Posted on 07/25/2010 5:29:54 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suddenly have abandoned plans to assess damages against an attorney whose clients are challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president after he argued that if there was to be punishment, he would have the right to know whether the defendants could have mitigated their injury by publicly releasing Obama's birth documentation.
The decision came from Judge Dolores Sloviter in the Kerchner vs. Obama case handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court had ordered Apuzzo to explain why defense costs shouldn't be assessed against him for the "frivolous" appeal.
However, her newest order denied Apuzzo's request to reconsider the case and stated "based on Mr. Apuzzo's explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause."
The case was filed against Obama, Congress and others just before Obama was sworn into office, arguing that Obama was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
So you are saying that someone not eligible to the office of President can somehow nonetheless be President.
Again, I say: “Horse Apples”.
I am saying that no one in entirety of American history has ever assumed the office of the presidency and then been determined by a Court of Law or by Congress to be ineligible to be president.
I am further in complete agreement with several US District Court judges who have looked at this issue with specific regard to Barack Hussein Obama Jr. Those judges have ruled that the Courts have jurisdiction over adjudicating cases involving potentially ineligible CANDIDATES and CONGRESS has jurisdiction to remove a person who was elected President by the Electoral College, was sworn in as president, assumed the office of president and was later determined to be ineligible. Congress has the option of impeaching and convicting such a person and removing them from the presidency. The American people also have the option of voting a person out of office in the next general election who they believe is ineligible for any reason.
Congress changes the Constitution all the time. Unless and until the federal courts stop them, its the law of the land.
Congress has been defining natural born citizenship as including those born overseas since 1790.
“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
And note John McCain’s natural born citizen status despite being born in Panama (which no one disputes) is established by statute since Congress gets to say who’s a naturalized citizen and who’s a citizen at birth under the Immigration Code.
“under sections 301–309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (restated in sections 1401–1409 of Title 8 of the United States Code), current U.S. law defines numerous other categories of individuals born abroad, as well as people born in most U.S. territories and possessions, as being “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
For CRIPES sake! He's NOT spending his own millions........he is spending OUR millions!
Why do you not stop posting lies, saying that I did not “mention Berg v. Obama in [my] legal briefs.” Why do you not read my Reply Brief and see for yourself that I fully cited and discussed Berg. How can you make such a ridiculous statement when its written in black and white in my brief? So, just stop repeating the lie.
He shoul've been sworn at.
Why do you not stop posting lies, saying that I did not “mention Berg v. Obama in [my] legal briefs.” Why do you not read my Reply Brief and see for yourself that I fully cited and discussed Berg. How can you make such a ridiculous statement when its written in black and white in my brief? So, just stop repeating the lie.
When you are ever able to advance beyond the pre-trial dismissal phase of a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility, I’ll be happy to read your epistles to the Court.
The following is for those who haven’t seen it:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-4209
CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR.; LOWELL T. PATTERSON;
DARRELL JAMES LENORMAND; DONALD H. NELSEN, JR., Appellants v. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, President Elect of the United
States of America, President of the United States of America,and Individually; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES CONGRESS;
UNITED STATES SENATE; UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
RICHARD B. CHENEY, President of the Senate, Presiding Officer of Joint Session of Congress, Vice President of the United States and Individually; NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the House and Individually
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No.1-09-cv-00253)
District Judge: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges ORDER 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.
By the Court, /s/ Dolores K. Sloviter Circuit Judge Dated: July 22, 2010 PDB/cc: All Counsel of Record Case: 09-4209 Document: 003110225662 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34736228/03-09-4209-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Appeal-Show-Cause-Order-Discharged-2010-07-22
I see that you have been posting here quite a bit. You try to sound as though you know what you are talking about. You are the one who is commenting on what I did and did not do. Why do you not tell me how I did not cite and argue Berg in my “briefs.” You said it so now back it up. I’ll offer you an easy way out. Just admit that you made a mistake and we will be done with it.
I see that you have been posting here quite a bit. You try to sound as though you know what you are talking about. You are the one who is commenting on what I did and did not do. Why do you not tell me how I did not cite and argue Berg in my “briefs.” You said it so now back it up. I’ll offer you an easy way out. Just admit that you made a mistake and we will be done with it.
