporaneous 1961 long-form birth certificate and that Congress take appropriate action against Obama based on the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendants never argued that the courts could not provide the remedy that the Kerchner plaintiffs requested and the courts never made any such finding. The District Court dismissed the Kerchner case on political question and standing grounds (both Article III and prudential standing). The Third Circuit dismissed it on Article III standing grounds. No court ever reached the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. No court ever even discussed plaintiffs’ argument regarding violation of their unalienable Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property when it analyzed whether plaintiffs had standing.
In short, you really have it all wrong. You attempt to have your general unfounded comments cover all the eligibility attorneys and all their cases. Your argument has no basis in law or fact. You fail to address the particulars of any one case and especially the Kerchner case. You really should reconsider coming out with such articles which really put into question the credibility of the eligibility issue, the writers of such articles, and that of those who publish such articles. I hope that you will refrain from such writings in the future.
Editor’s Note: The Post & Email is an independent, First Amendment newspaper which publishes all points of view. We take no position on legal questions because we are not attorneys or legal scholars.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.