Main Menu

Archive | Charles Kerchner

Apuzzo lives!

picture of Mario ApuzzoMuch speculation has been seen among the anti-Birthers over the non-participation of attorney Mario Apuzzo (pictured right) in the number of state ballot challenges rising, and falling, across the country, speculation primarily focused on the floundering do-it-yourself (pro se) federal appeal of the lawyer-less Charles Tisdale in Virginia and why Apuzzo  doesn’t lend him a hand.

Speculate no more. Charles Kerchner announced today1 that Mario Apuzzo will assist him and Dale A. Laudenslager with their ballot challenge in Pennsylvania. Previously Laudenslager/Kerchner were represented by Pennsylvania attorney  Karen L. Kiefer and Apuzzo will be co-counsel (I don’t know if Apuzzo will need to apply for pro hac vice status). Given Mr. Apuzzo’s record so far in challenging Barack Obama, I’m not sure whether this helps or hurts the case.

Phil Berg has also weighed in with a suit in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Learn more:

1I’m always amused by that photo of Mario Apuzzo because it is one that I cropped from a group photo of him at a policeman’s auxiliary meeting way back in February of 2009. Apuzzo since adopted it for his own blog. That’s fine. It’s a great photo.

Controlled drip

Cartoon showing frustrated man trying to fix a leaky faucetI mentioned The Steady Drip blog in a previous article about a possible appeal of the Georgia ballot challenge loss from Carl Swensson: Carl Swensson: Appeal ready on Monday. (Nothing today, Monday, on the appeal that I’ve been able to find, by the  way.)

Since my article, there has been some activity at The Steady Drip to the Swensson article including the addition of a “comment” by conservative birther document analysis debunker, and author John Woodman. I put “comment” in quotation marks because this is not a comment in the usual sense of the term, but text added to the article. In this form, one cannot tell whether the comment is what Woodman actually said, or if it is all that he said.

In any case, the published Woodman “comment” didn’t go into any detail, but referred readers to his blog for an argument saying Minor v. Happersett wasn’t a “binding precedent” and that the birthers were mistaken to dismiss US v. Wong.

What followed was a rebuttal by, in turn, by Carl Swensson, Mario Apuzzo, Carl Swensson (again), Charles (I presume Kerchner) and Douglas Vogt. I won’t  go into detail except to say that they were the typical things those folks say and that it’s pretty much bunk.

At the conclusion of those comments is:

There is a lesson for you here John.  Don’t attempt to get inaccurate, sloppily vetted material posted on The Steady Drip.  It will backfire on you just like Obama’s Karma is creeping up on him.

In fact, John didn’t post any material of any substance except a link to his blog.

Any time I write an article about the definition of natural born citizen, I always get a lot of comments. My recent article Donofrio’s “dirty little secret” on that topic has 155 responses after 2 days. The Steady Drip has zero actual comments (the others are part of the article). Is that because no one has left comments? No, I left two myself that haven’t appeared.

John, the lesson to be learned here is not to post on blogs with heavily censored content. They will dump all manner of garbage on you, and then muzzle you when you try to respond.

Amicus brief in Kerchner

As we wait for the denial from the US Supreme Court in Kerchner v. Obama, I note that USJF attorney Gary Kreep (representing the Joseph Farah/WorldNetDaily front organization, the Western Center for Journalism)  filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court. Kreep argues that presidential eligibility is not (or should not be) a political question because politicians are well, political, and might decide things based on a political bias. The second part of the brief urges the court to issue an advisory opinion because there may be more ineligible candidates in the future. Of course the brief is moot since Kerchner lacks standing in the first place.

I note a curious discrepancy between the Supreme Court docket  as it appears on the Supreme Court web site today and the Scribd version posted by Mario Apuzzo (embedded below) that says that the amicus brief was filed on November 3rd and distributed. The Court docket says that a motion to file the brief was distributed on November 3rd, but there is no indication that it was actually filed.

Continue Reading →

Supreme Court reviews Kerchner

The United States Supreme Court scheduled review of the appeal in Kerchner v. Obama yesterday, and we presume they will announce that it has been denied on Monday. WorldNetDaily asks: “Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?” to which I reply, “No.”

The Kerchner lawsuit was a “kitchen sink” complaint including every birther fantasy from fake travel bans to Pakistan, misrepresentations of Hawaiian statutes and grandmother tapes to redefinition of “natural born citizen.” While the natural born citizen argument was little more than a footnote in the original complaint, it has become central to Kerchner’s publicity campaign.

Learn more: