Monday, November 29, 2010


[UPDATES BELOW INCLUDING STATEMENT FROM COMMANDER KERCHNER]
Supreme Court Denies Kerchner v. Obama/Congress/Pelosi Petition for a Writ of Certiorari; Justices Continue Evading Obama's Eligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief...

Via the SCOTUS Order List for 11/29/10: 10-446 - KERCHNER, 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.

Check back later for any updates and or news regarding this expected but disgracful decision by the SCOTUS. Justice Thomas stuck by his words! The ball is clearly in the new Congresses court! Time to put full pressure on them.     >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

UPDATES:  DrKatesView; Supreme Court COWARDS, more here. - CNN reports on the Kerchner case nearly two years after it was first filed, shameful commies; Justices turn aside another challenge over Obama's citizenship, more here. The Conservative Monster; Supreme Court Denies Kerchner vs Obama. - Uses WikiLeaks Drama as The Perfect Distraction, more here. The Birthers.org; The Supreme Court failed to uphold the Constitution - Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, more here. World Net Daily; Supremes punt on Obama eligibility again - Lawyer: decision 'doesn't mean that this issue goes away', more here.

Comment from lead Plaintiff Commander Charles Kerchner; The "Roberts Court" of the U.S. Supreme Court imo 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 Saul Alinsky goons and tyrants and bullies and thus not doing the right thing early only to support the rule of law and the Constitution ultimately leads to be much bigger problem later. History has shown us that over and over. This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't. Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. 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 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. 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 such as Obama and his far left cronies and puppet masters. Appeasement of the constitutional usurpers will not make it go away. It will only delay the inevitable and fester and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reveals himself in a bolder way and takes away all our liberties. Neville Chamberlain tactics never work with bullies, tyrants, and national socialists.

The U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. Certiorari for our case was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who 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. 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 were 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.

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
####



The full SCOTUS Order List and Petition embedded below. Previous reports on Kerchner v Obama can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al - Supreme Court Order List Page 15 - 11/29/10
Kerchner v Obama/Congress/Pelosi - Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court - 9/30...
Kerchner v Obama/Congress/Pelosi - Amicus Curiae Brief Filed by the Western Center for Journalism to Suppor...
Obama Ineligible - I tried and lied but it won't go away! Wash Times Natl Wkly 2010-11-08 pg 5

48 comments:

  1. I'm not surprised one bit. Shame on them!

    ReplyDelete
  2. So whats next and what does it mean by throwing it down to a lower court?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It wasn't thrown down to the lower court... The SCOTUS affirmed the 3rd District Court’s dismissal, based on lack of standing and jurisdiction...

    We will have to wait for a statement from Atty Apuzzo on what they will do next...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The furor wins another one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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..... what does the amicus curiae mean... does someone else have a shot at this? and why grant one thing then deny another?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lol. I told you you lose that case weeks ago!!! .. The constitution is being burned today in my back yard. Ready to fight?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is procedural... All that matters is the Petition... which was denied...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Their ignorance is destroying us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do you mean the Petition, silly obot!? Still to date, not one case heard/ruled on the merits of the case... All denied/dismissed on procedural issues, i.e., standing and jurisdiction...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shit happens, so we'll move on to the next case, and possibly a revolution.
    It seems like this is a clarion call for us to change the method of how all appointed Judges get their jobs, and allow the people the ability to determine the length of time they may serve as such.

    The people need the ability to Elect them to their jobs, and the ability to fire them when they make blatantly bad decisions like this one.
    All Judges need to be held accountable to the people by being required to give the reasoning behind any and all decisions that they make.
    There needs to be no more unexplained dismissals or denials from any Court.

    It doesn't matter in the over-all scheme of things, because this story will not go away until the question that our cowardly Supreme Court Justices are avoiding is answered, and we still have subpoena power coming to the Republicans in January.
    This isn't over yet by any stretch of the SHEEPLE imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "It doesn't matter in the over-all scheme of things, because this story will not go away until the question that our cowardly Supreme Court Justices are avoiding is answered, and we still have subpoena power coming to the Republicans in January."

    You got that right!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Takion, you can remove "possibly" from your "Possibly a revolution" statement. That is the only way to get to the ruling class. Some of the first ones to be handled are the MSM and then the congress and judges. They are playing a very dangerous game.
    The law abiding citizens of this nation have just about had enough of their arrogance.
    Tom
    Vietnam Veteran FTM-3

    ReplyDelete
  13. Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has again cast aside an appeal that raised doubts about President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a grass-roots legal issue that has gained little legal or political footing, but continues to persist in the courts.

