Kerchner ad re: barry’s eligibility

July 7, 2009

birth certificate posts

Here’s a new full page “advertorial” placed in the Washington Times by CHARLES KERCHNER, whose suit against barry is still alive. We never followed his suit, which is being handled pro bono by Mario Apuzzo. Kind of wish we had because they put their documents on Scribd so they’re easy to read and easy to access.

re: Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress

“Feel free to download and print this advertorial out and hand them out as fliers to friends to educate more people about Obama’s citizenship issues.”

Click top right for full screen.

———-

View this document on Scribd

———-

2 Responses to “Kerchner ad re: barry’s eligibility”

  1. mattie14 Says:

    Hi smrstrauss.

    That is precisely right. All the lawsuits against Obama were to stop the election or to stop the certification of the election. None were to force Obama to release documents.

    True as separate statements.

    The lawsuits were to stop him from ultimately being inaugurated.

    But the only way to accomplish that (short of barry confessing or some independent evidence coming to light) was if the judge forced him to release documents that did not support his claim of eligibility.

    The winning of the case rested on disqualifying documents being released.

    So it is necessarily about both.

    And this doesn’t make logical sense.

    So Obama did not spend money on keeping anything secret. He spent money on defending the results of the election.

    Why would the duly elected and sworn-in president of the United States need to “defend the results of the election”?

    He has no cause to defend anything. He is the legal president unless someone/something proves he isn’t.

    And what could prove he isn’t is exactly what he is spending money to keep from being released.

    And you know full well what has stopped these cases. Not a single case/judge has vindicated barry or proven that he is eligible or that the plaintiffs are wrong.

    The cases have not been heard because they did not meet the technical requirements of standing without which there can be no case. As in not possible – not in the case has no merit.

    No civilian or military (or I would imagine Citizen Grand Jury) has the standing to force the POTUS to prove he is eligible to hold the office. Only Congress. So none of the cases – by definition – can be heard unless the judge first rules that the complainants have standing.

    It’s why there has never been any discovery. And it’s why the only challenge available is Quo Warranto where the burden of proof is shifted to barry – forcing him to produce documents to support his claim of eligibility.

  2. smrstrauss Says:

    Re: “So, how much money has Obama spent fighting to hide something? Nothing.’

    That is precisely right. All the lawsuits against Obama were to stop the election or to stop the certification of the election. None were to force Obama to release documents.

    If you have a case that demanded that Obama show his birth certificate to the court, cite it. If you have a case that only asked for documents and did not ask to stop the election or now to strip an elected president of his position, show it.

    The cases were not and are not to force Obama to release documents. Virtually all of them include the claim that Obama could not be president even if he were born in Hawaii because his father was a Kenyan citizen.

    So Obama did not spend money on keeping anything secret. He spent money on defending the results of the election.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s