Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama - Order of Commonwealth Court of PA - 2 Mar 2012

Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama - Order of Commonwealth Court of PA - 2 Mar 2012

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,280|Likes:
Published by protectourliberty
02 Mar 2012: Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama - Order of Commonwealth Court of PA - 2 Mar 2012. Complaint dismissed by the court claiming lack of jurisdiction since per little known Pennsylvania law which exempts Presidential candidates, if they choose to do so, from signing and providing a sworn affidavit attesting they are constitutionally eligible for the office they seek. Of all the presidential candidates filing in PA, Obama is the only one who chose to use that loophole and who did not sign and provide a sworn affidavit to the state saying they were eligible for the office they sought. How convenient of him. Obama has been gaming and conning the election law system since he unconstitutionally threw his hat into the ring as a presidential candidate in 2007. He did it once again in PA using loopholes to get on to the ballot even though he is not constitutionally eligible (under U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 the presidential eligibility clause) for the office he putatively holds and for which he seeks re-election.

For more information about Obama's eligibility issues, forged documents, criminal activities, and socialist Cloward-Piven based plans to bankrupt America see:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
02 Mar 2012: Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama - Order of Commonwealth Court of PA - 2 Mar 2012. Complaint dismissed by the court claiming lack of jurisdiction since per little known Pennsylvania law which exempts Presidential candidates, if they choose to do so, from signing and providing a sworn affidavit attesting they are constitutionally eligible for the office they seek. Of all the presidential candidates filing in PA, Obama is the only one who chose to use that loophole and who did not sign and provide a sworn affidavit to the state saying they were eligible for the office they sought. How convenient of him. Obama has been gaming and conning the election law system since he unconstitutionally threw his hat into the ring as a presidential candidate in 2007. He did it once again in PA using loopholes to get on to the ballot even though he is not constitutionally eligible (under U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 the presidential eligibility clause) for the office he putatively holds and for which he seeks re-election.

For more information about Obama's eligibility issues, forged documents, criminal activities, and socialist Cloward-Piven based plans to bankrupt America see:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

More info:

Published by: protectourliberty on Mar 13, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

10/07/2013

pdf

text

original

 
05/24/2304 05:15
246371005
TY: KAREN11I
YA,
 
012
:3V.'M
omiweaith (:Jrt
of PA
FAX
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT O PENNSYLVANIA
In Re: Barack Hussein °barna, II
Aka Barack Hussein Obama,Aka Barack H. Obama,
Objection of: Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.:
end Dale A. L.auclensiager
o. 85 M.D. 2012
OLD-LA
PAGE 01
G5:2
P
!
1
,
NOW, March 2, 2012, after hearing on objectors' petition to
set aside nomination petition, and following argument on Candidate's motionto dismiss, the motion to dismiss Is granted,As set forth in the Pennsylvania Election Code (Code), Act of
June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, 11
amenglel,
25 P.S. §§2600-3591, and case law
interpreting it, objectors can seek to set aside a candidate's nomination
petition by; (1) challenging Incilvidual signatures on the nomination petition
pursuant to Section 908 of the Code, 25 P.S. §2868; (2) challenging e
circulator's affidavit pursuant to Section 909 of the Eiecton Code, 25 P.S,§280; (3) challenging a candidate's affidavit pursuant to Sections 910 and
951 of the Code, 25 PS, 4§ 2870 and 2911(e); and (4) challenging the
candidate's statement of financial interest under the Puditc Official and
Employees Ethics Act, 65 Pa, C.5. §§ 11.01-1113.
Presently, Objectors have flied a challenge to Candidate's
Merninatlen petition, asserting he is inel!gldie and unqualified for office under
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution. rri ore Nomination
pitition pf Jones,
505 Pa, 50, 476 Ald 1287 (1984), our Supreme Court
concluded the Pennsylvania Constitution did not confer jurisdiction to courts
of this Commonwealth to determine the qualifications of a candidate.' We
in
tole regard, tie Court opined;
The rule of nonjusticiaOility in this area Is not to be construedas an
aegoiute erehibittom
against judicial consideretion of the
constitutional qualifications of one deeming en offes.
,or
e
!,
345 Pa, at 61, 476 A.2d 1.292 (citations
ornittece,
,
6
0-0 0,%
011
Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama -- Order of the Commonwealth Court of PACopy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
 
05/24/ 2004
.
0E:15
 
24 8 37
1
005
y
i
.
:
42
r
4
,ATv: KAPENV1I
believe such a conclusion to equally applicable to objections involving the
United States Constitution.
As noted above, this Court has, nevertheless, entertained
objections to a candidate's qualifications for office in those Instances where
the affidavit of the candidate has been challenged. Ste in r
neillaaillatiillaflettigngf
Ploci,
711 A.2d 1046 (Pa. Cmwith. 1998), Stated another way,
in the context of objections to nomination petitions where objectors assert aglobal challenge to a candidate's Qualifications to hold office, this Court can
only reach the issue of the candidate's qualifications where a challenge to
the candidate's affidavit Is implicated.
In this case, Candidate has filed a nomination petition seeking
the nomination for the office of President of the United States. Section 910of the Code, 25 P.S. §2870, explicitly excludes oresicential candidates from
the affidavit requirement stating In pertinent part, In tne case of a
candidate for nomination as President of the United States, it shall not be
necessary for such candidate to file the affidavit
required
In
this section
to be
filed by candidates, but the post office address of such candidate shall be
stated In such nomination petition." it follows that because Candidate in this
action
was not required to file a candidate's affidavit, this Court is without
jurisdiction to entertain Objectors' challenge to his perce:ved Ineligibility for
office.
Manifestly, the court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim of enelected prospective office holder that his or
her right to
sit hasbeen unconstitutionally denied. However, a right to intervene
in
that situation does not flow from the constitutional section
setting forth tna ouciireatione, taut remir from our wel;
recognized Jurisdiction to intervene when triers is
en
allegation
of an infringement of constitutional rights. ,„ The considerationof the qualifications as set forth by the constitutional
mandate
!s
merely tangential
to the underlying inquiry, Additionally, the
rorneCy of quo warrento is available to test en individual's rightto hold a public office,
lobas, 505 Pe, at 61, 475 A.2d 1292 (citations omitted).
Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama -- Order of the Commonwealth Court of PACopy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Jack Ryan liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->