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

[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

[Exmil_UK]

Have you read Apuzzo’s 95 page legal broadside yet?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34567772/03-09-4209-Appeal-Atty-Apuzzo-Files-Kerchner-Response-to-Court-s-Show-Cause-Order-for-Damages-Costs

I am a non-lawyer and I was able to grasp it. It is a forensic step by step annihilation of the three judges decision, the weakness and inconsistency of the standing doctrine and the bizarre “frivolous appeal” sanctions threat.

The judges feeble precedents on standing are isolated in detail and blown to bits one by one, trafalger-style. Its the clarity of thinking that is most impressive. I highly recommend FReepers read and digest this intellectual blast in the direction of the Federal judges.

[Mr Rogers]

Thank you for the link. I read it and found it underwhelming. It may have sufficed to prevent Apuzzo from being found guilty of filing a frivolous lawsuit, but it certainly was not what I would call “forensic step by step annihilation of the three judges decision”.

Still, I appreciate your posting of the link and wish you well. I’ll be VERY surprised if the Supreme Court is interested in hearing an appeal.

[Drew68]

It may have sufficed to prevent Apuzzo from being found guilty of filing a frivolous lawsuit

So simply not being cited for filing a frivolous lawsuit is what amounts to a birther courtroom victory these days? I guess they'll take 'em where they can get 'em.

[edge919]

No courtroom has declared Obama’s alleged COLB to be authentic nor that he fits the Supreme Court definition of natural born citizen. Dismissing cases over standings or technicalities isn’t exactly a victory for Obama faithers to take pride in. “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.”

[jamese777]

No courtroom has declared Obama’s alleged COLB to be authentic nor that he fits the Supreme Court definition of natural born citizen. Dismissing cases over standings or technicalities isn’t exactly a victory for Obama faithers to take pride in. “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.”

---

The above demonstrates a lack of understanding of the American system of justice. No person in America has to prove that they are innocent of a charge. The responsibility is on prosecutors and plaintiffs to convince a judge or jury of guilt. America operates under the “presumption of innocence.”

Barack Obama wrote a book thirteen years before he ran for president detailing that his Kenyan father was foreign born and that his father never became an American citizen. That book went on to become a number one bestseller a year before Obama ran for the presidency.

Obama posted a photoshopped image of his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth on the internet four months before the 2008 general election. The state of Hawaii has confirmed that Barack Obama was born in that state, including confirmation by the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle.

No one has initiated even an investigation of Obama for forgery or fraud in connection with the internet posted COLB image. Both forgery and fraud are felonies, impeachable offenses. Has even one of Obama’s political opponents in either house of Congress mentioned the word “impeachment” with regard to Obama’s eligibility to be president? No.

With last week’s Obama eligibility lawsuit dismissals in “Jones v Obama” in the US District Court for the Central District of California and “Kerchner et. al. v Obama, et. al.” in the 3rd US Court of Appeals, Obama’s eligibility to be president has prevailed in 71 lawsuits. It is not Obama’s fault that the persons and entities who WOULD have standing to sue him on eligibility grounds: John McCain, the McCain-Palin Campaign and the Republican National Commitee have chosen not to sue. If eligibility attorneys in lawsuits can’t present plaintiffs with standing it is certainly not the fault of the defense!

Barack Obama has been president since being sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts on January 20, 2009. Plaintiffs challenging Obama’s eligibility have lost every lawsuit.

---

The person posting above is also incorrect in insinuating that Judges, Justices and Courts haven’t taken definitive stands on Obama’s eligibility in their dismissal decisions. The word used most often for lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility is “FRIVOLOUS.” One Obama eligibility attorney, Orly Taitz has even been sanctioned $20,000 for wasting the Court’s time with frivolous nonsense. US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, just this week refused to stop the imposition of that $20,000 fine on Ms. Taitz.

