Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer
Kerchner et al v. Obama et al
Affidavit in Opposition re [17] Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer Move or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint Declaration filed by Kerchner et al (Apuzzo, Mario)
PDF of filing can be reviewed by downloading it here:
Kerchner v. Obama Extend Time Answer
By clicking 'more', excerpts can be viewed of filing; however, the excerpts are bitmaps, or heavy graphics. Some browsers may now function correctly with the graphics posted.
...
Affidavit in Opposition re [17] Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer Move or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint Declaration filed by Kerchner et al (Apuzzo, Mario)
PDF of filing can be reviewed by downloading it here:
Kerchner v. Obama Extend Time Answer
By clicking 'more', excerpts can be viewed of filing; however, the excerpts are bitmaps, or heavy graphics. Some browsers may now function correctly with the graphics posted.
...
Obama says that no one is above the law...what a joke, just like the one he thinks he is playing on us. God help this country as he is leading us right down the path to self-destruction. We know it, we see it and we are sitting here helpless. There has to be something that can be done since the atty's and Eric Holder are doing nothing to make him answer an honest subpoena. How sick is this of what he is getting away with and what he is doing!
Reply to this
What is the proof that supports the "honest subpoena"?
Reply to this
How long would it take to put this to rest ? ten minuets to show an original un altered birth certificate, not a cert. of citizenship.
Only one with some thing to hide would spend over one million dollars to keep birth, passport and school records secret.
There should be no delay in this. It should have been done when it first came up. We are talking about the President with power to kill every one with the stroke of a pen. Put our country in ruine. Also why the alias name barry S. Who is this man really ? Every citizen should want this answered truthfully regardless of political affliation.
The courts must do their job or we are done as a country.
Reply to this
"Only one with some thing to hide would spend over one million dollars to keep birth, passport and school records secret." (fly on the wall)
The Department of State passport records for Ann Dunham are not secret.
The Department of State transit records for Barack Obama Senior are not secret.
Produce either of those 1961 records and you'll have a brand new advocate of your cause in me! If you would like to validate my sincerity, then contact me at either of the following:
Phone: 805-312-3563
Email: ivectru@aol.com
My name is 'Derek'
BHO may be able to keep his personal information secret, but information pertaining to his parents he cannot keep secret. That information is not a matter of national security. And that information is a matter of record. Show me something official that I can "buy into". Something irrefutable. I'm not a hard sell. But it will have to be a straight sell. Make no mistake about it.
Reply to this
"The Department of State passport records for Ann Dunham are not secret.
The Department of State transit records for Barack Obama Senior are not secret."
I wonder why Orly hasn't thought of that.
Reply to this
They have. They only hope that there is someone stupid enough not to take those facts (or the lack thereof) into consideration.
They have succeeded.
Reply to this
"They have. They only hope that there is someone stupid enough not to take those facts (or the lack thereof) into consideration.
They have succeeded."
and keep those donations coming!
Reply to this
Mr. Apuzzo:
I read on another blog that a Writ of Mandamus was recently filed at SCOTUS by another attorney. At first glance it looks like SCOTUS has power over people holding office, under the authority of the United States. But further investigation led me to the 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789.
The interpretation/definition of that act as stated at http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m079.htm reads as follows:
“The 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789, gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. The issuing of a mandamus to courts, is the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction, and, therefore constitutionally vested in the supreme court; but a mandamus directed to a public officer, belongs to original jurisdiction, and by the constitution, the exercise of original jurisdiction by the supreme court is restricted to certain specified cases, which do not comprehend a mandamus. The latter clause of the above section, authorizing this writ to be issued by the supreme court to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, is, therefore, not warranted by the constitution and void.”
Did the 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789 deem SCOTUS’s power over people holding office, under the authority of the United States to be void and unconstitutional?
I figured I’d get the opinion of an expert before I delved any further into this issue.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
XXXXX
This is his reply, to read it in its entirety go to the latest comments on his website.
Marbury v. Madison 5U.S. 137 (1803) declared unconstitutional the clause granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus outside its appellate jurisdiction. Hence, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a person holding federal office. Id. See also Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Moreover, writs of mandamus have been abolished in federal courts by Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(b). However, that rule itself states that writs can still be obtained by appropriate action or motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A writ of Mandamus can be obtained under the “All Writs Act,” 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1651. But the writ may issue where it is “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Hence, a federal court is without authority to issue a writ of mandamus unless the federal court already has jurisdiction under some applicable federal statute.
In other words, the writ must be ancillary to a suit already pending in the federal court over which the court already has federal jurisdiction. Stated differently, the federal courts do not have power to issue a writ of mandamus in an original proceeding.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Reply to this