Federal judge says Obama lawsuit ‘raises significant issues’

By Linda Bentley | June 24, 2009

A Himalayan Mountain of contradictory evidence
CAMDEN, N.J. – Despite Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s objection to additional time being granted for defendants to respond to the complaint filed on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner questioning President Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility, U.S. District Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, for the District of New Jersey, granted an extension until no later than June 29.

However, while Schneider noted the defendants’ failure to respond in a timely manner was not caused by neglect, he also stated, “Plaintiffs’ complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in this case is not simple and straightforward.”

Schneider also stated he was confident after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all defendants, “the case will proceed expeditiously.”

Schneider’s comments in Apuzzo’s case are a far cry from U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson’s comments, in which he summarily dismissed the case filed by Attorney John D. Hemenway in the District of Columbia on behalf of Gregory Hollister that also raised the question of Obama’s eligibility.

Robertson wrote in his order that Obama’s eligibility had been “blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry,” reprimanding Hemenway for filing a frivolous lawsuit, while Robertson relied on internet blogs in lieu of actual evidence.

In a May 2009 letter to Rupert Murdoch, with whom he attended Worcester College in the early fifties, Hemenway said it is rumored that Robertson, a Clinton appointee, is seeking an Obama appointment.

He also stated, “It is significant that, although dismissed, none of the twenty odd similar legal actions have been designated by the responsible judge as ‘frivolous.’”

He wrote, “Any rational person with even partial knowledge of the facts must know that Obama-cum-Soetoro is desperate to conceal something he does not want known. I believe he is hiding the fact that he and his campaign conspired to assert eligibility for the Presidential office to which he well may not be entitled. In other parts of the world, this would be known as a coup d’etat.”

Hemenway goes on to say “mainstream” news services and judges, including justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, have all failed to demand documentation to prove or disprove Obama’s qualifications to serve in the White House, as if a 53 percent vote is a substitute for an actual determination of his legal qualifications.

Hemenway told Murdoch, sadly, his Fox News now falls in that category as well, because he said, “[I]f Fox News is really to be a voice for rational conservatism in the United States, it cannot ignore this vital constitutional question: We have a man in the White House who refuses to disclose the very documents that would legitimize his Presidency."

As he awaits the responses to his clients’ complaint, Apuzzo has raised what he calls a “Himalayan Mountain” of contradictory evidence surrounding Obama’s birth and eligibility.