For Immediate Release - 29 November 2010 2:30 p.m. ESTA Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
The "Roberts Court" of the U.S. Supreme Court in my opinion will be known in history as the "Neville Chamberlain Supreme Court", the great Obama appeaser court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
Appeasement due to fear that some immediate small amount of veiled and threatened violence from the far left socialists and Saul Alinsky goons, tyrants and bullies, and thus not doing the right thing early on to support the rule of law and the Constitution, ultimately leads to much bigger problems later. History has shown us that over and over. The Obama eligibility matter should have been fully and thoroughly addressed and openly investigated by the investigative reporters in the major media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries to get all of Obama's documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasn't done.
Congress should have addressed this when asked by 100s of thousands of constituent letters and petitions sent to them and when constitutionally it was required to so under the 20th Amendment. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else. Now it is far worse. The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken top to bottom and bottom to top. And it will only get worse as our legal system and constitutional republic further deteriorates and the rule of law gives way more and more to appeasement of bullies and tyrants in waiting such as Obama and his far left Marxist cronies and puppet masters. Appeasement of the constitutional usurpers will not make it go away. It will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reveals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty. Neville Chamberlain tactics never work with bullies, alinskyites, tyrants, and national socialists.The U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have! Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with the relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after. Imo, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it's the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it's then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.
10-446KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44359775/U-S-Supreme-Court-Order-List-562-U-S-dated-2010-11-29-Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Decison-on-Pg-15
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
27 comments:
What Sotomayor and Kagan did some will call a conflict of interest while others will call it unethical. As for me, I call it high treason for aiding the usurpation of the commander-in-chief's office during a time of war. With this action, the justices of the Supreme Court have added themselves to the long list of domestic enemies of the United States and our Constitution.
Is there any legal recourse allowed because Kagen and Sotomeyer did not recuse themselves? At least an answer pertaining to the recuse issue ??
bdwilcox:
Agreed - and that is why I consider this court to be not the Chamberlin Court but the Treason Court.
This group has consciously and deliberatly done treason to the Constitution using the words of John Marshall which is ironic as hell since Roberts himself has publicly stated some time back that he thinks "his" court is on a par with the Marshall Court.
The Great Justice (John Marshall) must be turning over in his grave.
How could these boobs be so arrogant???
DrJim77:
There is no legal recourse to decisions made by the Supreme Court in private in that conference room. And there are no records kept of the meetings beyond the orders issued.
Robert:
All recusals from voting on a particular petition are noted in the Orders list. On page 15 of the orders published today you can see a recusal for a petition denied Writ right before our Petition in the list and another one right after it. So if Kagan and Sotomayer had recused themselves from reviewing and voting on Cert for our petition it would have been so stated in the orders. Since they were not listed as recusing themselves, they did not recuse themselves.
The source of the Rule of 3 statement I made is "Supreme Court Practice - Ninth Edition" by Cressman et al.
Sadly, I'm not surprised. At all.
WELCOME TO THE 2ND REPUBLIC OF THE USA, A/K/A POST-CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. (1ST REPUBLIC, 1789-2010; 2ND REPUBLIC 2010- )
As I previously implied, we are now living under the 2nd Republic of the USA.
The 1st Republic of the USA -- or the "Constitutional Republic" -- ended officially today in the final acquiesence of all 3 Branches of Government.
This, the 2nd Republic of the USA, can be named the "Post-Constitutional Republic" of the USA.
Our Republic is no longer girded by the Constitution, and is really not now what it was before today.
Robert,
The rule of three would only apply when there are 7 justices reviewing a particular petition, not 9. I have no idea how the inner workings go on in that conference room with recusals. I don't know if justices step out of the room when a discussion starts on a petition they've recused themselves from or if they just sit there quietly and say nothing and watch the remaining debate it. It's all done in secret as I'm told. Only the justices no what goes on in there. I do not have a case citation for the rule of 3. If you want to study this more I suggest you go to a good legal library and read up on it in that behemoth of a law book ... Supreme Court Practices.
Robert:
Never forget that Obama secretly met with the 8 of the 9 justices while cases against him were pending (Samuel Alito was absent.)
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=86863
No one knows what was discussed. No one knows what deals may have been struck. And no one knows what threats may have been issued.
The real question is: did even one of the justices vote to grant certiorari?
As far as I'm concerned, unless one of the justices drops the dime on what happened here, they are all equally guilty of treason.
Please forgive my legal ignorance, but what does this mean? - "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to
file a brief as amicus curiae is granted."
Why would the Court allow a brief to be filed if it does not intend to hear the case? Is the Court planning on hearing this case at a later time (perhaps after the new, more Republican, Congress is seated)?