    The justices without comment Monday rejected a challenge from Charles Kerchner Jr., a Pennsylvania man who sought a trial in federal court forcing the president to produce documents regarding his birth and citizenship.

    Kerchner's attorney, Mario Apuzzo, had argued in a petition with the Supreme Court that Obama did not fit the definition of a "natural-born citizen" required for the nation's highest office, as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

    That clause states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    Kerchner, a retired military officer who describes himself on his website as a "genetic genealogy pioneer," argues the framers of the 1789 document intended a "natural-born" citizen to mean someone born in the U.S. to parents who were both American citizens.

    The high court and other courts had dismissed earlier, unrelated lawsuits from individuals questioning Obama's citizenship. State birth certificate records show he was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. His mother is a native of Kansas; his father was born in Kenya, which at the time was a British colony.

    "A person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil," said Apuzzo. "It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States."

    He said it was "undisputed fact" Obama's father was a citizen of the British crown.

    The Obama administration did not file, and the high court did not demand, a formal government response to this latest legal claim. The high court will often insist the Justice Department weigh in with its views on a particular constitutional issue, or when it is being sued, and that is a sign the justices are seriously considering accepting the appeal.

    Obama and his staff produced copies of his birth certificate when he was running for president in 2008, and have previously dismissed questions over his citizenship.

    Other legal claims on the citizenship question whether Obama was in fact born in the United States, and whether his birth documents are authentic.

    Among the issues the high court has refused to fully address in these appeals involves "standing," whether individual Americans can bring such a lawsuit, by first establishing personal, direct "harm" or "injury" from having Obama occupy the White House. Overcoming that legal hurdle would allow such suits to proceed on the merits in courts.

    Some of the claims of various "birther" movement organizers insist the president was born in Kenya or Indonesia; that his birth certificate is a forgery; and that he had dual American-British citizenship at birth because of his father's Kenyan heritage and therefore is not a "natural born" citizen.

    The case is Kerchner v. Obama (10-446).
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/29/scotus.birther.appeal/

    This is a travesty of Justice!
    The MSM will report on the dismissals but will not investigate the claims.

    ReplyDelete
  14. [The MSM will report on the dismissals but will not investigate the claims.]

    Yep, because they know if they reported and investigated the case when it first appeared Obama would have been ousted a long time ago...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Corruption at the highest levels!! These sickening elitists are depending on the military to preserve them from mass uprising. What do the elites think they're going do when the military joins the people who rise up against them? Run away to their hideouts in Iron Mountain??

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Supreme Court is just as corrupt as every other arm of government as well as the media. The only hope for this country lies with the individual states assuming more and more of their rightful sovreignty. Their first order of business, under Republican legislators should be to demand proof of eligibility before anyone is put on the ballot. This would stop Obama if he is insane enough to run again in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You want a revolution ? I'll give you a revolution with my 12 gauge shotgun upside your head you idiot birthers.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Birther/Dualer/Doubter from CANovember 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM

    Yes, we need for at least one state to pass a law requiring proof of eligibility for the next election. Arizona's house passed such a bill but the Senate chickened out.

    Next up is LTC Terry Lakin's court-martial, followed by the transfer of power to the House Republicans, who will certainly ratchet up the presser on the usurper and his lackeys.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Birther/Dualer/Doubter from CANovember 29, 2010 at 11:00 AM

    Anonymous, what institution in this world has survived an insurrection by the people who believe in the rule of law rather than the rule of man? You'll be dead meat, and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am so disappointed in my federal government. We have strayed so far from what our founding fathers intended. My children will learn of our nation's greatness, but it will only be from books that survive the burning and people with memories better than mine. God, bless our nation and leaders to return to Your ways. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Note to obots; your comments are not welcome here... you are free to post your dribble at your home, Fogbow and Politijab, with the rest of your small group of vile commies...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I won't hold my breath that the new house Republicans will be brave enough to address this issue - they would have stood up for Ltc Lakin if they are concerned and brave.
    Forget about the courts.
    We the people must start a revolution - physically descend upon them en masse to insist they expose/remove the usuper and won't quit until it is done.

    All the calling, faxing, emailing will not get them off their a** to address this issue. Only massive peaceful demo will get our message across!

    Keeping o from running by 'proof of elig' bills is only good for the future. We need to resolve this NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Once, I was depressed because I could see what was coming.
    Today, I am deeply depressed because I KNOW what is coming.

    Then, I saw smoke on the horizon- now, I see the fire.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Birther/Dualer/Doubter from CANovember 29, 2010 at 2:46 PM

    Remember the "special meeting" the justices had with Team Obama around the time of his inauguration? I'd love to know just what was discussed and whether that could account for these automatic rejections of challenges, using standing as a crappy cop-out.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Proof Obama was not born in Hawaii

    If Obama was born in the United States Wikileaks would have release the BC.


    To bad they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Funny, his Maternal Grand Mother passed away practically DURING the ELECTION.

    Coincidence? Someone VERY WISE once told me that there ARE NO COINCIDENCES.

    So true, so true.

    Shame Shame...

    ReplyDelete
  27. So now that it is proven our Government will NOT act even though citizens are patiently following the rules. What is our next outlet? Attorney Berg attempted to have a march on Washington and only a handful showed up! I think civil disobedience is in order? Other suggestions??

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, it's gonna have to be something that can be done with only a handful of people.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Anonymous said...

    Proof Obama was not born in Hawaii

    If Obama was born in the United States Wikileaks would have release the BC."

    Now that there's funny! I don't care who ya are!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers intended the term "natural-born citizen" to refer to someone who was BOTH born on U.S. soil and had parents who were both U.S. citizens. If that were the case, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison would not have qualified as natural-born citizens and therefore could not have been President.

    All four of these U.S. presidents had at least one parent who died before the Constitution was ratified, and therefore each had at least one parent who lived and died a British subject. Both parents of all four presidents were British subjects at the time their sons were born.

    If George Washington, both of whose parents were British subjects, and both of whom died decades before the American Revolution and therefore never had an opportunity to claim U.S. citizenship, was a natural-born American citizen, why isn't Barack Obama?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers intended the term "natural-born citizen" to refer to someone who was BOTH born on U.S. soil and had parents who were both U.S. citizens. If that were the case, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison would not have qualified as natural-born citizens and therefore could not have been President."

    What do you think the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, was for?

    To be president or vice-president you not only have to be born on U.S. Soil but you must also be born to two U.S. "Citizen" parents.

    - Qualifications for the Office of President - Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution -

    No person except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a CITIZEN of the United States, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

    Unless Obama is 200+ years-old, he is not eligible to be president of the United States... A "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen" are not the same.

    A "natural born Citizen" is one born on soil to "Citizen" parents... The "Citizen" status of all presidents and their parents "Citizen" status;

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/07/irrefutable-proof-that-barack-obama-is.html

    If Obama were born in Hawaii then under the 14th Amendment Obama would be a "Citizen" of the United States. However, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution did NOT amend or change Article II of the Constitution or what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is... "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen" are not one in the same.

    Now, if Obama were born in Kenya as more evidence suggest then Obama would not even be a "Citizen" of the United States as his Mother was not old enough to confer "Citizen" status to her son. One must go by the law in effect at the time of Obama's birth.

    Obama could have been born on the steps of the U.S. Capital building and he would still not be a "natural born Citizen," a "Citizen," yes, but not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

    Representative John Bingham, a principal framer of the 14th Amendment: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

    One of several SCOTUS cases that mention NBC;

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became ...natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” - Minor v. Happerstett - Supreme Court of the United States

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/31183819/FIVE-ATTEMPTS-TO-RE-DEFINE-NATURAL-BORN-CITIZEN-SINCE-2001

    ReplyDelete
  32. The following is a great example of why we have this ineligibility problem with Obama.

    Did the person who wrote it not read Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, or, are they just not capable of understanding this?

    "No person except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a CITIZEN of the United States, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION."

    The post below shows no evidence of the writer ever having read the eligibility requirements of the Constitution:


    "I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers intended the term "natural-born citizen" to refer to someone who was BOTH born on U.S. soil and had parents who were both U.S. citizens. If that were the case, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison would not have qualified as natural-born citizens and therefore could not have been President.

    All four of these U.S. presidents had at least one parent who died before the Constitution was ratified, and therefore each had at least one parent who lived and died a British subject. Both parents of all four presidents were British subjects at the time their sons were born.

    If George Washington, both of whose parents were British subjects, and both of whom died decades before the American Revolution and therefore never had an opportunity to claim U.S. citizenship, was a natural-born American citizen, why isn't Barack Obama?"

