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

|Views: 148|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

Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama -- Order of the Commonwealth Court of PA Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.

org

05/24/2304 05:15

YA, 2 2012 3:3V.'M

7246371005 Comiweaith (:Jrt

ATY: KAREN11I

PAGE 01

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 OLD-LA

G5:2

P

'!1

,

No. 85 M.D. 2012

NOW, March 2, 2012, after hearing on objectors' petition to set aside nomination petition, and following argument on Candidate's motion to 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

Merninatlen petition, asserting he is inel!gldie and unqualified for office under

Pr

ot

ec t

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 construed as an aegoiute erehibittom against judicial consideretion of the constitutional qualifications of one deeming en offes.

O

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

ur L

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

ib er
ornittece,

ty .
1011

,or e!, 345 Pa, at 61, 476 A.2d 1.292 (citations

or
0,6 \0-0 0,%

g

Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama -- Order of the Commonwealth Court of PA Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

05/24/ 2004 . 0E:15 yi .

j : 42 r4

7 24 8 37 1 005

,

,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_neillaaillatiilla r flettigngf Ploci, 711 A.2d 1046 (Pa. Cmwith. 1998), Stated another way, in the context of objections to nomination petitions where objectors assert a global 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

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

Pr ot

ec

lobas, 505 Pe, at 61, 475 A.2d 1292 (citations omitted).

tO

Manifestly, the court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim of en elected prospective office holder that his or her right to sit has been 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 consideration of 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 right to hold a public office,

ur

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.

Li b

of 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

er ty

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 910

.o

rg

Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama -- Order of the Commonwealth Court of PA Copy provided courtesy of: http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Ar.111..../M1

05/ 24/2004 OB: 15

ma,

2

2 ,,m2

3:43PM

7248871085

AT''

KAREWII I

commonynalth CoJt of PA.

For these reasons, we grant Candidate's motion and dismiss this action with prejudice.

Ke

igi y Senior Judge

Pr

ot ec tO

ur Li be rty

.o r

g

You're Reading a Free Preview

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