If so, this would seem to be good news. I don't see why they would grant a brief filing if there is no intention of moving this case forward. What am I missing?
If we want the SCOTUS to take up this case there is one way to help make that happen and that is to pick a day for all patriotic Americans who are concerned about this issue to flood Congress and the Supreme Court with phone calls asking for action on it. They are getting away with this because they think they can. It's like amnesty. They thought they were going to pass it, but there was an organized effort to flood Congress with phone calls and it worked. We can do this, but we have to be organized.
I remember Obama meeting with SCOTUS off the record right after he was sworn in (or maybe it was right before??). Have you ever heard of any president doing such a thing?
Can anyone with a case pending before SCOTUS actually meet with them? Excuse my ignorance but they don't exactly call witnesses, plaintiffs or defendants to the stand, do they? When does SCOTUS call in anybody to talk to them?
To all,
If you wish to send us a personal/private message and don't want it to be accidentally posted, please don't send it as a comment but instead use the 'Contact Me' links in the right frame at two places (just scroll down) to send us a private message. If you send a private message via a comment and then say don't publish it ... well ... accidents can happen. So don't use the comment method to get private messages to us.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
Even with the two Soetoro asppointments not recusing themselves there should have been four patriotic Americans on the court and there was not. The writ should have been granted even in spite of the two that did not belong on the court. Where were the four so called constitutionalists on the court?
Like I said before, the only way to make Obama reveal whether or not he is eligible to be POTUS is to convince at least one state to pass a law requiring that candidates for POTUS prove that they are natural born citizens of the US under Article II of the Constitution before they can get on the ballot.
The refusal to recuse is more than an internal SC matter. It is the final piece of evidence proving cabal exists between all branches of government. The overthrow of the constitution was secretly effected and now we are slowly being led to the socialist/communist grave. The battle for liberty will move to the states where they are going to end up in the like scenario with Lincoln used his unchecked power to destroy half a nation simply because he could instead of allowing the social change already well under way to proceed beyond the natural limits of a life span. This usurpation is on track to divide the nation and set it to conflict just like the Civil war.
beyond all reason and rhyme...lets hope obot has pissed of Boehner enough...that they investigate this failure to vet...based on the congressional research report...and we should all send him emails and call his office stating this is the only thing a true patriot could do...this is a just cause and we have standing to address the leadership in Congress...after all the conflict we have seen in the MSM slanting the GOP leadership (that being Boehner himself)...its time for payback...if we can cut off the head of the beast then there would be little chance for many of the crooks to get re-elected in 2012...
if you play chess...this is the move you would call check mate...
getting them to investigate themselves would be an historic achievement none the less...but when the dignity of the constitution and reforming corruption are in the air (so to speak)...it would be a fantastic opportunity for them to step up to the plate...
I'm sure you have thought of it already, but what about a class action suit against 0bama and Congress? Wouldn't that eliminate the argument of "standing" if every United States citizen had the right to join the suit if he/she is harmed by 0bama's ineligibility?
Jet said:
the only way to make Obama reveal whether or not he is eligible to be POTUS is to convince at least one state to pass a law requiring that candidates for POTUS prove that they are natural born citizens of the US under Article II of the Constitution before they can get on the ballot.
I agree. This is the path that Joseph Farrah at WND believes is the way forward. I personally doubt Obama will even seek a second term due to what the public now knows his eligibility problems are and the scrutiny his re-election campaign would receive.
Is it possible or practical to re-file this case with the District Court of DC under a Quo Warranto action?
The lack of action by the Supreme Court and the lower courts should be taken under the legal premise that all of your claims were accepted as true.
Remember, in the course of events, the Obama team has legally conceded this, too.
By not acting further on your case the court has accepted that:
The proper definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen" is "One born in the country to two citizen parents." The court has decided that this definition is not in need of further explanation, repair, or action by the court.
The court will not argue against the fact that Mr. Obama has not conclusively proven that he is a constitutional natural born citizen. Since, by his own stipulation, Obama was born under British jurisdiction, no further discussion or disclosure is necessary.
The court accepts that the electoral college, the senate and Mr. Cheney failed to perform the duties prescribed to enable a legally binding transfer of power and installation of a new POTUS. The court can see that the record is open, clear and in need of no further discovery.
Therefor:
All of Mr. Obama's actions as President must be considered null and void.
Neither Mr. Obama nor any of his appointments can claim any constitutional authority nor can any citizen be bound by such a claim.
The Attorney General has no authority.
The Czars have no authority.