    ReplyDelete
  33. The problem is that no taxpayer is arguing that Obama's policies have hurt him/her. Charge the Obama administration with violating a taxpayer's rights with regard to his "redistribution of wealth" programs that have devastated the economy, pensions and opportunities and that will show standing because the taxpayer was damaged and is seeking recovery from the administration for failure to implement corrective policies to stop the economic bleeding. Obama has failed to do this and is liable to the taxpayer for damages based on his failure to provide proof of eligibility which means he is the head of a "rogue government" and taxpayers need to know if they should stop paying taxes until the question of his eligibility is determined.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Founding Fathers may have had parents that were non-citizens, but were they? If the Founding Fathers were the first citizens of this country, how could their parents be?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "The Founding Fathers may have had parents that were non-citizens, but were they? If the Founding Fathers were the first citizens of this country, how could their parents be?"

    No one said the founders parents had to be "citizens"... That is what the grandfather clause of Article II was for.

    Can you read?

    "No person except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a CITIZEN of the United States, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the office of President;..."

    ReplyDelete
  36. This whole birther thing is heating up. I have a feeling we might just have our civil war next year. If that happens, I hope I'm the first kid on the block to have a confirmed conservative kill.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "I hope I'm the first kid on the block to have a confirmed conservative kill."
    __

    Is that a killing of a conservative or a killing by a conservative?

    ReplyDelete
  38. It is you obots that wish for and advocate for violence... It is the "Birthers" that have used and promoted legal avenues to address this issue. That is the difference between you obots and us. You have no respect for the rule of law. You do what you can to subvert the rule of law.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Except every time birthers lose a case in court, they advocate violence. Don't bullshit me you piece of shit. I know your kind. I can't wait to see the largest holocaust in history committed against conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Looking down the list of decisions, does anyone else take note of the number of cases in which justices? Kagan? and Sotomayor? recused themselves....but NOT this one....why?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Their recusal would have accomplished nothing. There was no discussion of the case at the conference; it was tossed onto the "dead list" before the conference even took place.

    Anyone who's familiar with Supreme Court practice can explain that to you. It happens all the time. Kagan and Sotomayor had nothing to do with it -- it could have been moved to the "discuss list" if even a single judge was interested in the case. Evidently not one was.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hearing of the case 20 months into this admin would only make things look even worse for the SCOTUS, it is abundantly clear that they took this position of "no standing to hear the case" early on, to avoid ruling on it and will continue to do so. The states that have new laws to validate ALL candidates for President before they can go on the ballot will be Obama's undoing, only then can it be challenged and only if Obama's or his team challenge the states right to vet a presidental candidate at that time. As far as the SCOTUS, they shoud all be investigated, Terry Lakin has a "right to discovery" in his court martial, but according to this Army Col. Denise Lind, Lakin's chain of command ends at the Pentagon, So much for the Oath we take to serve! So much for the Constitution! get your gun out and keep it by your side. Once your constitutional rights are so easily sweept aside, your civil and human rights are'nt far behind

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous Obot's mommy has apparently taken his XBox 360 away again and now he's in a very bad mood.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dis appointment is so dis appointing, Oblama,is like the Teflon Don, remember we finally got him, Oblama will get his just desserts, and I don't mean just a pop in the big Mouth,Karma is on his shoulder and God will deal with him in the worst way imaginable for the damage he is doing to our freedoms, and crapping all over the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Justice, my ass. The scotus and the government and all the media have taken justice from the people.Come 2012, just vote anyone in and get rid if his usurper ass, then investigate the scotus and nancy pelosi. Obama will be history. The one that needs to go to jail is NANCY PELOSI.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ...................../´¯/)............
    ...................,/¯../.............
    ................../..../...............
    ......../``/´¯/'---'/´¯¯`•¸........
    ......./'/.../..../......./¨¯\........
    ......('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')......
    .......\.................'...../.......
    ..........\................../…………Semper Fi...We should hand all lawyers first, and then those that pretend to be second...IT IS TIME FOR PEACEFUL RESISTANCE TO THIS INFERIOR COURT AND ITS FARCE FACADE...Need I say more?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Wow, for an "anonymous" person, you sure talk a lot of idiot smack. I am not worried about your supposed call for holocaust against the Conservatives. You are just another ignorant savant know nothing. You are just like your black leprechaun illegal working prez, all secretive and anonymous and all. You godless idiot liberals are a disgrace to the monkeys that you all claim you come from. Semper Fi...Claim a name next time sister hoopla, or don't you have the moxie?

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.