You are on page 1of 3

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S.

Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

Filed under: Articles/Reports-CFK,Filings & Court Activity,News Announcements cfkerchner @ 2:59 pm Tags: Apuzzo, Barack Obama, British Subject, CDR Kerchner, Charles Kerchner, congress, ethics, ineligible, kerchner v obama, natural born citizen, Neville Chamberlain, recusal, Rule of 3, Rule of 4, Soebarkah, Soetoro, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Conference Rules, Supreme Court Practices, U.S. Supreme Court

Originally Written & Posted Online by CDR Kerchner @ Monday, November 29, 2010 @ 2:57 PM
A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

For Immediate Release 29 November 2010 2:30 p.m. EST A 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. 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 Obamas documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasnt 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 didnt. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didnt. 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 its the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and its then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. For information on the Rule of 3 see: Supreme Court Practices, 9th edition, by Eugene Cressman, et al, page 324. The lawsuit Pryor v United States (1971) is an example case of the Rule of 3 being used. 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. 10-446 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. CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Lehigh Valley PA USA Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al ####

You might also like