SCOTUS Denied

9 Responses to “SCOTUS denied Mario Apuzzo’s petition for a writ of Certiorari in Kerchner et al v Obama et al”

1. Plantagenet
   November 29th, 2010 @ 8:37 am

   Kerchner should never have sued the members of Congress, right Dr. Taitz?

2. Danny Vestal
   November 29th, 2010 @ 9:04 am

   Again on 11/29/10 the Treasonous Supreme Court has evaded its duty in denying a writ of certiorari to;

   10-446 KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.

   We Need a New Supreme Court and Federal Judges. There is Massive Corruption.

   The Supreme Court and Federal Judicial System are corrupt as shown in their allowing the swearing in of Usurper Soetoro Obama and acquiescing in Soetoro’s remaining as the treasonous false president and commander-in-chief. For years many Soetoro Obama eligibility lawsuits have been presented to the courts. They have been dismissed by corrupt judges. None of these lawsuits have been heard on the merits. Also, the courts have remained silent as the U.S. Government initiated and waged Wars of Aggression. These wars have violated U.S. and International law.

   The U.S Government is a criminal organization. The Supreme Court is the pinnacle of the enormous corruption in the federal judicial system. They should be arrested and tried for treason.

3. Coastal Eddie
   November 29th, 2010 @ 10:35 am

   The “High Court” should be disbanded, the occupy time, space, and draw a salary but they have no useful function.

   Were the “Obama Drones” allowed a vote?

4. Kathy M
   November 29th, 2010 @ 11:13 am

   That was one of the stupidest decisions the SCOTUS ever made! History will not be kind to them.

   God Bless You Dr. Taitz,

   Work like everything depends on you, and pray like everything depends on God.

   Failure is not an option.

   God Bless

5. Brianroy
   November 29th, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

   Orly, if you want to lead with this as a separate story, please do so.

   I previously submitted these 6 questions, and suggest that the same material substance and case citation should have been the ones posed in the petition of Kerchner v. Obama for Writ of Certiorari.

   I offer them for anyone in the future having Article III standing to sue Obama or an Obama appointee and Obama in the future, demanding he prove he even is US jus soli born, and has the right to be President via the US Constitution (which he always invokes in his Executive Orders), and demand the US Supreme Court uphold that a US Natural Born Citizen is and has been legally defined by the Courts as US soil born with a US Citizen Father at the time of birth.

   Questions to be posed to the US Supreme Court
   1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law or not?

   2. Is the requirement of presenting an identification of person, and proof of birth to follow 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62 Nguyen v. INS (2001) in which both hospital records of where born and witnesses to the birth, be a partial fulfillment of 333 US 640 @ 653, in which the Court would recognize such certification as rising to the level of a jus soli claim for High Federal Office?

   3. Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.4. (now 2.1.5) in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole legience to the United States at birth?

   4. Does a Natural Born legience follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not?

   5. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 – 450 (1905),
   Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel — even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using “natural born citizen” in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?

   6. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards “natural born citizen” or not?

   ———————————————————–
   In regard to question 4 above:
   You will note in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 @ 330 (1939), that : “Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.”

   In other words , the child was born to a US citizen Father on US Soil at the time of birth in Perkins v. Elg in order to be called a Natural Born Citizen. Obama has NO US CITIZEN Father, hence is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen…but a dual national born citizen, who does not even rise to the original intent of the 14th Amendment, as stated by Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg in the Oral Arguments of Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001).

   In regards to Kerchner being rejected by the US Supreme Court:

   There were some 265 other petitions of Certiorari that were denied along with Kerchner v. Obama.

   On page 15 of the pdf. release, https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf

   it is stated that Kerchner v. Obama is denied.

   But compare.

   In other petitions of certiorari ff., a specific mention that “Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”

   THAT IS NOT SO with Kerchner.

   In other words, Kagan and Sotomayor were allowed to howl down and voice their opinions against Kerchner, and refused to recuse themselves, nor were asked to.

   I understand how that Kerchner, not being drafted, nor directly affected specifically to injury did not have sufficient enough Article III standing to sue. I get that.

   I also get that his questions were lame as compared to how they should have been posed, and that they should have been posed like mine above. I get that.

   But why did Kagan and Sotomayor not recuse themselves or be forced to recuse themselves? On that technicality alone, there is cause to rechallenge and re-petition.

   However, I would say that if somebody was groped at the Airport because Obama green-lighted the TSA (a US Government entity, and the policy implemented on his/Obama’s watch by an Obama appointee who Obama executively approved of / appointed/ or was a direct result of his Administration coming to power), file a rape / sexual molestation charge against Obama, use the above questions, and I can almost guarantee the US Supreme Court will issue the Writ of Mandamus on Obama. You will have undeniable Article III standing to see Obama’s thrown out of office on his lack of eligibility to hold that office, issue policy and directives, etc. File in Washington DC, at the US Supreme Court level, and file the Writ of Mandamus first…then go for the Certiorari.

6. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   November 29th, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

   unfortunately, I don’t have much trust in the Supreme Court and their willingness to protect and defend the Constitution, no matter what questions you ask

7. Coastal Eddie
   November 29th, 2010 @ 3:18 pm

   Another thought!

   The good thing about this decision is the enemies of freedom have self identified.

   Look upon the signatures of those who denied the cert.

   Those are the enemies of the Constitution and Freedom.

8. Axel Janeway
   November 30th, 2010 @ 8:45 am

   > We Need a New Supreme Court and Federal Judges.

   Yes, you always call for a new court once you don’t get your way with the old one, right?

   I recently sued my neighbour and lost, probably I should call for a new court since my neighbour obviously had the old one in his pocket.

   Guys, why do you go to SCOTUS if you think they’re part of the big conspiracy anyway?

   Besides, what’s the current count of people in the entire US *not* in on the conspiracy? 10,000?

9. Anonymous
   November 30th, 2010 @ 10:32 am

   If Mario had wanted his suit to go anywhere he should have taken the trouble to understand & attain standing. Failing that he gets nowhere. The same with you, Orly.

Leave a Reply