NEVER TOLERATE TYRANNY!....Conservative voices from the GRASSROOTS.
Kerchner v Obama Motion To Dismiss GRANTED
October 21, 2009
DOJ notifies Judge Carter re: Kerchner ruling
Judge Jerome B. Simandle has GRANTED the defense’s MOTION to DISMISS due to LACK OF STANDING.
Case brought by Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles Kerchner, Jr and 3 others against barry, Congress, Nancy Pelois and Dick Cheney.
Initially filed on 1-20-09 and amended 2-9 and 6-26.
Claimed violations of First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Twentieth Amendments and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as writ of mandamus and quo warranto.
First Amendment violation: ignored requests to have barry investigated.
Fifth and Twentieth Amendment violation: Congress, Pelosi, Cheney refused to investigate.
Fifth Amendment violation: barry because he did not prove he was eligible and Congress has allowed him to hold office.
Fifth Amendment violation: Congress held hering about Sen McCain’s eligibility but not barry’s.
Ninth and Tenth Amendment violations: rights to compel barry to prove and under the Twentieth Congress must investigate.
Harm: deprived of right to know if barry is a NBC and the right to have a president who is a NBC.
Defendants Motion To Dismiss: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12 (b) (1), lack Article III standing, as well as prudential standing and just in case – defendants are covered by immunity. barry, Congress, Pelosi and Cheney sovereign immunity; Pelosi, Cheney legislative immunity; and barry, Cheney and Pelosi have qualified immunity.
JUDGE SIMANDLE RULING:
Claimed harm not a cognizable Constitutional injury — plaintiffs have no right to force the government to listen to their views.
Harm not specific to them but to all Americans.
Harm of potential Navy recall hypothetical – not an ‘injury in fact’ as required for standing.
Without standing, Court cannot exercise jurisdiction
MTD granted due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.