Tweet
Response: NY Article II Ineligibility Challenge Against Canadian-Born Cruz Dismissed On Technicality
Birther Report
3/28/2016
Excerpt:
The ballot challenge filed against Canadian-born Ted Cruz in New York was dismissed on a technicality.
The issue of his Article II natural born Citizen status was not addressed.
Headline via Times Union:
- Times Union -
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) responds:
The underlying challengers, just ordinary citizens, not being fully aware of the deadlines, messed up in filing their challenge a few days late. This has been a problem in several of the challenges by non-lawyer citizens to Ted Cruz and also in the past for some of the challenges to Obama. This time the citizen challengers did not give up but found competent attorneys to try and help resolve that technicality issue so as to get to the serious merits presented. The attorneys argued soundly that the arbitrary deadline (given the serious nature of the matters presented) can be waived in this matter. But still the appeal’s merits argued in the Memorandum of Law, Appellant’s Reply Brief filed by the NY attorneys, and the Amicus Curiae Brief filed by the Harvard Law Professor were not given any weight and the appeal was tossed aside solely using the technicality of a slightly missed deadline by the appellants to get it to the lower election board. So much for the appeal court member’s oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps any underlying law, regulation, or arbitrary slightly missed filing time technicality. There are U.S. Laws on the books regarding Misprision of a Felony and Misprision of Treason requiring judges and courts to take jurisdiction of such serious matters when pointed out to them, at any time. The appeal surely pointed out the violation of our supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution being perpetrated by Ted Cruz. If the Constitution is being violated and the court is made aware of it, timely or otherwise or at any time what-so-ever, the judges have a sworn duty to act to support and defend the Constitution. It is not their duty to pass the buck or duck the issue.
The appeal showed clearly to them that Ted Cruz is not a constitutionally eligible candidate and is violating the U.S. Constitution and the very oath that Cruz himself took to support and defend it. But to these judges, who are putting deliberate blinders on, and are thus committing treason to the Constitution and their oath to it themselves, they are once again allowing that treason to the Constitution to continue to be foisted on the American Electorate with another ineligible candidate.
They should have taken the case seriously on the merits and ruled that the merits need to be addressed by the Board of Elections or addressed it themselves. Instead the judges and administrators of the law look for any technical flaw to duck the merits of this issue of constitutional eligibility. If a challenger doesn’t cross the right “t” or dot the right “i” or miss a deadline by a couple of days, no matter how much the Constitution is in serious danger of being abrogated, as it is being pointed out in the merits, i.e., in that the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause is being abrogated even further with Ted Cruz than Obama did (Obama claims Hawaiian birth), since Ted Cruz openly and legally admits that he was foreign-born to only a U.S. citizen at birth mother, these corrupt judges will still just duck and hide and toss it on some technicality every single time.
These judges are committing treason to their Oath of Office and the U.S. Constitution by allowing some arbitrary deadline (which could have been waived as argued by the attorneys for the appellants) to trump the underlying very serious constitutional eligibility merits argued in the appeal filings and which should have been addressed and not ducked. But take note. The work of these NY attorneys is not done. More to come. Stay tuned. CDR Kerchner (Ret)
View the complete Birther Report presentation, including comments, at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/03...igibility.html
Birther Report
3/28/2016
Excerpt:
The ballot challenge filed against Canadian-born Ted Cruz in New York was dismissed on a technicality.
The issue of his Article II natural born Citizen status was not addressed.
Headline via Times Union:
- Times Union -
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) responds:
The underlying challengers, just ordinary citizens, not being fully aware of the deadlines, messed up in filing their challenge a few days late. This has been a problem in several of the challenges by non-lawyer citizens to Ted Cruz and also in the past for some of the challenges to Obama. This time the citizen challengers did not give up but found competent attorneys to try and help resolve that technicality issue so as to get to the serious merits presented. The attorneys argued soundly that the arbitrary deadline (given the serious nature of the matters presented) can be waived in this matter. But still the appeal’s merits argued in the Memorandum of Law, Appellant’s Reply Brief filed by the NY attorneys, and the Amicus Curiae Brief filed by the Harvard Law Professor were not given any weight and the appeal was tossed aside solely using the technicality of a slightly missed deadline by the appellants to get it to the lower election board. So much for the appeal court member’s oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps any underlying law, regulation, or arbitrary slightly missed filing time technicality. There are U.S. Laws on the books regarding Misprision of a Felony and Misprision of Treason requiring judges and courts to take jurisdiction of such serious matters when pointed out to them, at any time. The appeal surely pointed out the violation of our supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution being perpetrated by Ted Cruz. If the Constitution is being violated and the court is made aware of it, timely or otherwise or at any time what-so-ever, the judges have a sworn duty to act to support and defend the Constitution. It is not their duty to pass the buck or duck the issue.
The appeal showed clearly to them that Ted Cruz is not a constitutionally eligible candidate and is violating the U.S. Constitution and the very oath that Cruz himself took to support and defend it. But to these judges, who are putting deliberate blinders on, and are thus committing treason to the Constitution and their oath to it themselves, they are once again allowing that treason to the Constitution to continue to be foisted on the American Electorate with another ineligible candidate.
They should have taken the case seriously on the merits and ruled that the merits need to be addressed by the Board of Elections or addressed it themselves. Instead the judges and administrators of the law look for any technical flaw to duck the merits of this issue of constitutional eligibility. If a challenger doesn’t cross the right “t” or dot the right “i” or miss a deadline by a couple of days, no matter how much the Constitution is in serious danger of being abrogated, as it is being pointed out in the merits, i.e., in that the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause is being abrogated even further with Ted Cruz than Obama did (Obama claims Hawaiian birth), since Ted Cruz openly and legally admits that he was foreign-born to only a U.S. citizen at birth mother, these corrupt judges will still just duck and hide and toss it on some technicality every single time.
These judges are committing treason to their Oath of Office and the U.S. Constitution by allowing some arbitrary deadline (which could have been waived as argued by the attorneys for the appellants) to trump the underlying very serious constitutional eligibility merits argued in the appeal filings and which should have been addressed and not ducked. But take note. The work of these NY attorneys is not done. More to come. Stay tuned. CDR Kerchner (Ret)
View the complete Birther Report presentation, including comments, at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/03...igibility.html