Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Judge Simandle Dismisses Kerchner v. Obama

You are invited to see the "Usurper Blogroll" in Investigating Obama, for sites covering this story.

2 comments:

Story Reports said...

A possibility I believe is solid.

Instead of concentrating Exclusively on the “birth certificate” issue, the Supreme Court Ruling should be used to expose obama as an IMPOSTER in Arizona and if possible in any federal or state court.

Supreme Court Ruling Quote: The opinion of the Court in No. 95-1853, Clinton against Jones will be announced by Justice Stevens.

"We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require Federal Courts to stay all private actions against the president until he leaves office."

I think what this means is a civil law suit can be brought against obama for fraud because he claims to be a “natural born citizen”.

Is this possible Leo? Please answer. If not why? Oct 26 would be a perfect time for a lawyer at the the "Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation" William H. Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law to ask my question or a better one. Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer will be there also. Ask a question for all of us Leo. Please sir.

Because Obama claims to be a “natural born citizen” he must prove he is and state how he has come to this decision. On what does he base his fact? No federal law in existance at his birth will make him a natural born citizen. Obama has stated on his web site he was a dual citizen at birth because of his father. He father was a Kenyan citizen at obama’s birth so he states he was too until age 21. Obama says he was an American citizen and a Kenyan citizen at birth. A dual citizen at birth. A dual citizen at birth is NOT A NATUAL BORN CITIZEN! (TO be a natural born citizen at birth both of his parents must be US citizens at birth) Obama is a FRAUD and IMPOSTER.

TAKE ACTION: ASK THE QUESTION I HAVE BELOW!

PHOENIX – Oct. 19, 2009 – Arizona Attorney magazine will co-sponsor an Oct. 26 program, the Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation, with the William H. Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer will participate in the program.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer will participate in the program.

These two Supreme Court Justices ruled against Clinton in a unanimous decision.

*{ASK OBAMA THIS QUESTION THROUGH THE COURTS}

(This Question Needs to be Asked During Or After The Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation Program?)

My specific question asks if Supreme Court Ruling No. 95-1853, case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) , would apply to any State or Federal Court Case that would involve the question of “natural born citizenship” that Obama has indicated on State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242) but has not been validated by law. In other words can I or any other US citizen file a civil suit claiming obama committed fraud before the election and expect obama to answer the suit.
……………………………………………………………………………..
———————————————————–

On December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has fulfilled the requirements under the Constitution. The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.

Ref: State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242)

www.storyreportscomments.blogspot.com

wjneill said...

October 29, 2009: Judge Carter dismissed Orly Taitz's lawsuit as not proving plaintiffs held standing to file the suit and that she failed to perform necessary due diligence in the preparation of the suit and make timely filings of attachments to the suit.
-
Therefore, there is no further legal basis to pursue any action in Federal courts.