No member of the cabinet has any authority.
Neither Sotomayor nor Kagan have any authority or standing on the bench. None of their votes count. They do not need to recuse themselves because they are not legitimately on the court.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are all operating on their own. No persons acting on orders coming from the office of the president or any of the Joint Chiefs can expect any Geneva protection because there is nothing in the chain of command that ties any orders to the authority of the constitution.
We have no way to comply with current tax law because there isn't one.
We have no legally binding health care bill.
No executive orders signed by Obama are binding.
The list goes on and on. No citizen or head of state, foreign or domestic, can put any faith or credit in anything that Mr. Obama has promised, done or signed beyond their own personal trust in him. He lacks the backing of the American people that they can only transfer to a President through the Constitution.
To put it simply, there's nothing in writing that gives Mr. Obama the authority to act as POTUS except for one document that says he can't. The court has made no changes to that document. And, as the Sage says, "If in ain't in writing, it never happened!"
The court has indirectly accepted that Mr. Obama is illegally seated. It has merely "not prescribed" a remedy. And, by not acting, it has left the remedy to the people and to the states.
Call your state and federal representatives and senators and tell them this. Let them know that you expect them to honor the constitution and that you will hold them personally accountable.
Also let them know that it is up to Mr. Obama to explain why he shouldn't be immediately removed from office, arrested by any citizen or officer of the law, prosecuted, and imprisoned for his crimes.
Remember, Muhatma Gahndi fought a war by sitting down
- and won!
Jet, Thomas...I've posted this before but Arizona ALREADY has this law, ARS 16-311, and the Secretary of State already admitted not following it, and the Attorney General Office is abusive and evasive about the issue.
What this means is that Arizona LAW in 2008 required Obama to provide proof of qualifications, instead they allowed him to self-attest.
A person cannot self attest to their own birth!!! It's not a "FACT" in a court - sense. Therefore the law was clearly violated!!!
Why go to any other states when Arizona is clear?
In Hawaii, Texas, and South Carolina, the issue fell to the Democratic Committees of each state to verify, and of course they used no documents (and have admitted so in South Carolina and Hawaii).
You'll never get ANYWHERE with the Dem. Comm of these states but you may get somewhere with Arizona.
The bill Judy Burges proposed was just misdirection away from the EXISTING LAW ARS 16-311.
Why can't the clear violation of the civil rights or Arizonans be brought forth?
As a footnote to my last post, any payments made to Obama appointments or made due to his actions or under his assumed authority, because he has never qualified for office, can be considered misappropriations of public funds.
Okay, so Obama now has control over the Supreme Court. We knew that was his goal. But not over the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner. CDR Kerchner, you and Mario Apuzzo get an appointment with him. He's going to have to research Obama sooner or later if he runs for a second term. He can get access to school, S.S., passports and original birth certificate. You ask why should he do this? Look at what the House intends to do.... 1) repeal Obamacare,2) if this Congress doesn't extend Bush tax cuts, then they will in January,3) drilling in the Gulf and Atlantic are haulted by Obama. The majority of Governors want States right back. By Boehner getting Obama out of the White House all laws he signed would be null and void. Time and money saved.
Boehner can tear down those walls that Obama has set up to protect himself. Can't say there will be a lack of lawyers that Boehner can enlist, along with Mr. Apuzzo. Plus, I would think you both already know where to look and what to look for, right?
Come on, don't quit on us now. We believe in the both of you. We've got to fight back before it's too late.
Remember, the Courts keep saying it's the Congress. Remind Boehner of this and he can right a wrong. Also, he needs to clarify "natural born citizen" before 2012.
Boehner has the right to research this and what satisfaction it would be to put Pelosi away.
Kathie Wallmeyer
Mayo, FL
A Natural Born Citizen
Right now Boehner is too busy trying to block Ron Paul's Chairmanship of the House Subcommittee for Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. The Rebuplicans aren't listening. We've been had.
http://www.petition2congress.com/3789/
Hello all,
I have added a link right up top in my ProtectOurLiberty.org website to the main site supporting LTC Lakin's defense in his upcoming court martial. Please if you can, visit this LTC Lakin support site and donate if you can to help the efforts to defend LTC Lakin. Below is also a direct link to that site.
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/
I am planning to attend the Court Martial scheduled to start on Tuesday, 14 Dec 2010 at Ft. Meade MD to show my support for LTC Lakin with the many other patriots who will be attending.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
CDR Charles Kerchner [Ret], Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit and Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, to Attend LTC Lakin Court Martial | See details @ SafeGuardOurConstitution.com
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/press-release/kerchnertoattend.html
Post a Comment