From the Court’s Opinion for those who haven’t read it: “In the past, “we cautioned counsel that a finding by a District Court that a lawsuit is frivolous should serve as notice to the parties and their attorney to exercise caution, pause, and devote additional examination to the legal validity and factual merit of his contentions.” Beam, 383 F.3d at 109 (quotation omitted). Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants’ claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous.5 We therefore will order Appellants’ counsel to show cause why he should not pay just damages and costs for having filed a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
IV.
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court’s order of dismissal.
5 We also note with concern that Appellants failed to cite Berg in their opening brief. See, e.g., N.J. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(3) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client . . . .”). Although Berg was filed only some two months before Appellants’ brief, it is unlikely it had not come to their attention given the identity of the issues.”
As it turns out, you are wrong.
Actually the 1790 law was the only time they tried to do that. That law was repealed/replaced by a 1795 law which did not contain the words "natural born citizen". No law since then has done so either.
They've defined criteria for "citizenship at birth", and say that it's not naturalized citizenship, but the courts have disagreed, since naturalized citizens may have restrictions that native born citizens do not.
Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are not the same thing.
As to McCain, he was born of citizen parents, one of whom was serving in the "Armies of the Nation", for which there is an exception to the "in the nation" part of the Natural born citizenship birth criteria. The logic being that such persons are still under the jurisdiction of the nations, even though serving outside of it.
No, I cannot agree with you that you can read. You wrote that I did not cite Berg in my appellate “briefs.” The Court wrote I did not cite Berg in the Opening Brief. There is a big difference. In New Jersey, there is no violation not citing a case in an opening brief, provided the opposing side cites it which they did in this case. I also told the Court in my Opening Brief that there were existing cases that were contrary to my client’s position. Moreover, I cited and argued Berg in my Reply Brief. So as you see, you do not get off so easy.
“No, I cannot agree with you that you can read. You wrote that I did not cite Berg in my appellate “briefs.” The Court wrote I did not cite Berg in the Opening Brief. There is a big difference. In New Jersey, there is no violation not citing a case in an opening brief, provided the opposing side cites it which they did in this case. I also told the Court in my Opening Brief that there were existing cases that were contrary to my client’s position. Moreover, I cited and argued Berg in my Reply Brief. So as you see, you do not get off so easy.”
“We also note with concern that Appellants failed to cite Berg in their opening brief. See, e.g., N.J. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(3) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client . . . .”). Although Berg was filed only some two months before Appellants’ brief, it is unlikely it had not come to their attention given the identity of the issues.”
The Texas 2 step is a goin’ on...can’t ask for $$$’s, the attorney would then have the right for discovery....
This almost sounds like a plausible scenario. But our nation will suffer in the long run from having the truth concealed from it.
Yes. This is why the judges have chickened out. Mario’s case is going to SCOTUS.
The truth has to be made public.
The more you post the more you expose yourself. It is clear to anyone reading the posts that you either have a comprehension problem or are deliberatly misleading.
Judges make mistakes all the time, why don’t you learn from their mistakes instead of keep on repeating their dribble? Next thing you know you will be saying the Arizona law should be knocked down and that that idiot for a judge knew what she was doing and had no agenda. You may think you can fool some of the people all the time, but not here on FR, try DU they are more open to hucksters and con men when it suits their agenda.
Wonder if the Supremes will take this case? They’ve seen this illegal alien in action...will they step up and stop the usurper?
?
The more you post the more you expose yourself. It is clear to anyone reading the posts that you either have a comprehension problem or are deliberatly misleading.
Judges make mistakes all the time, why don’t you learn from their mistakes instead of keep on repeating their dribble? Next thing you know you will be saying the Arizona law should be knocked down and that that idiot for a judge knew what she was doing and had no agenda. You may think you can fool some of the people all the time, but not here on FR, try DU they are more open to hucksters and con men when it suits their agenda.
When judges make mistakes, their opinions are overturned by higher courts. That’s why we have a multi-level judicial system. The US Supreme Court will have the final word on the Arizona law.
Thanks for the advice but I like FR and I intend to continue to post here and if you don’t like it, you have the option of simply ignoring my posts.
I have no interest in “fooling” anyone. I post my personal opinions and those of the folks who actually get to make decisions on these issues and I quote them and I provide a link to the source of their statements.
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.