3rd C. Court of Appeals Finds Apuzzo Not Liable for Obama's/Congress’ Damages and Costs

puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 07/22/2010 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq

[El Gato]

I think you are forgetting that no court decision and no action by Congress has determined that the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1 haven’t been met.

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.

[jamese777]

“I believe the issue was “what if they did” and your contention was that they couldn’t remove a ‘Sitting President’.”

---

It wasn’t a “contention” it was from the decision of a US Federal District Judge in an eligibility lawsuit.
===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.

---

It is the responsibility of plaintiffs’ attorneys to present plaintiffs who are eligible to sue. The first motion of the defense attorneys in ANY lawsuit is a move to dismiss the complaint. Thus far in 71 attempts, that move to dismiss has been successful; no legitimate plaintiff, no trial, summary dismissal...71 times.
Calling totally different courts in totally different jurisdictions “kangaroo courts” just shows your ignorance of the judicial system. Is the Supreme Court of the United States with a five justice conservative majority a “kangaroo court?”

[El Gato]

It is the responsibility of plaintiffs’ attorneys to present plaintiffs who are eligible to sue. The first motion of the defense attorneys in ANY lawsuit is a move to dismiss the complaint. Thus far in 71 attempts, that move to dismiss has been successful; no legitimate plaintiff, no trial, summary dismissal...71 times.

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.

[El Gato]

The time to disqualify an ineligible person from becoming president is BEFORE the vote of the Electoral College and BEFORE the Swearing in Ceremony

No one who tried was found to have your precious "standing".

[Kenny Bunk]

A court finds the president ineligible...what is it that you think would happen as a result? Impeachment? Court ordered removal from office?

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.

[Kenny Bunk]

“Yay, Obama doesn’t have to prove he was born in the United States or that he’s constitutionally eligible for being the White House resident.”

That's because no one who had the authority to ask; asked.

[Kenny Bunk]

Ping

[ROCKLOBSTER]

He/she wanted Apuzzo sanctioned

What? Is it a trannie?

[1234]

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.

you sayin the 'court of public opinion' would allow bammie to stay in office if he is judged by USSC to be ineligible?

[Kenny Bunk]

"court of public opinion" I can remember no other President who cared so little about "public opinion." 60% of all Americans were opposed to Obama care. 65% 0f all Americans agree with the "Arizona Law."

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.

[1234]

... 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....