As one US District Court Judge in Georgia who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit put it:
“The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”). “—US District Court Judge Clay D. Land in dismissing Captain Connie Rhodes v Colonel Thomas MacDonald et. al., September 16, 2009

---

There are some really fine, experienced and effective conservative constitutional law firms in this nation. Among them are The Center for Individual Rights, The Washington Legal Foundation, The American Center for Law and Justice, The Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, The Federalist Society, The Institute for Justice, The Pacific Legal Foundation and the Alliance Defense Fund, just to name a few.

Each of the above firms and organization has experience overcoming legal standing hurdles and finding plaintiffs who will be granted standing to sue. Each of the above firms and organizations have actually argued conservative issues before the US Supreme Court and WON!!!

Not ONE of those organizations has gone anywhere near an Obama eligibility lawsuit because “there’s no THERE, there.”

[CDR Kerchner]

The writings of Vattel, and in particular, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law by Vattel, Section 212, were mentioned in my letters to Senators, Congress Reps, and members of the Executive Branch in the fall of 2008 and early in 2009. None of said letters were ever answered. Not even a form letter. That ignoring my letters is part of my lawsuit. And Vattel writings and their use by the founders and framers are a key part of my lawsuit filed before Obama was sworn in very early in the morning of 20 Jan 2009. See this link for a summary of the lawsuit and a link to the complete lawsuit.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

Also here are some essays and writings by my attorney, Mario Apuzzo, Esq., on Vattel.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

And an essay I wrote on the difference between the statutory legal terms of art Citizen at Birth/Citizen by Birth and the Article II legal term of art “natural born Citizen”.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

We will win this. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end. We are at the gates of the U.S. Supreme Court and we’ll be knocking on that door with a Writ of Certiorari. Keep reading Attorney Apuzzo’s blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com for the announcement on that in coming weeks.

Best wishes,

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protecourliberty.org
###

[Tex-Con-Man]

From a political perspective, please explain what a “win” would look like.

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

I'd seriously like to know.

[1234]

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

[jamese777]

From a political perspective, please explain what a “win” would look like.
A court finds the president ineligible...what is it that you think would happen as a result? Impeachment? Court ordered removal from office?

I’d seriously like to know.

---

Here’s a partial answer to your question from a federal judge:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009

---

The resignation of Richard M. Nixon in accordance with the 25th Amendment and the impeachment of William J. Clinton by the House of Representatives were both accomplished through the mechanisms of Grand Jury investigations for criminal offenses.
The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson was purely a political matter conducted in Congress. Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act.

Obama can lose a civil suit and look bad politically so that he resigns. However losing a civil suit would be appealed and appeals could take years to resolve.

Obama can be indicted for a criminal offense such as forgery or fraud and that can become the grounds for drawing up Articles of Impeachment in the House.

Obama can be indicted for a criminal offense and he can become such a political liablity to Democrats that he is forced to resign.

[Tex-Con-Man]

Senior Dems force resignation

First, I don't believe he would agree to resign. He would tell them to impeach him or go away....which they won't do.

Second, I don't think there is a chance in hell that the current Democratic leadership would be willing to risk the loyalty of their most consistent voting block.

Look how much trouble they're having getting rid of an 80 year old thoroughly corrupt congressman from Harlem. And you think the Dems would have the guts to go after Obama?

But this is Mr. Kerchner's quest, so I would like to hear how he believes this will play itself out.

[jamese777]

First, I don’t believe he would agree to resign. He would tell them to impeach him or go away....which they won’t do.

Second, I don’t think there is a chance in hell that the current Democratic leadership would be willing to risk the loyalty of their most consistent voting block.

Look how much trouble they’re having getting rid of an 80 year old thoroughly corrupt congressman from Harlem. And you think the Dems would have the guts to go after Obama?

But this is Mr. Kerchner’s quest, so I would like to hear how he believes this will play itself out.

