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
(Jul. 22, 2010) — 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.
i am convinced the control freaks in charge will delay the hearing by the supreme court until the last month of bho’s first term. by them the would have worked out a mutually acceptable arrangement for bho not to run again. i suspect they will tell him drop out of the race or we go to trial. there will be some statement that he meets the nbc requirement but the disclosure of the information is prohibited. i say this because there is still question as to the real identity of the father, the real date of birth, and the real location of birth. they have the perfect cover.
Gee guys-what do you think would happen-if Mario had to fight the Order to show cause-to show that the case was not frivolous-he would have essentially been allowed to put on his case and bring forward the evidence-this was essentially a lost opportunity-in my opinion-and realizing the error in their ways-and the door that they had opened-the Court reversed itself-to close out the matter and stifle any possible showing of the facts.
Awesome, Mario! They want to wear us down and wear us out, but it ain’t happening. There is too much to lose for us as a nation to give up or give out. We’re behind you guys all the way to the SC and whatever happens after that. If we the people do not get heard and get justice, then the consequences will fall squarely on those who have denied it.
Prayer is a powerful weapon against which the defrauders, liars, and corrupters of this country and in all three branches have no defense. If God be for us, who can be against us?! This is a spiritual battle more than anything else, so I call on all believers to make Mario’s next move, one that is guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit of God!
I did notice that on July 2, 2010, the court said the case was ‘frivolous” and sought to penalize the attorney.
Now, on July 22, 2010 they suggest the path for the case is to apply for a “rehearing” by the Court.
Does not that seem strange?
Let’s go directly to SCOTUS and skip the “judges” at the Third Circuit. They waste our time!
I am really doubtful that the gutless, nutless, spineless, girly-boys in SCOTUS will step-up and do their constitutional duty and try to save this nation from the illegal alien squatting in the White Mosque.
God, let me be wrong.
Gordon
As Richard Nixon stated, “People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook.” Likewise the people also have a right to know whether or not their President is legitimate. Legitimate as required by the United States Constitution to hold and occupy the Office of the Presidency.
The attorney harms his case when he claims:
when he (Obama) was born his father was a British subject and Obama himself was also born a British subject (which converted to Kenyan citizenship when he was 2), all giving him conflicting natural allegiance to Great Britain from the time of birth and to Kenya from age 2.
This is a main premise and there isn’t one whit of evidence that it is true.
Obama’s putative father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies when aka Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born. Hence, aka Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
British Nationality Act, 1948
Part II
Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Citizenship by descent.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…
Correct Benaiah, and more specifically BHO Sr was a British Citizen by Birth meaning he was born in Kenya, whereas BHO Jr was a British Citizen by Descent. When Kenya gained independence, he became a Kenyan citizen, but if he did not choose to become Kenyan as an adult, defaulted to his full British citizenship by the BNA of 1981.
Jon Carlson:
Pleeease!
Abdallah, himself, admitted being born GOVERNED to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
A person can NOT be GOVERNED by any state unless they are citizens of that state.
This is just “one” of many whits that say Abdallah was born a British/Kenya Citizen by Natural Law and the blood of his Kenya father.
Therefore, Abdallah can never be a 100% AMERICAN NATURAL -BORN CITIZEN.
It’s simply impossible!
We need legitimate legal documents to prove a place and time of birth. Trust nothing that ‘Obama’ says. I found the case to be lacking in facts and reasoning.
Jon, you’re being disingenuous.
Congrats to Mario on an important victory in the damages/costs action. The names of Mario Apuzzo and Charles Kerschner already belong in a patriots’ Hall of Fame, and if their case is accepted by the Supreme Court, the whole country will come to know them.
And if the case does go to SCOTUS, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan (if seated) should recuse themselves; then it might just be possible for the case to finally be heard on its merits. Let us hope as long as we can, anyway.
This was very good to see!
The court said this – “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.”
But I think the court was really afraid of this – “Should the Court be inclined to find that I am liable under Rule 38 for defendants’ damages and costs, I respectfully request that the Court recognize and enforce my right to discover whether defendants had a copy of the COLB, his 1961 long-form birth certificate, and related documents showing that Obama or other plaintiffs including the Kerchner plaintiffs who would not have come into existence if those documents do not conclusively show that Obama was born in Hawaii, and which disclosure would have mitigated the damages and costs they may now claim they suffered from having to defend plaintiffs’ appeal. To confirm the veracity of the defendants’ representations, I also have a right under F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) and 26(b)(1) to receive a copy of those documents.” (From Mr. Apuzzo’s filing http://www.scribd.com/doc/34567772/03-09-4209-Appeal-Atty-Apuzzo-Files-Kerchner-Response-to-Court-s-Show-Cause-Order-for-Damages-Costs)
They really didn’t want to risk Mr. Apuzzo having a legal reason to get BO’s BC.
