Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Constitutional Radio - BlogTalkRadio - 9:00 p.m. EDT Tues 4 Aug 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress - Update by Atty Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner

Constitutional Radio - BlogTalkRadio - 9:00 p.m. EDT Tues 4 Aug 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress et al - Update by Atty Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner. Hosted by Dame Central and Dr. Kate.

Join us on the show. And if you want to help the current advertising and educational project also visit:

Charles Kerchner
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

For more about what Obama wants to hide about his citizenship issues see:


roderick said...

What has to happen in order to get term limits lifted?

Unbamboozleus said...

Was a decision made yesterday on the motion to dismiss? Please update on the case.

cfkerchner said...

Hi Roderick,

It would require a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment which now limits the Pres to two terms. And an Amendment takes a 2/3 vote by the Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the several states. Very hard to do. But Obama looks to and supports the Chavez way on this, an easier, but unconstitutional way, a so called people's referendum amendment via a simple majority vote of the people. The Constitutions of most countries including the USA definitely does not permit such short-cut things like that. But that does not stop dictator wannabees. More on that later.

There is a bill in the House right now to do that very thing. Of course when asked about it, Obama's Mr. Gibbs said that Obama does not support that bill. [But that parsing leaves him open in the future to support another one a year from now ;-) ] But I don't believe Mr. Gibbs or Mr. Obama on anything they say. They will say what is expedient today and do whatever the heck they please when they want. And I have know doubt that Obama would like to be President for Life. He looks to his buddies and fellow travelers of Castro and Chavez as his role model for that point.

Trying to ignore the Honduran Constitution and to become President for Life is exactly the issue that got the Supreme Court and Congress of Honduras to act to throw out the Honduran President for attempting to ignore undermine the Honduran Constitution via an unconstitutional special people's referendum (with the help of Hugo Chavez) and to become the President for Life of Honduras, via a simple majority vote like Chavez did. And who went to the defense of that ... Obama, Castro, Chavez, and Ortega. Birds of a feather flock together. We have a socialist panderer, pandering to the people for votes and buying off big business directly or indirectly with pay to play deals in the billions by the dozens of Czars and a potential dictator similar to Mussolini in characteristics in the making, usurping the Oval Office.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Hello Everyone,

I was just over at Dr. Conspiracy's site. I found the following there written by the good doctor:

"When looking at Greshak, and Apuzzo, and Taitz and Berg, and P. A. Madison, and the rest of that crowd, I am reminded of this phrase from the Bible:

(Mat 6:7b NRSV) “…for they think that they will be heard because of their many words."

He then continues:

"What is interesting is to compare Emerich de Vattel with Edward Lord Coke. Both derived concepts of citizenship from natural law, but arrived at different conclusions. De Vattel believed nature made allegiance something inherited from one’s father (as it was in Swiss society) where Coke (Calvin’s Case 1608) said that allegiance was created when one was born under the protection of one’s lord. De Vattel’s analysis formed the basis of Swiss common law, including the rule of the 13 Swiss colonies of Swiss North America. Coke’s analysis formed the basis of British common law for nearly 300 years, including the rule of the 13 British colonies of British North America."

I responded to the good doctor as follows:

"I see you have gotten religious lately.

I also see that you are fond of Coke and I of Vattel. Could you provide me one case or more wherein the Court defines what a “natural born Citizen” (not just a “citizen”) is by referring to Coke and his definitions (or any other English common law authority). I do have several cases in which the Court does refer to and cites Vattel directly and his definition of what “natives” or “indigenes” or “natural born citizens” (all three distinguished from an ordinary “citizen”) are or just gives his definition thereof in defining those words. I have cited some of these cases in my opposition brief to Obamas’s and Congress’s motion to dismiss my complaint/petition.

I do hope that you will take me up on my challenge.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

I also offer anyone on this blog to help the good doctor find any such case. Let me know of your findings. Happy hunting.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Sheikh yer Bu'Tay said...

Let's talk about "standing" for a moment. It seems that is the favorite tactic for Mr. Obama's lawyers.

Issac Newton's laws of physics teach us that for every action there is an opposite, but equal, reaction.

In contract law, I think that would be the same. If the Court would determine I have no "standing" on matters of the Constitution. Then the equal, but inverse, reasoning would be the Constitution has no "standing" on me! This mutual lack of standing is definitely a contract breaker.

Talk about a get-out-of-jail-free card! Think about it! If I am no longer constrained by the Constitution, then the legal system must revert back to English common law we had before the Constitution was made into law.

Imagine I am hauled into court over not fastening my seat belt. Under common law, if there is no victim, there is no case. I rise before the judge and state: "This is not a crime under common law. Produce the victim who was damaged by my not wearing a seat belt!" The judge would reply, "there is no victim, it is just a matter of our laws founded upon the US Constitution!" Then my reply would be: "Ah! But you see judge, the constitution has no standing with me, for my federal case was dismissed for a lack of standing before the Constitution!" I hand him my court documents, he reads them, then slams his gavel down on his bench and claims: "Case Dismissed!"

jayjay said...


Please don't waste your mental energy on Doc's website (unless you're doing it just for practice) since almost none of the posters I've seen there know anything about the real issue - as one guy continually reminds them.

Let us move forward said...

Kamira has posted the results of some relevant research into the historical definition of natural born citizen in the comments section under post "The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President" at

Information beyond Vattel.

Let us move forward said...

Information is in two separate comments.

Anonymous said...

To help reach members of Congress with the historical/legal definition of a natural born citizen, your supporters can contact some of them via Twitter and send them links to some of your and/or Leo Donofrio's blog commentaries. The good thing about contacting them this way is that I think a number of them maintain their own accounts, meaning that the message goes directly to them and is not filtered thru some staffer.

At Obama is encouraging people to send Tweets to their senators in favor of his socialist health care plan, so it seems that Twitter has become a legitimate and acceptable way to contact Congress. For anyone who doesn't know how to direct a message to a certain account on Twitter, see

At are links where people can get to the Twitter accounts of quite a few members of Congress. People can go to and use the URL shortener, plug in the URLs to the relevant blog commentaries and turn them into smaller re-directing URLs more convenient for sending Tweets.