The Supreme Court today published its order denying a writ of certiorari in the case of Kerchner v. Obama. Move along. Nothing to see here.
As we wait for the denial from the US Supreme Court in Kerchner v. Obama, I note that USJF attorney Gary Kreep (representing the Joseph Farah/WorldNetDaily front organization, the Western Center for Journalism) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court. Kreep argues that presidential eligibility is not (or should not be) a political question because politicians are well, political, and might decide things based on a political bias. The second part of the brief urges the court to issue an advisory opinion because there may be more ineligible candidates in the future. Of course the brief is moot since Kerchner lacks standing in the first place.
I note a curious discrepancy between the Supreme Court docket as it appears on the Supreme Court web site today and the Scribd version posted by Mario Apuzzo (embedded below) that says that the amicus brief was filed on November 3rd and distributed. The Court docket says that a motion to file the brief was distributed on November 3rd, but there is no indication that it was actually filed.
The United States Supreme Court scheduled review of the appeal in Kerchner v. Obama yesterday, and we presume they will announce that it has been denied on Monday. WorldNetDaily asks: “Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?” to which I reply, “No.”
The Kerchner lawsuit was a “kitchen sink” complaint including every birther fantasy from fake travel bans to Pakistan, misrepresentations of Hawaiian statutes and grandmother tapes to redefinition of “natural born citizen.” While the natural born citizen argument was little more than a footnote in the original complaint, it has become central to Kerchner’s publicity campaign.
Apologies for the title. An appeal has been filed with the Supreme Court in the case of Kerchner v. Obama. Well he would, wouldn’t he? I must compliment Mr. Apuzzo on the typography.
A brief read of the document suggests that it is intended more for the popular audience than for the Supreme Court. (The particularly telling section was: “the nation needs a definition of ‘natural born citizen’”.)
The text appears following: Continue Reading →
Frankly, I may have been a little hard on Charles Kerchner when I shredded his article on the Dunham passport FOIA documents, on Apuzzo’s blog. The documents are a little confusing, and it’s particularly easy to get things wrong if you are in a hurry. I read them wrong the first time, and I’m probably lucky I didn’t hit the Publish button too soon with some of my totally wrong early drafts. And of course I originally attributed the article to Mario Apuzzo, not seeing the fine print at the bottom.
Time has passed, and information has had time to clarify and organize itself, and now we have a heavily revised article by Kerchner to look at. The article still has allegations that the Department of State is hiding things, allegations that I think are completely unjustified. He says: “It required a federal lawsuit to even get them to release even these documents.” It is true that there was a federal lawsuit, but I do not see that the lawsuit forced the release of anything that wouldn’t have been released anyway. The things the government initially refused to release to Kerchner (personal information about a living person), they still did not release and things they initially agreed to release, they did.
Now that Kerchner has his documents and dates straight, he “pulls a birther” on us. By that I mean he abandons the evidence and starts appealing to some “it must have been” concept. Continue Reading →
Charles Kerchner really spins off the road and into a tree in his latest missive posted on Mario Apuzzo’s blog [the preceding hyperlink points to a saved copy of the article, since it has since been revised since the publication of this article] upon the theme of the Stanley Ann Dunham passport FOIA Documents. I daresay he will rewrite it after he reads this.
Before I get to what Kerchner says, let me briefly identify the documents under discussion:
- “P1″ is a passport renewal application dated August 13, 1968, extending the passport until July of 1970.
- “P3″ is an application for an amended passport to “change to read in married name.”
Look at what Kerchner says:
The record starts with a “RENEWAL” application filed in 1965 due [to] her name change after marrying Lolo Soetoro at Molokai Hawaii on March 15, 1965 per page marked “P3″ of the released documents.
This is wrong in 3 ways:
- While the cover letter mentions an application from 1965 that could not be found, the renewal application is dated in 1968, 3 years after her marrying Lolo Soetoro. The document “P3″ is not a renewal, but an amendment (look at the title of the form).
- The amendment (which is the “P3″) document appears to have been made in 1967 according to the hand-written notation on the right side, not 1965. 1965 is the date of the original passport application.
- The “P3″ could not have been a renewal because according to the law at that time, a passport was good for three years and could be renewed only once for two additional years. Since the 1968 application (document labeled “P1″) was a renewal (it is so marked) the 1965 application three years earlier had to be an original application. The “P2″ document states clearly that her passport (which apparently had expired the year before) was issued in 1965. Continue Reading →
Is attorney Mario Apuzzo trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Perhaps, according to an article in WorldNetDaily yesterday (July 8, 2010).
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Apuzzo’s appeal in the case of Kercher et al v Obama et al, going so far as to order Apuzzo to show cause why he shouldn’t face penalties for filing a “frivolous appeal” (in a case where his clients lacked standing to bring suit in the first place).
However, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. In this case Apuzzo wants to turn the penalties themselves into an individual cause of action because of the particularized harm to Apuzzo from the penalties. Says WorldNetDaily:
He told WND he definitely will explore the issue of “standing” now because of the possible penalties, which might be considered an “injury.”
So what’s wrong with this picture? First, Apuzzo is not a party to this lawsuit and any harm to him doesn’t give Kerchner standing. Second, he can’t bring up something in the appeal that was not part of the original suit. The more important issue, however, is that there is no causal link between Obama’s actions and Apuzzo’s pending penalties unless Apuzzo is going to say of his filing the appeal:
Obama made me do it!
PS: if you think you’ve heard this before, perhaps you have. Orly Taitz tried the same gambit in Taitz v. Obama (Page 3).