Tag Archives: Charles Kerchner

Obama PA ballot challenge update, Charles Kerchner, Other state ballot and primary challenges to Obama eligibility, Obama natural born citizen deficiency

Obama PA ballot challenge update, Charles Kerchner, Other state ballot and primary challenges to Obama eligibility, Obama natural born citizen deficiency

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

From CDR Charles Kerchner February 19, 2012.

For Immediate Release

Copy of Commonwealth Court of PA filing by Kerchner & Laudenslager against Obama now online

The copy of the PA  ballot challenge objection against Obama filed on Friday, 17  Feb 2012,  in the Commonwealth Court of PA in Harrisburg PA can be downloaded at the link in my blog:  http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/obama-ballot-challenge-filed-in-pa-a-nomination-petition-objection-was-filed-in-pa-against-obama/

In addition, for you convenience, a PDF copy of the complaint/objection is attached.

WE NEED YOUR HELP:  If you can please help this legal action to expose the usurper resident in our Oval Office.  Support the PA Ballot Challenge/Objection against Obama filed in PA today.  Please donate:  https://secure.piryx.com/donate/Owri7yAp/Article-II-Legal-Defense-Fund/PA

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

From WND, World Net Daily, February 19, 2012.

“INDIANA NEXT STATE FOR OBAMA ELIGIBILITY PROTEST”

“Even as a challenge to Barack Obama’s name on the 2012 primary election ballot in Georgia moves to the appeals court level, the next state up for the arguments appears to be Indiana, which in just the last few weeks has removed a state official from office over eligibility issues.

And there appear to be other state challenges lined up to follow even that one, including pending cases in Mississippi and Arizona.

Citizens across the country are utilizing each state’s election procedures to challenge Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot because of questions over his eligibility which were raised during the 2008 campaign but have yet to be resolved.

Two mainstream arguments are that he either was not born in the state of Hawaii as he has claimed, which could make him ineligible under the Constitution’s requirements that a president be a “natural born citizen,” or that he doesn’t qualify for that status since he’s written that his father never was a U.S. citizen.

Many analysts believe the Founders considered a “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two citizen parents. A Supreme Court opinion from 1875 seems to support that argument.

California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled a number of cases challenging Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office on the grounds he’s not eligible, confirmed to WND that she has a hearing scheduled Feb. 24 before a state commission in Indiana regarding a challenge to Obama’s eligibility.

“Indiana is a very important state, as recently they threw out of office … their Secretary of State Charlie White for not updating his voter registration card,” she reported.

It is important to shove in front of the elections board … all the evidence of Obama using a stolen Social Security number and a forgery instead of a birth certificate. I want to see how they will justify keeping … Barack Obama on the ballot after they removed the secretary of state for something minor,” she said.

In fact, it was reported just this week that now-former Secretary of State Charlie White was removed from office and the state Supreme Court now is deciding the procedures to replace him.”

“The Supreme Court justices repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. The justices apparently are “avoiding” the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”

“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”

“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”

“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.””

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/indiana-next-state-for-obama-eligibility-protests/

 

Charles Kerchner, Obama can and should be removed from office, Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend Constitution

Charles Kerchner, Obama can and should be removed from office, Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend Constitution

From Charles Kerchner, plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama.

For Immediate Release – 19 November 2010

Unconstitutionally, Ineligible Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/unconstitutionally-elected-seated-state.html
Ineligible and Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution  by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Obama is NOT Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards. Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama’s father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama’s father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama’s paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama’s maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump, amend, or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Kerchner v Obama and Congress, April 7, 2010, Radio interview, Dr. Kate

Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Kerchner v Obama

Just in from Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress.

“Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate – Wed, 07 Apr 2010, 9:10 p.m. EST

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/atty-apuzzo-cdr-kerchner-on-revolution.html

CDR Kerchner
Pennsylvania
http://www.protectourliberty.org

“Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner will be guests on Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate on Wednesday, 7 April 2010, at 9:10 p.m. EST.

Direct link to Revolution Radio show at BlogTalkRadio.com:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/04/08/revolution-radio-constitutional-governance

Also stop by and read Dr. Kate’s blog at:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see this site and help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org

Read more:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/atty-apuzzo-cdr-kerchner-on-revolution.html

Kerchner v Obama, Update, March 23, 2010, Appeal Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument, Charles Kerchner, Attorney Mario Apuzzo

Kerchner v Obama, Update, March 23, 2010

I received this a few hours ago from Charles Kerchner, lead plantiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress.

