Posted on 03/04/2009 5:05:27 AM PST by classical artist
Today I had a five hour meeting with New Jersey attorney, Mario Apuzzo. The meeting was entirely focused on the issue of Quo Warranto.
Bottom line: we’ve identified a subset of plaintiffs who have a much more viable path to standing to institute an action in Quo Warranto than active military. This subset of plaintiffs would not be exposed to possible court martial since they are not military plaintiffs. And there is no prevailing need to place this burden on the backs of our military. Our military can retreat in peace on this issue. There is a new hope with a greater chance of success. This new hope has several layers of possibility. Attorney Apuzzo and I will be joining forces to see this matter receives the attention of proper Government officials.
I contacted Mario after both reading his pleadings in the Kerchner v. Obama case, and listening to his interviews. I was impressed by the level of detail his pleadings brought forth. The intelligence and passion for the Constitution shown by Mr. Apuzzo and his plaintiff, Mr. Kerchner, are evident in the interviews they have given. They both recognize that the main issue is centered on Obama being a British Subject and that the birth certificate issue, while important, is ancillary to Obama’s admission that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his birth status regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii.
They plead their case as to both issues and
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
Μολὼν λάβε
This isn’t going away.
“Regardless, Eric Holder should still be given the opportunity to do the right thing.”
That Leo is such a card, LOL!
That being said, it looks like Leo and Apuzzo may be on to something. Perhaps the attorneys who browse these threads could give us their professional opinion of the Quo Warranto concept?
As more and more Americans realize the harm Obama is doing, the political obstacle facing Donofrio’s agenda will grow less and less.
The question is, what will Obama eventually do to evade the law?
“Regardless, Eric Holder should still be given the opportunity to do the right thing.”
Of course Holder will not do the right thing against his boss. It is a necessary first step so that the next course of action can be implemented;
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.
The catch, of course, may be the words,”When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law.”
Yes, that may be the equivalent of “lacks standing” in this scenario.
Thank you for the heads up. It was worth the read.
Leo also cites another law suit that seems to have a possibility too.Ankeny v. Daniels
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/ankeny-v-daniels-in-indiana-well-done/
Dr. Orly Taitz will be on a radio show tonight at 7:00pm.
http://www.evilconservativeonline.com/
“Regardless, Eric Holder should still be given the opportunity to do the right thing.”
Of course Holder will not do the right thing against his boss. It is a necessary first step so that the next course of action can be implemented;
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.
The catch, of course, may be the words,”When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law.”
bookmark
Yeah, you had a five hour meeting with Apuzzo and after he refused to dump his clients, you went back to your blog and badmouthed his case. WTF?
I don’t think any of you are doing this issue a service by revealing other lawyers strategies in public.
BTW, isn’t dumping your clients unethical? The guy could lose his bar license doing that.
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.