Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds

Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama PA Ballot Challenge Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds

Without reaching the merits of the challenge, Pennsylvania Judge Keith B. Quigley dismissed the ballot challenge lodged against Barack Hussein Obama II by Charles Kerchner and fellow Pennsylvanian Dale Laudenslager.

The Candidate’s Affidavit in PA is routinely signed under oath stating the candidate is eligible for the office they seek.  Candidate Barack Obama did not sign under oath the Candidate’s Affidavit which states that he was eligible for the office he is seeking.  He did not even sign it at all.  The top half was filled out by a lawyer on his behalf and the bottom part with the signatures was left blank.  See copy of Obama affidavit here.  It was subsequently learned that a Pennsylvania statute provides an exception for presidential candidates that they do not have to complete the Candidate Affidavit, and Obama availed himself of that exception.  Hmmh, I wonder why.  Other presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum signed the sworn affidavit stating they were eligible for the office they seek.  But since Obama did not sign his, and under PA law he did not have to, it gave Obama an escape hatch in that Obama was not claiming to PA that he was eligible for the office he seeks and thus the court said it did not have any jurisdiction over his eligibility and dismissed the case.  The court refused to hear any arguments from the objectors’ attorney, Karen L. Kiefer, that Obama has not proven to any controlling legal authority his exact citizenship status or true legal identity.  The court ruled that it is not their jurisdiction to determine candidate eligibility and legal identity for presidents and dismissed the case.  So once again we see that no one in the entire USA is willing to assume the responsibility for vetting presidential candidates and thus a fraud like Obama gets away with his criminal identity fraud and as a result of the PA challenge being dismissed, he will thus get another crack in PA to continue his usurpation of the Oval Office and ignoring of the U.S. Constitution, Article II  Section 1. I and others will continue the fight and battle to expose the fraud Obama is.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

9 thoughts on “Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds”

  1. who would have thought that a citizen of the United States, a soverign entity would not have jurisdiction in the protection of his inalienable rights endowed by his creator, when seeking the courts protection under the United States Constitution for the redress of greivences in ensuring that his rights were not violated.

  2. CDR Kerchner, please site the PA law quoted. I would very much like to read the text of this law. I would find it quit incredible if the PA statute allows for a Presidential candidate to be exempt from the Candidates Affidavit’s intent. A candidate for President may be excused from signing the affidavit; however, by filing said affidavit the candidate must be assumed to be subject to its meaning, otherwise what’s the point of filing an affidavit at all? Clearly the intent of the law is to be a convenience for the Presidential Candidate and not a dismissal of constitutionally (Commonwealth and Federal) required qualifications for office.

    Additionally, which may be of interest to your legal counsel, the PA Commonwealth Court filed an Order “OBJECTIONS TO NOMINATION: PETITIONS FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE: FEBRUARY 2012” No. 126 Mic. Dkt. No. 3, which is stated, in part:

    “NOW, January 18, 2012, all petitions to set aside nomination petitions (objection petitions) of candidates seeking statewide office shall be filed in paper format (original and one copy) and …”

    The Office of President of the United States is considered a “statewide office” in PA.

    Judge Keith B. Quigley ruling of non-jurisdictional dismal demands both sides of an argument. On the one hand the Commonwealth Court demands jurisdiction under Order No. 126 while, simultaneously, Judge Quigley rules the Commonwealth Court has no jurisdiction when an objection to statewide office is submitted to the court. Well, which is it?

    It appears obvious that Judge Quigley has failed to properly carry out his official duties as a Judge of the Commonwealth Court.

  3. The Kerchner case is very good. Mr. Lautenslager did register as democrat in time to have full standing, so all other issues like the affidavit were far less relevant. Those in attendance all witnessed the hand of oligarchy plainly present in the Courtroom. A bitter taste.

    The judge in fact erred in hearing partial argument about the eligibility issue especially if he allowed that to sway his decision.

    I thank the Kerchner team for their patience with my case.

    selfsovereign – my second case Schneller v. Attorney General Kelly et al No. 212 CD 2012 challenges the constitutionality of the State Assembly’s amending out of the Pa Election Code, the affidavit requirement for presidential candidates, in 2006 . . . My request to the Supreme Court in 2010 for review of this claim of unconstitutionality was not granted. 25 P.S. 2870 amended Act 2006-45.

    212 CD 2012 is the remaining counts of my bifurcated petition – ordered to be separately filed by the Court, and includes a quo warranto action and actions in mandamus or “amicable action” claiming non-entitlement to office for reason of express acts constituting efforts to circumvent the Constitution. The fact that the dismissal of my challenge was not entered with prejudice is favorable.

    As to my standing, the Court has failed to address the fact that there are no Pennsylvania cases regarding who may challenge an independent candidate’s nominating petition. Currently the major parties both claim standing to challenge indie nomination petitions, meaning that indies are twice as vulnerable because either major party may challenge their petitions. The list of arguments like this is lengthy, so appeal will be worthwhile.

    Original Petition:

    Pray for these efforts !

  4. Jimschneller states – “so appeal will be worthwhile.” Indeed, yet this does not appear to be the advice of Kerchner and Laudenslager’s counsel. I imagine disgust in the Commonwealth Court and lack of funding are contributing to counsels opinion.

Comments are closed.