“Kerchner v Obama Appeal Reply Brief and Oral Argument Request Filed
I have completed filing the Kerchner Reply Brief and Request for Oral Argument. These documents may be accessed at the indicated links. All parties have completed filing all briefs and now we just need a decision from the Court. We will now wait and see if the Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants my request for oral argument and if so when the oral argument will be. If oral argument is granted, it will take place at the United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The courthouse is located right across the street from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.
I want to thank all of my supporters on this blog and all those who visit here to find out what is going on with the Obama eligibility issue.
I will be posting more essays on natural law, the law of nations, Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers, the Courts, and the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause.
Kerchner v Obama Appeal Reply Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief-22-Mar-2010
Request for Oral Argument: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28781505/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Request-for-Oral-Argument
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 23, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit, Update, Charles Kerchner, November 25, 2009, Briefing Notice schedule, US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Philadelphia PA

Just in from Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in the Kerchner V Obama & Congress lawsuit, November 25, 2009.

“25 Nov 2009 –  For Immediate Release

There is activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA has issued a Briefing Notice schedule for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Briefing Notice Issued for Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/kerchner-v-obama-congress-3rd-circuit.html

Brief due dates for the Appeal are now set for 4 Jan 2010. We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court. They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a “natural born Citizen” of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle. And, the Supreme Court will also be asked to refer their legal definition to Congress to determine if Obama meets that legal ruled definition. I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper.

In the interim in addition to our internet efforts, we are running educational advertorials in print media to inform the general public of the issues.  See an example attached.  More examples can be seen at: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/advertorials.htm

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
We need your help and support.
See: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

 

Kerchner V Obama, Appeal, November 14, 2009, Update, Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo, U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Philadelphia PA, Obama not natural born citizen

Just in from Charles Kerchner, lead plantiff in Kerchner V Obama, Congress, November 14, 2009.

“The Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit has been appealed and is now formally Docketed by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA as docket number 09-4209. Copy available via this link.”

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals – Philadelphia PA – Docket Report – Docket# 09-4209

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22556305/Kerchner-v-Obama-U-S-3rd-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Philadelphia-PA-Docket-09-4209

Kerchner V Obama, Congress, October 25, 2009, Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo, The Real Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case Is On Its Way to the Higher Courts of Justice

Just in from Charles Kerchner of Kerchner V Obama, October 25, 2009.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
24 October 2009

“The ‘Real’ Kerchner v. Obama & Congress Case Is On Its Way to the Higher Courts of Justice”

An essay by Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the recent decision by federal Judge Simandle in the Kerchner v. Obama & Congress lawsuit.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html

I agree with my attorney, Mario Apuzzo.

The REAL case will soon be going to the higher courts on appeal, and then to Washington DC ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the case the higher courts will hear on the merits will not be the imaginary straw-man version the case that Judge Simandle presented in his Opinion this week. The REAL case is about a core, basic, black-letter written, verbatim clause in the U.S. Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, as to who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of the military per our founders and framers of the Constitution. Our Constitution is the guarantor of our Liberty! We cannot let any part of it be ignored by a Usurper. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide this historic Article II case based on its merits, or our Constitutional Republic is history. And said history and “We the People” will record well and ultimately hold directly accountable those who are actively directly involved and also the enablers who are attempting to destroy our Constitution and Republic and participating in the cover-up. The facts and truth can only be sealed and hidden so long. Sooner or later the Obama fraud and cover-up will all be exposed. The truth will be told in a court of law and Obama and his enablers will be judged and held accountable for what they have done.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

From Mario Apuzzo’s article:

“A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications. As we have seen, the Court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is my hope that the public will take the time to read the Kerchner complaint/petition and the legal briefs that I filed supporting and opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss so that it can learn first hand what the Obama eligibility case is really about and draw an intelligent and informed decision on whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We are now working on filing our appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia which court we hope will decide our case dispassionately.”

Kerchner V Obama, Update, October 21, 2009, Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo, Judge Simandle Has Granted the DOJ Motion to Dismiss

***  Update below, October 21, 2009, 2:36 PM  ***

Just in from Charles Kerchner of Kerchner V Obama, October 21, 2009:

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Judge Simandle Has Granted the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss

Re. Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit filed January 20th, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

Judge Simandle Has Granted the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss. We will appeal.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/judge-simandle-has-granted-dojs-motion.html

Attorney Mario Apuzzo called me a few minutes ago. Judge Simandle has granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. More on this later. Mario will post some initial comments in the blog but he still has to read the Judge’s decision in full. I also need to read the full decision. But we will definitely appeal.

Like in the Battle of Long Island in the Revolutionary War, we have lost a battle. But we have not lost the war. The real decision on this will ultimately be made by the U.S. Supreme Court on the real crux of this matter … which is a legal issue, i.e., the legal question of what is a Natural Born Citizen per Article II of our Constitution per original intent, and is Obama one. I say he is not. Read this as to why:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

Attorney Apuzzo will comment further once he has had a chance to read the full decision.

We have lost at this initial step. But now Attorney Apuzzo can move the case up the ladder in the court system and file an appeal.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

***  UPDATE  ***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
21 October 2009

For additional information contact:
Attorney Mario Apuzzo
Web: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Email:  apuzzo@erols.com
Tel:  732-521-1900
Fax:  732-521-3906

Attorney Mario Apuzzo Makes Statement Regarding Judge Simandle’s Decision to Grant the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/court-dismisses-kerchner.html

Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.

The Hon. Jerome B. Simandle of the Federal District Court in the District of New Jersey at 10:39 a.m., on October 21, 2009, filed his long-awaited opinion dismissing the Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. complaint/petition. In the complaint/petition, we allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. We also allege that even if he was so born, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of which makes him ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We also allege that Congress violated it constitutional duty under the Twentieth Amendment to adequately investigate and confirm whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Judge Simandle ruled that the plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and that therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered an “injury in fact.” It added that plaintiffs’ alleged injury is “only a generally available grievance about government” and “is one they share with all United States citizens.” Finally, it said that plaintiffs’ “motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. . .”

By way of footnote, the Court said that even if the plaintiffs could show that the Court had Article III standing, they would not be able to show that the court should exercise jurisdiction because prudential standing concerns would prevent it from doing so.

Finally, the Court again in a footnote said that it cannot take jurisdiction of the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Congress has acted constitutionally in its confirmation of Obama for President because the matter is a “political question” which needs to be resolved by Congress. The Court said that there simply is no room for judicial review of political choices made by the Electoral College and the Congress when voting for and confirming the President. The Court added that the plaintiffs’ remedy against Congress may be achieved by voting at the polls.

It is important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama has conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also important to understand that the Court did not rule that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case because of jurisdiction and the political question doctrine without commenting on the underlying merits of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous. Given the nature of the Court’s decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President and Commander in Chief.

As promised, plaintiffs will be filing an appeal of Judge Simandle’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
October 21, 2009

For an outline and summary of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al case see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

*** Later Update ***

Commander Charles F. Kerchner, U.S. Naval Reserve (Ret.) statement

Charles Kerchner, Sovereign Immunity, October 20, 2009, Kerchner V Obama, Mario Apuzzo, US Constitution, President and Congress not above the law, Quo Warranto charge against a usurper Putative President

Just in from Charles Kerchner of Kerchner V Obama, October 20, 2009:

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
20 October 2009

Kerchner: On the Sovereign and Sovereign Immunity – by CDR Kerchner

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17049463/

Kerchner: On the Sovereign and Sovereign Immunity

In the case of constitutional issues We the People and/or the Constitution created by We the People are sovereign. The fundamental law of our nation, the Constitution, can only be changed by amending it by the process provided in that Constitution, not by a branch of the federal government usurping or ignoring it. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by itself and certainly not with a simple majority vote. It takes a vote of 2/3 the members of Congress to put forward such an amendment to the several states and ratification by 3/4 of the several states of our nation. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. All rights and power not given to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the several states and to the People. See the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights for the details on that fact. We the People created the federal government enabled by the founding document, the federal U.S. Constitution. The Congress or the President cannot arbitrarily ignore the U.S. Constitution and those branches of the federal government cannot hide behind sovereign immunity. For if they can the Constitution is then no longer the supreme law of the land and the Congress and the President have placed themselves above that supreme law. We would no longer be a nation of laws if the supreme law of the land can be ignored and not enforced by the whims of the simple political majority in control of Congress.

