Judge: Eligibility dispute is ‘serious’

Judge: Eligibility dispute is ‘serious’
Says case will be expedited when representation lined up
By Bob Unruh
A judge hearing one of the cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president has taken the unusual step of describing the dispute as a serious constitutional issue and further has begun adding letters of comment from the public to the court record.
Word of the action by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider in Camden, N.J., comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the Kerchner vs. Obama case.
Apuzzo filed his lawsuit in January on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

The Constitution provides, the lawsuit said, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”

“There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified,” the case explained.

“Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them,” the lawsuit said.

The defendants “violated” the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements,” the lawsuit said.

Apuzzo said that while the judge recently granted the government extra time to line up defense counsel for the named defendants, his ruling described the issue as a serious constitutional question.

“Plaintiffs’ complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in this case is not simple and straightforward,” the judge said.

But as soon as attorneys are lined up, “the case will proceed expeditiously,” he said.

The case has attracted numerous public comments directed at and delivered to the judge, who has started adding them to the case file, Apuzzo noted.

“It’s unbelievable,” he said. “The court put the letters on Pacer.”

Pacer is a fee-based court website through which interested parties can research cases and their documentation.

“This is really strange,” said the attorney, noting that judges typically do not accept or even acknowledge public commentary on cases that are pending before them.

“The point is the letters are there in the docket,” he said.

Apuzzo, says the issue “is of utmost national importance.”

Wild Thing’s comment………
When one thinks of the millions of people in our country, and the fact that we do have a Constitution at least up until Obama took office. What the heck is wrong with our courts and why aren’t there more like this man that want to do the right thing. Are they all really that afraid of riots? Or perhaps their own careers, that could be it too. Obama does not play nice that’s for sure.

….Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67