Department of Justice–Keystone Cops

The “Justice Department”, who should be defending the American People and the Constitution from usurper Obama, may have made a critical error in judgment when they filed ‘notice of Judge Simandle’s ruling in Kerchner v. Obama‘ into the California case of Barnett v. Obama.

Here is the press release from Charles F. Kerchner, lead plaintiff in the Kerchner v. Obama case:

The DOJ May Have Messed Up In Filing the Last Minute “Judicial Notice” of the Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case Decision into the Barnett/Keyes v Obama Case File

The Department of Justice (DOJ) who is unconstitutionally defending the usurper Obama when it should be defending the Constitution and “We the People” instead may have inadvertently messed up their constitutionally indefensible position and helped the People and the Constitution by filing the Judicial Notice of the Kerchner case decision into the Barnett/Keyes v Obama case. By filing that lame, unconstitutional ruling that Judge Simandle made in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case, and by calling Judge Carter’s attention to that ruling and the Kerchner case in NJ, it possibly opens up the ability and likelihood that Judge Carter may read all the pleadings in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case to understand that case. And doing so may educate him immensely on the Constitution and U.S. history and U.S. Supreme Court case law on the definition of natural born citizenship. Despite the lame, unconstitutional decision of Judge Simandle in NJ, if Judge Carter does read all the pleadings of Kerchner v Obama & Congress, the pleadings and legal briefs of Attorney Mario Apuzzo in the Kerchner case does a masterful and extremely good job of laying out clearly and succinctly the natural born citizenship issues and flaws of Obama and the U.S.

Supreme Court case law that shows definitively that Vattel’s Law of Nations and Natural Law definition of “natural born citizen” is the correct one and that definition became the federal common law by the high court’s literal incorporation of that definition into several U.S. Supreme Court cases, including the Venus decision in 1814 and the Minor v Happersett decision in 1874.

For every action there is a reaction. If you push a negative too hard it becomes a positive. The DOJ may have gone too far in trying to drive a final nail into the Barnett/Keyes v Obama case in CA and instead indirectly introduced some very strong, very cogently written arguments against their own DOJ position into their case from the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case pleadings in NJ as to why Obama cannot serve as President and Commander-in-Chief, since Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, and thus Obama is not a “natural born” Citizen and is a usurper in the Oval Office. In addition to that going a “filing too far” by the DOJ, it also opened up an opportunity for the Plaintiff side to file their own Judicial Notice filing, i.e., the 2004 Kenyan newspaper article pointing out that it was quite well known to journalists in Kenya and other countries in Africa in 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya. And this was long before Obama even considered running for President and the issue surfaced in the USA as to his reported Kenyan birth.

We will see how this turns out when Judge Carter rules. But it just may turn out that the last minute Judicial Notice inserted by the DOJ may back fire on the DOJ … all to the benefit of our Constitution and We the People. In God we Trust.

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

Judicial Notice of the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

No. 08-570 In the Supreme Court of the United States
Berg v. Obama

1 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE AND MOTION FOR WAIVER OF RULE 37(2)(A) OF THIS COURT I. Motion For Leave To File A Brief Amicus Curiae

The Court’s amicus, Bill Anderson, requests leave of this Court to file a brief amicus curiae in this case. Consent to file it has been obtained from the petitioner, whom this brief supports; the respondents have not granted consent. The amicus is a citizen of the State of Arizona and an elector of that state for elector for President of the United States. He voted in the general election held by the State of Arizona on November 4, 2008. This Court has in fact recognized that the amicus has an interest in this type of case. See United States v. Newman, 238 U.S. 537, 547, 35 S.Ct. 881, 883, 59 L.Ed. 1446, 1450 (1915); and the same holds true for the petitioner. Ibid. Your amicus submits that it will not be possible for this Court to dispose of this case properly without considering the following points which either have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or which have not been adequately discussed: 1.) This Court is not facing a question of the constitutional aspects of standing, but a question pertaining to the prudential considerations only; and, 2.) The lack of an adequate remedy following the inauguration of Barack Obama,

2 and the potential civil and military crises which could arise therefrom, crises that could not be readily addressed by the ordinary processes of the law, must be considered in addressing the prudential aspects of standing; and, 3.) With respect to the prudential considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are analogous to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

res ipsa loquitur - seems to me there’s enough circumstantial evidence but then I’m not a lawyer, just a voting natural born citizen of the US.

Another interesting read on this at - http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/obama-concedes-hes-not-a-nbc-in-obama-vs-keyes-2004-debate/

John does some nice research:

“Considering that Indian rights would involve questions of native born citizenship and citizenship rights, it would have been arguably necessary for Obama to have considered Vattel’s doctrine on these key issues, in which texts Vattel describes at length the notion of “natural born citizen”, which includes 2 parent citizens.”

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=thepostnemail.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Fpackages%2Fpdf%2Fpolitics%2F2008OBAMA_LAW%2FObama_CoursePk.pdf

Interestingly enough, among the topics Obama suggested students discuss are Inter-racial Adoptions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.