---

No one thought that Nixon would ever resign either, but no one wants to be the first president to be impeached AND convicted. If Obama counts the votes and there aren’t 67 senators ready to remove him, I’m sure that you are right and he would stay.
The House ethics charges against Rangel were just issued yesterday!
But I’ll get out of the way now for Commander Kerchner.

[bushpilot1]

We discovered a little known document in the Congressional record dated 1781 where the Founders translated correspondence from the French foreign Minister the word naturels to natural born.

Have you seen this and do you think it would be important important to your case.

We can provide the link to the document.

[El Gato]

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

If he is ineligible, he's not the President, by definition. Thus impeachment would not be needed nor be permissible.

Since he would no be President, no one would or should follow his orders. Any laws he signs would not be valid because they were not signed by the President.

How much of that would be retroactive, is another question.

[edge919]

No person in America has to prove that they are innocent of a charge.

I have to stop you right here, because this isn't about guilt or innocence; it's about establishing presidential eligibility. There's no criminal charge (yet). You have no no business preaching about knowledge of the justice system. None.

[jamese777]

I have to stop you right here, because this isn’t about guilt or innocence; it’s about establishing presidential eligibility. There’s no criminal charge (yet). You have no no business preaching about knowledge of the justice system. None.

---

Barack Obama’s eligibility was established back in 2008 and then it was reauthenticated just about a year ago by the state of Hawaii.

For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

---

For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

There are people who don’t accept those facts but no one can please all of the people all of the time.

[jamese777]

If he is ineligible, he’s not the President, by definition. Thus impeachment would not be needed nor be permissible.

Since he would no be President, no one would or should follow his orders. Any laws he signs would not be valid because they were not signed by the President.

How much of that would be retroactive, is another question.

---

Could you point us to where in the US Constitution the judiciary is given the power to remove from the presidency a person who has had their Electoral College votes counted and certified at a Joint Session of Congress and who has been sworn in on Inauguration Day?

None of the Courts that have read legal briefs on this issue have agreed with your interpretation and at least one federal judge has rendered a decision that is exactly the oppposite:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, HE BECAME PRESIDENT of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through IMPEACHMENT or the SUCCESSION PROCESSS set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to CONGRESS by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON–is within the province of CONGRESS, NOT the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009

[edge919]

There are people who don’t accept those facts but no one can please all of the people all of the time.

You haven't presented facts, just undocumented claims, one of which contradicts what you think it means. This would amount to little more than hearsay without any official documents to back up the claims ... and nothing here establishes Constitutional eligibility anyway.

[CDR Kerchner]

We have a copy of that. But thanks for thinking of us. Keep watching my attorney’s blog (http://puzo1.blogspot.com) for news on the next step up the legal ladder, the filing of the Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court and other actions to be announced as they occur. We are going to win this. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end. Obama will be exposed for the fraud that he is and be removed.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.com/

[El Gato]

Could you point us to where in the US Constitution the judiciary is given the power to remove from the presidency a person who has had their Electoral College votes counted and certified at a Joint Session of Congress and who has been sworn in on Inauguration Day?

Can you point out where it says someone not meeting the eligibility criteria of Article II can ever, ever, actually be President.

The judiciary would not be removing a President, they would be declaring that he had not met the eligibility criteria and thus had never been President.

[jamese777]

Can you point out where it says someone not meeting the eligibility criteria of Article II can ever, ever, actually be President.

The judiciary would not be removing a President, they would be declaring that he had not met the eligibility criteria and thus had never been President.

---

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. Several courts have concluded just the opposite, that they have clearly been met. For example: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth
And:
“A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.“–US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay, September 16, 2009
And:
“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by ‘We the people’—over sixty nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”—US Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter, October 29, 2009
And: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009

The 12th Amendment to the Constitution says that “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT...”

The time to disqualify an ineligible person from becoming president is BEFORE the vote of the Electoral College and BEFORE the Swearing in Ceremony. After those two events take place: impeachment, resignation, and defeat in the next election are the ways to remove a person who was determined to be ineligible.

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.