Posted on 07/22/2010 4:13:50 PM PDT by rxsid
"The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Attorney Apuzzo Not Liable for Obama's/Congress’ Damages and Costs Incurred by Them in Defending the Kerchner Appeal
On July 2, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming the New Jersey Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case for lack of Article III standing. The Court ordered that I show cause in 14 days why the Court should not find me liable for just damages and costs suffered by the defendants, not in having to defend against the merits of plaintiffs’ underlying claims that Putative President Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” that he has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii, that Congress failed to exercise its constitutional duty to properly vet and investigate Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status, and that former Vice President and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, were complicit in that Congressional failure, but rather in having to defendant against what the court considers to be a frivolous appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of their claims on the ground of Article III standing. On Monday, July 19, 2010, I filed my response. This afternoon, on July 22, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on whether it should impose the damages and costs upon me. The Court has decided not to impose any damages and costs upon me and has discharged its order to show cause. This means that the matter of damages and costs is closed. Here is the Court’s decision:
"ORDER (SLOVITER, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges) On July 2, 2010, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause directing Appellants’ counsel to show cause in writing why he should not be subject to an Order pursuant to F.R.A.P. 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal. In response, Mario Apuzzo filed a 95-page statement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing. However, based on Mr. Apuzzo's explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause, filed. Sloviter, Authoring Judge. (PDB)."
I want to thank everyone who supported and encouraged me in this battle. This includes everyone who expressed their feelings on this matter through blog posts, articles, and comments, and emails.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 22, 2010"
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-finds.html
I believe the issue was "what if they did" and your contention was that they couldn't remove a "Sitting President".
There has been no such finding regarding Obama in 71 judicial attempts including 8 rejections of eligibility appeals by the Supreme Court of the United States.
How many of those looked at real evidence, or took sworn testimony?
None. At best they referred to unsworn "official" statements.
It's all been a sort of Kangaroo Court in reverse.
“I believe the issue was “what if they did” and your contention was that they couldn’t remove a ‘Sitting President’.”
None. At best they referred to unsworn “official” statements.
It’s all been a sort of Kangaroo Court in reverse.
As I said, Kangaroo Court, no evidence heard or admitted.
Thus you agree that the no ordinary citizen has "Standing" to petition for redress, as per the First Amendment. You also seem to agree that elections can override the requirements of the Constitution. Makes you a (small "d") democrat, I guess.
No one who tried was found to have your precious "standing".
Senior Dems force resignation
As the calendar inexorably progresses, the finding of ineligibility would not take place until well into the waning months of Obama's term.
IMHO, that makes any impeachment and conviction process possible, but rather unlikely. As far as "removal" The Constitution Obama disregarded protects him from that. Only Congress can remove a President who does not wish to be removed, by Impeachment in the House, and by Conviction in the Senate by a 2/3 vote.
Resignation demanded by top Dems and Senators? Again possible .... but not likely .... since it would tend to involve discrediting the agenda they shared with Obama ... they are fellow-travelers, or worse. I am reasonably sure they would not want to call attention to that.
It seems that the target has changed from Obama in particular, to upholding of the Constitution in general, so that this travesty cannot occur again. Because of timing, Obama may well become beside the point.
We are living in through an anti-constitutional coup d'état that may ultimately be crushed, but is, right now, in its successful phase.
That's because no one who had the authority to ask; asked.
Ping
What? Is it a trannie?
IMHO, that makes any impeachment and conviction process possible, but rather unlikely.
you sayin the 'court of public opinion' would allow bammie to stay in office if he is judged by USSC to be ineligible?
Team Obama cares not a fig for "public opinion."
If this comes down in February of 2012, I think they might very well defy public opinion until losing the election. I believe THE PLAN was for Obama to step down in favor of Hillary for 2012, anyway. She is just as committed Marxist as Kid Kenya, and probably a whole lot smarter.
I believe THE PLAN was for Obama to do the heavy socialist lifting and draw fire, and for Hillary to slide in and consolidate it.
BTW, One Republican Governor with cojones could keep Obama off the ballot in his or her state, triggering the needed court battle.
would you suggest one. also, there might be a principled dem gov. to do same....
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.