I believe that Article I, Section 6, clause 1 protects the individual Senators and Reps from arrest and/or charges due to their speech and debate. It does not grant sovereign immunity to the Congress as a whole or the Senate as a body or the House as a body to totally ignore the Constitution, the “fundamental law” as Vattel describes such laws, and the foundational law of our federal government and nation. The sovereign power in our Republic is “We the People” and the Constitution we established to limit the power of the Federal Government, and thus the Congress which is part of that. Thus the Congress as a body in our government is not sovereign and thus cannot have sovereign immunity regarding charges that it as a body did not do its constitutional duty and/or ignored parts of the constitution. Who or what is the USA. It is the several states and We the People and the Constitution. It is not the Congress and it is not the President. The Constitution is the supreme and sovereign law. Congress is not sovereign and neither is the President and thus they cannot use sovereign immunity to betray and undermine the constitution. If the Congress is sovereign, then Congress would be the ultimate power and even be above the constitution. That is not our system of government. And that is not what Vattel taught either and wrote about a republic with a written constitution. The elected officials are our representatives and we acquiesce to them to run the government as long as they obey the Constitution and not ignore any part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and that these elected representatives act in a way to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our patriot ancestors and many who have served since fought and died to obtain and keep for us. The written Constitution is supreme and sovereign as that contract was established by We the People acting through the several states. And it states it takes 3/4th of the several states via agreement of the People of those states speaking through their respective legislative body to change that sovereign law, the U.S. Constitution.

We the People are the sovereigns and the Constitution is the supreme, fundamental, sovereign law in our federal system. The President and Congress are not above the law. No executive order or statutory law passed by them is supreme to the Constitution and the inalienable rights of We the People. I did not swear an oath to defend a man or any particular person serving as the President or a piece land. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We the People retain the ancient right of the sovereign, which is us in our system, to bring a Quo Warranto charge against a usurper Putative President. And I did so in my lawsuit. Any order or law made by Congress or anyone else in our federal government which stands in the way of We the People’s inalienable right to protect our Constitution, which we created, from a usurper must fall. Those laws must fall by the wayside as subservient and that they are not applicable to blocking our inalienable rights and cannot be allowed to block the People getting answers in the federal courts to Constitutional questions. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I intend to do so.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Charles Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo interview, October 16, 2009, Kerchner V Obama, et al, Lawsuit updates, MommaE blog radio

Just in from MommaE Blog Radio, October 16, 2009:

“Hi,
 
I just want to remind you that MommaE Radio Rebels is on tonight!  MARIO APUZZO AND CHARLES KERCHNER WILL BE THE GUESTS TONIGHT!  MARIO AND CHARLES WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THEIR CASE AND ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM THE CALLERS!     It will be open lines for call ins with any questions you have as well as comments!!  It should be a hot, rocking and interesting show!
 
PLEASE POST THIS ON YOUR BLOGS OR WEB SITES AND ANY OTHER BLOGS OR WEB SITES THAT YOU ARE CONNECTED WITH AND SEND TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK. 
 
I look forward to seeing you all there!  Link, time and call in number for the show is below.
 
http://blogtalkradio.com/mommaeradiorebels
 
Call In # 347-237-4870
 
5:30 PM Pacific Time
 
6:30 PM Mountain Time
 
7:30 PM Central Time
 
8:30 PM Eastern Time
 
I hope to see you all.  Please join us in the Chat room!
  
MommaE”

 

A recent article by attorney Mario Apuzzo and information on Kerchner V Obama
“Why Should a Reputable Attorney Pursue the Obama Eligibility Issue?

I have been asked by one pro-Obama commentator on my blog who calls himself “kris” why a reputable attorney would pursue eligibility litigation against our putative President, Barack Obama.

In his argument, the commentator makes several correct statements. He is correct in stating that “Wong Kim Ark, while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen of the United States,’ simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.'”

He is also correct in stating that the Founders never defined in the Constitution what a “natural born Citizen” is. What the commentator does not state is that the Founders believed in a Creator, who to provide order and justice, gave society natural law. That natural law manifested itself in the minds and hearts of men. What society was, who its members were, and what the ends of society were to be were all revealed through that natural law. Hence, there was no reason or motivation for them to write down what a “Citizen” or “natural born Citizen” was. Given the task of creating a new society after having won a revolution, for them it was intuitive that a “citizen” was a member of the new society and the children of the first citizens would in the future be the society’s “natural born citizens.” They also provided for others to join the new society in the future through naturalization and the children of those so joining the society would also be “natural born citizens.””

Read more:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-should-reputable-attorney-pursue.html