SUPRESSED HISTORY

INFORMATIVE

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.

Surprise.

Quick summary.

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.