Monday, June 21, 2010

A One-on-One Personal Interview with Commander Kerchner Regarding his Eligibility Challenge and Lawsuit against Obama & Congress | @ The Post & Email

A One-on-One Personal Interview with Commander Kerchner Regarding his Eligibility Challenge and Lawsuit against Obama and Congress


by Sharon Rondeau - The Post & Email

(Jun. 21, 2010) — Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), is the lead plaintiff in the case Kerchner v. Obama & Congress, which is scheduled for review by a three-judge panel on June 29, 2010. Commander Kerchner has given The Post & Email his first public individual interview, and we are very pleased to present it in its entirety here.
A resident of the State of Pennsylvania, Commander Kerchner served 33 years in the U.S. Naval Reserves as both a Commissioned Officer and an Enlisted person. He enlisted with the U.S. Naval Reserve in 1962 as an E-1. He served two years of active duty as an enlisted person, after which he returned to the U.S. Naval Reserves serving with various drilling select reserve units.
As a drilling member of the U.S. Naval Reserves, he was advanced at various times until reaching the rank of Chief Petty Officer (E-7) in 1970. In 1976 he was commissioned as a U.S. Naval Reserve Officer and was appointed as an Ensign (O-1), serving as a Commissioned Officer for 19 years. He was promoted to the rank of a full Commander (O-5) in 1992.
He served annually on active duty for training and drilled with various reserve units until he retired in 1995. During his career, he served on numerous types of ships such as aircraft carriers, destroyers, repair ships, salvage ships, and patrol craft. In addition to his military service, Commander Kerchner holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering and a B.A. in Economics from Lafayette College.
Commander Kerchner took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and feels it is his duty to support and defend the United States Constitution pursuant to that oath. Commander Kerchner and the other plaintiffs on his case maintain in the Twelve Counts in their lawsuit that the putative president, Barack Hussein Obama, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution and that no one in the election process, including the U.S. Congress which had a duty to investigate the charges against Obama’s eligibility (as they did for similar charges against McCain) has fully investigated Obama’s hidden and sealed original records as to his early life and have not vetted Obama’s Article II eligibility to constitutional standards.

Read the full in-depth interview here ...

Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress


jayjay said...


A splendid interview. Both you and Mario deserve heaps of praise for the professional efforts you have put forth on the eligibility issue.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Commander Kerchner,

Your interview is wonderful. I am so proud of you when I look at you in your picture. I know that your heart is in the right place in this battle. God bless you.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

I have just updated my Catalog of Evidence on the question of Obama’s place of birth:

(35) As we know, the only "document" that Obama has produced for the American public is an alleged 2008 computer image (which some experts have declared to be a forgery) of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB) (which Hawaii has yet to even confirm is authentic). Hence, his only proof of where and when he was born is this digital image of only a short-form document and not the long-form birth certificate which latter but not the former includes the name of the hospital and delivery doctor. Apart from the question of whether either or both alleged computer image of an alleged paper document are authentic, there are many problems with simply relying on a birth certificate as conclusive evidence of the place and date of birth. Birth certificate fraud is a real problem in the United States. The U.S. Office of Inspector General published a report in September 2000, entitled Birth Certificate Fraud. The report explains that over the last 25 years there have been a number of studies addressing the problem of birth certificate fraud. The report states that there exist misconceptions among the public as to the integrity of birth certificates. The report says that with current technological advances with computers and the internet, it is easier to produce counterfeit birth certificates. It explains that many times the alleged birth certificates produced by a government agency are based on false or fraudulent information or do not even have documentary evidence to corroborate the veracity of the birth event as stated in the birth certificate. It explains how a birth certificate that is "spawned" by false information or documents is itself fraudulent. The report concludes that "birth certificates alone do not provide conclusive or reliable proof of identity." It adds that "[w]hen used in combination with other documents, birth certificates can add to the level of proof in establishing eligibility and identity." The report recommends that birth certificates should be used "only with other documents." The full report may be read at We should remember that Obama has refused to release to the American public any of his "other documents" (birth, medical, travel, work, and education). This refusal on his part is very troubling given that the Inspector General in his report recommends that birth certificates be used "only with other documents" and that with Obama we are talking about making sure that he is who he says he is and therefore eligible to receive the vast and singular civil and military powers of the Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

See also the recent change to the law in Puerto Rico needed because of the massive birth certificate fraud involving birth certificates from there. ("The Puerto Rican government, in cooperation with the departments of State and Homeland Security, has enacted a new law that invalidates all Puerto Rico birth certificates issued on or before June 30. The law, which takes effect July 1, is intended to combat the fraudulent use of Puerto Rico birth certificates to obtain U.S. passports, Social Security benefits and other federal services, according to the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration"). See also Department of Justice news release on fraudulent birth certificates from the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics (HCOVS), in New Jersey. ("As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally").

The full essay may be read at

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

A pen said...

the postemail is down. I have not been able to connect at all on 6-22. They are also running a story from rolling stone on Gen. McChrystals negative comments on the Obama admins handling of the Afghan war. I can't tell if it is just overloaded server issues or a blackout by the administration hoping to get some sort of damage control out before public opinion gets a running start against them.

Joe said...

Great interview Charles. Thank you for standing up for the rest of all of us.

I am sure you and Mario are anxious to get the appeals court ruling. I know this will take several months, but typically how long does the appeals court take to make a ruling?

best of luck and thanks again!

Anonymous said...


jayjay said...


Your "Pharaohbama" link is hilarious!!!

Anonymous said...

Mario & Charles,

Are you familiar with “Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor,” 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

from the deciding op: The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father

Story concuring: Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth. If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject...Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219, and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject