Judge in Kerchner's case, over 7 weeks late

JUDGE SEEMINGLY INSENSITIVE TO USURPATION OF PRESIDENCY AND CINC

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.