Spread the love


by John Charlton

(Sept. 23, 2009) — Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.,  U.S. Navy Reserve, Retired, is still waiting for justice.  But it increasingly appears to be justice delayed for justice denied.  Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed Charles F. Kerchner et al. vs. Barack Hussein Obama et al. in January, and it has winded its way through U.S. Federal court, District of New Jersy since Jan. 20th, 2009 when the lawsuit was filed — that is, slowly, very slowly.

Curently the Plaintiffs are awaiting Judge Jerome B. Simandle’s ruling on two motions: Apuzzo’s brief in Opposition to the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss, and the Cross-Motion he filed on their behalf; the former due from the court on Aug. 3, the latter on Aug. 17. This delay prompts speculation that the Judge is insensitive to the urgency this case requires, since it touches upon the grave crime of usurpation of the office of the Presidency and thus, of the Comander-in-Chief of all American military forces.

This evening, the lead plaintiff issued a press release:

The federal court itself set a return/decision date of 3 Aug 2009! It is now 23 Sep 2009! The decision is now over 7 weeks late. This is an outrage!

The federal courts should not hide and stall on a case of this importance to our nation, i.e., a Usurper in the White House and Congress’s not doing a thing about investigating the charges of the People about it. It is a case in the confines of the Constitution, the contract by which We the People agreed to be governed, specifically in Article II as to who can be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. It is this fundamental law of our land. We are a nation of laws not men. Or at least we are supposed to be. Obama and Chicago mafia cronies and the Progressive Caucus in Congress are doing their best to change that.

Kerchner explains the legal basis for his consternation that Judge Simandle is stalling, by quoting U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us.

We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.

In consideration of which Commander Kerchner concludes by saying:

The Judge needs to do his duty. Decide the motions. Grant standing. And hear the case on its merits.  What are the courts afraid of … the real facts and the truth.  A simple trial in our courts are supposed to find the facts and determine the truth of the charges and resolve this. All we ask is a trial on the merits.  Justice Delayed is Justice Denied!

Attorney Mario Apuzzo publishes an informative blog about this case; and Kerchner is well known for his public advocacy of the underlying legal issues of Obama’s usurpation of the U.S. Presidency.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I appreciate the reminder of Justice Marshall’s plain statement of the judiciary’s responsibility to take difficult cases even though they might prefer not to. Too bad the present Supreme Court didn’t implement that precept when earlier Obama eligibility cases reached their door.
    What good is a Constitution if the courts won’t adhere to it?

  2. At first I thought this was a good sign that he had not dismissed the case but now I am not so sure. I was hoping the Judge was really doing his homework on this so he wouldn’t have any loopholes that the DOJ could jump through. Now it appears he is dragging his feet for other reasons.

  3. Would be very interested in seeing Court Order saying decision would be rendered by any date.

    Can you get it on scribd?
    Mr. Charlton replies: Good question; just the kind that is appropriate for the Comments. After a little research here is what I found at Apuzzo’s Blog:

    DOCKET REPORT – Kerchner v Obama & Congress where the final entries in the docket explain the scheduling dates — note that the final page has a screen capture of the final 2 docket entries, for those who do not have PACER access; if you do have pacer access, you can find the link in the header of the pleadings metioned in the article above. If you have more questions about the docket please contact the court clerk.