LEAD PLAINTIFF IN KERCHNER VS. OBAMA SAYS HIS CASE SUPPORTS PLAINTIFFS IN BARNETT VS. OBAMA
by John Charlton
(Oct. 27, 2009) — During the last 14 months, American citizens motivated by their desire to see the Constitution upheld as the Supreme Law of the Land, have undertaken many disparate and individual actions to demand proof that Barack Hussein Obama met the constitutional requirements of the office for which he ran.
Two such actions are the cases of Kerchner vs. Obama, in New Jersey Federal Court, and Barnett vs. Obama in California Federal Court. The former case was dismissed, when Judge Jerome B. Simandle denied the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit, and jurisdiction to rule in the matter; the latter awaits Judge David O. Carter’s decision on the Motion to Dimiss submitted by the Department of Justice attorneys defending Obama in that case.
Today, Commander Charles F. Kechner, Jr., U.S. Nav., Retired, who has already indicated that he will appeal Simandle’s decision, issued a public statement in support of the plaintiffs in Barnett vs. Obama.
Which statement reads as follows:
27 October 2009
The DOJ May Have Messed Up In Filing the Last Minute “Judicial Notice” of the Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case Decision into the Barnett/Keyes v Obama Case File
The Department of Justice (DOJ) who is unconstitutionally defending the usurper Obama when it should be defending the Constitution and “We the People” instead may have inadvertently messed up their constitutionally indefensible position and helped the People and the Constitution by filing the Judicial Notice of the Kerchner case decision into the Barnett/Keyes v Obama case. By filing that lame, unconstitutional ruling that Judge Simandle made in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case, and by calling Judge Carter’s attention to that ruling and the Kerchner case in NJ, it possibly opens up the ability and likelihood that Judge Carter may read all the pleadings in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case to understand that case.
And doing so may educate him immensely on the Constitution and U.S. history and U.S. Supreme Court case law on the definition of natural born citizenship.
Despite the lame, unconstitutional decision of Judge Simandle in NJ, if Judge Carter does read all the pleadings of Kerchner v Obama & Congress, the pleadings and legal briefs of Attorney Mario Apuzzo in the Kerchner case does a masterful and extremely good job of laying out clearly and succinctly the natural born citizenship issues and flaws of Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court case law that shows definitively that Vattel’s Law of Nations and Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen” is the correct one and that definition became the federal common law by the high court’s literal incorporation of that definition into several U.S. Supreme Court cases, including the Venus decision in 1814 and the Minor v Happersett decision in 1874.
For every action there is a reaction. If you push a negative too hard it becomes a positive. The DOJ may have gone too far in trying to drive a final nail into the Barnett/Keyes v Obama case in CA and instead indirectly introduced some very strong, very cogently written arguments against their own DOJ position into their case from the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case pleadings in NJ as to why Obama cannot serve as President and Commander-in-Chief, since Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, and thus Obama is not a “natural born” Citizen and is a usurper in the Oval Office.
In addition to that going a “filing too far” by the DOJ, it also opened up an opportunity for the Plaintiff side to file their own Judicial Notice filing, i.e., the 2004 Kenyan newspaper article pointing out that it was quite well known to journalists in Kenya and other countries in Africa in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya. And this was long before Obama even considered running for President and the issue surfaced in the USA as to his reported Kenyan birth.
We will see how this turns out when Judge Carter rules. But it just may turn out that the last minute Judicial Notice inserted by the DOJ may back fire on the DOJ … all to the benefit of our Constitution and We the People. In God we Trust.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
Judge Leon (USDC-DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-02234-RJL has granted filing/ acknowledgment and/or judicial notice of Judge Carter’s Barnett case.
Judicial notice of Kerchner has been added to the Barnett docket. Kerchner should join the quo warranto judicial notice loop at the DC USDC by severing the quo warranto related issues on appeal in the 3rd Circuit to the DC Circuit (joining the related ongoing Original Proceeding Re: Christopher Strunk
United States Court of Appeals for DC Circuit
09/17/2009 US CIVIL ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CASE docketed. [09-5322]
In re: Christopher Earl Strunk
Jack:
Excellent points. You should email them to Orly at her email address on ther website – just in case she hasn’t yet considered that. And Simandle stated in his opinion that for the purposes of the action the charges must be taken as entirely true – but he didn’t do so.
It would also open the door to the Barnett et al case to all of the excellent essays and SCOTUS decision citations re NBC definitions that are a part of the Kerchner et al case.
Thanks to patriot Charles Kerchner for telling us to take notice of judicial notice. It makes sense that to take judicial notice of Simandle’s ruling requires that Judge Carter read what Kerchner case involved. Otherwise he wouldn’t know what he was noticing.
So Mario Apuzzo joins forces with Orly Taitz after all, albeit in a round-about way. Great!
I guess Judge Carter can change the dates anytime he wants but since it’s October 27th, you’d think his final ruling on the dismissal would have to come soon in order for the normal discovery and other events that need to take place before the trial date…the timeline is getting tight it seems…
In addition, the background on the Velamoor’s family is all the more disturbing…
There’s an additional very important point to make — as to why the Kerchner v. Obama dismissal is actually beneficial to Barnett (Keyes) v. Obama. During the Oct 5 Barnett/Keyes hearing, Judge Carter queried Orly Taitz specifically as to why her case was not filed before Congress tallied the electoral votes in early January or directed to Congressional actions or countering Congress.
Well, Kerchner’s dismissal (albeit the merits against Obama can be entirely valid and even taken as entirely valid) said the court found plaintiffs like Kerchner AGAINST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTION HAD NO STANDING ON THAT — UNLIKE KEYES WHO HAS STANDING IN TORT-FRAUD AGAINST “CANDIDATE” (NOT ‘PRESIDENT’) OBAMA! — so per the Kerchner dismissal, since going against Congressional inaction gave no standing, the issue of not proceeding before Congress acted would have afforded Orly Taitz’s plaintiffs in the position of Kerchner no avenue or relief — all the more reason why standing MUST BE GRANTED at least now (in Barnett/Keyes) OR THERE COULD NEVER BE ANY CASE OF ANY STANDING WHATSOEVER.