Exactly! I believe in the Hollister case the same or a similar idea came to fore: The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that if the Judge (Robertson) penalized him with damages and costs for trying to get the president-elect to demonstrate his eligibility, then he might actually, as a result, have STANDING! He would have suffered damage and therefore redressability would be in order (= standing). That’s why this ruling was given so quickly.
It’s good for Mario but ultimately, in a weird way, actually worse! Just when you thought it couldn’t get any weirder …
Yes, it’s good for Mr Apuzzo but it might have been better for him and us all had they decided to force him to pay damages.
This is just another twist in this extremely twisted con job.
I agree. The courts cannot allow discovery, at any cost. But this is interesting, maybe if the court had stopped at the standing issue and not added the threat of a fine on top of it, they would not have exposed themselves so thoroughly. Looks like they wanted to say thrown out and plaintiff attorney sanctioned, but got caught in their own despicable arrogance. Their quick retreat looks revealed their big flub and ineptness, especially with a big gun like Apuzzo who doesn’t miss a trick.
This scenario of the Rule 38 sanctions in Kirchner v Obama is much the same as the scenario of Rule 11 sanctions with regard to Hollister v Soetoro. In Hollister v Soetoro, the Judge threatened sanctions based on his political point of view with the intent to intimidate others from bringing forth eligibility lawsuits. John Hemenway in his response to the threatened Rule 11 sanctions pointed out that he would be entitled to discovery in his defense against the sanctions. Judge James Robertson dismissed the threatened sanctions. See Hemenway’s response here http://www.scribd.com/doc/13453383/Hollister-Supplemental-Show-of-Cause-0316091
No judge in the land has the courage to allow any discovery of evidence. I predict that Lt. Col. Terrance Lakin will not be brought to a full Court Martial. They will instead smear his reputation and force him to retire. This has already begun with his unfairly revised Officer Evaluation Report. Neither the judiciary nor the military will allow evidence of Obama’s ineligibility to see the light of day.
Way to go, Mario!! Well done! Never stop fighting… there are far more people pulling for you than you could possibly know.
If you check out some of the Flying Monkey blogsites, don’t let the tears splash all over your desk blotter!!
This is good news! At least it shows there’s, at least some, honesty left in the courts! I assume the next and final stop is the Supreme Court?
I would think that this pending Constitutional crisis would jump to the head of the docket, but it has been “avoided” (Justice Thomas’ words, not mine) for so long, who knows what will happen next. I think, in one case, Justice Roberts has already denied a hearing on the eligibility issue!?!? Will they deny this one too?
Somebody, PLEASE, give me something to be optomistic about!
Tom,
It’s worse than “avoided.”
Justice Thomas said, We’re “EVADING” the issue.
The oborters say there is no legal basis but a US Justice believes SCOTUS must “Evade” the issue. WHY??
There must be fire where there is smoke.
That has to be one of the quickest reversals on record. Do you suppose they recognized they messed up when they read the word “discovery”?
Is a savings and loan association taken over by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board – without any notice or hearing and on the basis of an administrative record compiled ex parte by the Board – entitled to a post-deprivation hearing “upon the merits” as provided in 12 U.S.C. § 1464 (d) (6) (A) and as required by the Due Process Clause, or is the association restricted – in its first and only opportunity to be heard on the seizure of its property – to an attempt to prove that the Board action was arbitrary and capricious, based solely on the administrative record selected by the Board itself?
Are “We the people” entitled to a hearing “upon the merits” as required by the Due Process Clause when the “office of President” is occupied by a person who is not an Article II natural born citizen and thus not “eligible to the office of President” under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, which states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”, or are “We the people” required – in its opportunity to be heard on the seizure of its property, the “office of the President”, by a usurper – to simply accept that Barack Hussein Obama is an Article II natural born citizen and thus “eligible to the office of President” based solely on the digital image of a purported Certification of Live Birth, which was posted on the internet by the usurper himself?