Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, March 8, 2010
From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress, March 8, 2010.
“For Immediate Release – 8 Mar 2010
Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s Statement about the Opposition’s Brief filed today in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit Appeal now before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Obama and Congress File Their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner Appeal
Today, March 8, 2009, putative President Barack Obama and Congress filed their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner appeal currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The brief may be viewed at this link. We now have until March 22, 2010, to file our reply brief which will address the arguments the defendants have made in their opposition brief.
The defendants brief is a presentation of general statements of the law of standing. Appealing to what other courts have done, the defendants basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all the other Obama cases have been dismissed. Its main point is that the Kerchner plaintiffs have not proven that they have standing because they failed to show that they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury.
The brief does not even acknowledge our factual allegations against Obama which are that he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born and that he has failed to even show that he is at least a “citizen of the United States” by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii. It is strange as to why the brief does not even contain these factual allegations within it, giving the appearance that the Justice Department does not want such allegations to be even included in any official court record.
Nor does the brief acknowledge let alone address what all our legal arguments are on the questions of standing and political question. Rather, it merely repeats what the Federal District Court said in its decision which dismissed the Kerchner case for what it found was lack of standing and the political question doctrine and asks the Court of Appeals to affirm the District Court’s decision dismissing our complaint/petition.
I will be filing my reply to the defendants’ brief on or before March 22, 2010.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 8, 2010