Replies

In fact Mario Apuzzo came very close to being sanctioned for failing to mention Berg v Obama in his legal briefs, but I’m sure anything about that is way over your head.

Only because the judges ruled with prejudice and didn't actually pay attention to what the case was actually about. Apuzzo's response forced the judges to admit their reasoning was flawed. I thought you said you read it???

Only because the judges ruled with prejudice and didn’t actually pay attention to what the case was actually about. Apuzzo’s response forced the judges to admit their reasoning was flawed. I thought you said you read it???

The Court was being asked by Mario Apuzzo to rule on whether the District Court erred when it dismissed Kerchner v Obama by refusing to grant standing to the plaintiffs. THAT is what they ruled on and that issue alone.
At the Appeals court level, the justices accept everything in the plaintiffs’ claims as true. Therefore, the posture of the Court was: “Yes, Obama is ineligible because he’s not a natural born citizen.” However can Kerchner and his co-plaintiffs sue Obama? Their answer was that the District Court was right in saying “no.”

Kerchner and his co-plaintiffs could not pass the first test for legal standing: they could not show particularized injury-in-fact. The Appeals court agreed with the District Court and with 70 other such lawsuits, all decided the same way.

I said that I read the Court’s opinion. I did not read Apuzzo’s 95 page response to show cause why he should not be sanctioned or forced to pay court costs. The Appeals court judges retreated not one inch on their ruling upholding the district court’s dismissal but they did cut Apuzzo some slack on not sanctioning him and assessing court costs against him. A “show cause” order allows an attorney to present his side of a specific issue; In this case, that specific issue was whether or not the Kerchner appeal was frivolous.
Mr. Apuzzo obviously did a good job of talking the judges out of the frivolous charge.