Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Judge Simandle Has Granted the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss

Re. Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al lawsuit filed January 20th, 2009.

Judge Simandle Has Granted the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss. We will appeal.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo called me a few minutes ago. Judge Simandle has granted the DOJ's motion to dismiss. More on this later. Mario will post some initial comments in the blog but he still has to read the Judge's decision in full. I also need to read the full decision. But we will definitely appeal.

Like in the Battle of Long Island in the Revolutionary War, we have lost a battle. But we have not lost the war. The real decision on this will ultimately be made by the U.S. Supreme Court on the real crux of this matter ... which is a legal issue, i.e., the legal question of what is a Natural Born Citizen per Article II of our Constitution per original intent, and is Obama one. I say he is not. Read this as to why:

Attorney Apuzzo will comment further once he has had a chance to read the full decision.

We have lost at this initial step. But now Attorney Apuzzo can move the case up the ladder in the court system and file an appeal.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

P.S. Links to the Judge's Opinion and his Order are now uploaded to and convenient links to them are found in the right frame of this blog. Just scroll down a bit to find a list of links to all the court documents for this case. The docket file at has also been updated to show the new documents entered today.


Vici57 said...

This just makes me sick. I admire Mr. Apuzzo for his tenacity.

I keep going back to a quote I read a while back. Never give up! The quote says:

"Don't be discouraged. It's often the last key in the bunch that opens the lock. "

~ Unknown

jayjay said...

What was it that John Marshall said - something about:

"... treason to the Constitution ..."???

Given Simandle's background it is no surprise.

Unknown said...

Our courts have consistently ignored the United States Constitution and the rule of law, thus effectively spitting into the collective faces of three hundred million American Citizens...In the eyes of the majority of Citizens, the robes are irrevocably stained, the credibility of the bench has fallen below "0". Under the prevailing circumstances, we cannot rationally consider ourselves a "nation of laws".

Jim Delaney said...

That "standing" issue appears to be an legal insuperable hurdle. Very disappointing. And despite what appears to be surprisingly sympathetic judge in Barnett v Obama, I expect the same the result. A real gordian knot. Have not a clue what these fine attorneys can possibly do to achieve a fair hearing of the merits of these cases. I fear for my country, and I salute these fearless and diligent attorneys.

Jim Delaney said...

If there is no law on the books which allows courts to review and decide on presidiential eligibility, then what legal recourse do the people have? Or is election alone the final arbiter? If so, Bobby Jindal and any other non NBC can run a star-studded, razzle-dazzle campaign and occupy the White House too. Nothing against Jindal, of course, but just making a point.

cfkerchner said...

Hi all,

Ignore the biased political party shot headline but read the first paragraph of this latest poll and survey. 30% of all Americans polled believe that Obama was not born in the USA. That is hardly a fringe percentage. When is the Main Stream Media and so called free press and 4th estate of our government going to investigate this matter with the power of the press. And when are our federal judges and Congress going to live up to their oaths? Will they wait until 55% of the People don't believe the Usurper in Chief is not eligible and was not born in the USA and 5,000,000 people are marching in the streets of Washington demanding the Usurper's removal. What does it take to get our media and government to uphold Article II of the U.S. Constitution?

Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Help me get the word out. Visit this site and do what you can to help. And spread the word and link to other blogs. We need your support and help to get the message to the print media and its readers where it cannot be scrubbed by Obama's Blog Squad and helpmates at Google:

Anonymous said...

re: the Political Questions Doctrine

In Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. and Competitive Technologies, Inc. (04-607), the court admitted it had no jurisdiction over Natural Law.

Through requests for amicus briefs, it determined the patent in question was invalid as it tried to license a natural chemical reaction.

In the same light, the courts have no jurisdiction over the definition of natural born citizen, only its interpretation from the law itself.

The interpretation comes not from Vattell or numerous SCOTUS cases, but from the context of the law itself.

Article II is the only law naming 'Natural Born Citizen' as a legal requirement, and it is the supreme law of the land.

The language is plain and free from vague legal terms and jargon. It requires, "[a]natural born citizen, or [b]citizen, at the time of adoption of this constitution."

Popular interpretation supporting Pres. Obama favors 'native' born, especially from a U.S. mother.

However, if that is true, Article II would not require a distinction between 'natural born citizen' and merely 'citizen,' the latter allowing 35 years of native born sons of British subjects who became U.S. citizens 'at the time of adoption.'

John Tyler, our 10th president, was the first 'natural born citizen' to be elected, as he was born six months after the adoption.

Relying on case law not on point, and their discussions of Law of Nations and Common Law is instructive, but Article II stands on its own and requires no legal argument.

The Political Questions Doctrine is not a defense, if the court is not overturning an election. It is, after all, up to Congress to act . . . and they may decide to do nothing.

The Clinton impeachment is a good example. Clinton was found guilty of perjury, etc., but the election was not overturned with his removal from office.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


That patent case has nothing to do with the law of nature as applied to a legal system. The laws of nature of which this case speaks concern scientific knowledge and processes.