Mario Apuzzo Responds to Jedi Pauly’s Five Jurisdictional Requirements


by Atty. Mario Apuzzo

Attorney Mario Apuzzo represented CDR Charles F. Kerchner and three other plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, which was dismissed without a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court on November 29, 2010

(Jan. 22, 2011) — To Mr. “Jedi Pauly:”

I will address your points briefly. I will not go into all the legal details of the Kerchner case because I do not think it is necessary to show that you are wrong in what you write. You continue to attack me, my work, and the Kerchner case for some unknown reason. The last time you attacked me, you said you thought I was Dr. Conspiracy. But now you are back at it in your grand pseudo scientific style.

You state:

“You MUST have all FIVE of these:

The Court must have TERRITORIAL jurisdiction over all of the parties listed in a suit.

The Court must have PERSONAL jurisdiction over all of the parties listed in a suit.

The court must have SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over the issues being adjudicated. And such matters must be raised by the plaintiffs in their petition.

There must be stated a specific non-general INJURY and an injuring party.

The court must be able to provide a REMEDY that is within their powers to provide.

That is it. There are no other jurisdictional issues or areas. This is the sum total of all world-wide legal systems as concerns “standing.” They are all the same.”

I will now address you points:

Territorial jurisdiction: This was not an issue in the Kerchner case. The defendants did not raise it as a defense and correctly so. The court also found no problem here.

Obama, Congress, Cheney, and Pelosi can all be sued in the Third Circuit where all the Kerchner plaintiffs live. The Rules of Civil Procedure designate where one can sue the government and its agents and I followed those rules.

Personal jurisdiction: This was not an issue in the Kerchner case. The court acquires personal jurisdiction over the defendants when they are properly served in accordance with due process. I properly served all the defendants pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants did not raise it as a defense and correctly so. The court also found no problem here.

Subject matter jurisdiction: This is where standing came in. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found no Article III standing. The court said that the Kerchner plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact. I will discuss this point in the next heading.

Non-general injury and an injuring party: As I have stated above, this is part of standing and so under your scheme belongs as a part of subject matter jurisdiction and not as a separate category. As we all know, the courts found that plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact. Hence, it found no standing. I argued that the plaintiffs did suffer an injury in fact. The court did not agree with us. The court said that the Kerchner plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact because they like all other Americans would be injured if Obama is not eligible to be President. It said that if all Americans are injured, then the court has no jurisdiction and the case belongs with Congress and the voting booth. Of course we know that Congress said that only the courts could resolve the eligibility issue. I argued that if my clients were injured, it did not matter how many other people were also injured. I also argued that in a Constitutional Republic we cannot resolve questions of constitutional interpretation and meaning in the voting booth. If the court found that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact, of course it will also find that there was no “injuring party.” Hence, it is superfluous to argue about an “injuring party” when injury in fact is already a requirement.

Remedy: This is also part of standing and so also belongs as a part of subject matter jurisdiction and not as a separate category. The Kerchner court never reached the issue of remedy, for it found no injury in fact. Finding no injury in fact, it is not necessary for the court to analyze remedy. In any event, I adequately presented the requested remedy which was injunction, declaratory relief, mandamus relief, and quo warranto relief, all proper remedies in such a case. I showed how Obama was not adequately vetted by anyone during the election process, including the media, the political institutions, the Electoral College, and Congress. I argued that Congress violated the Twentieth Amendment by failing to assure my clients through adequate investigation and hearings that Obama was eligible for the offices of President and Commander in Chief. I argued that Obama and Congress violated my clients’ unalienable Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and their First and Ninth Amendment rights for allowing a person to occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief who never proved he was eligible for those offices, never conclusively proved he was born in the United States, and that in any event, cannot be eligible because he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born. I argued that Congress violated my clients’ equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment for investigating the “natural born Citizen” status of John McCain but not that of Barack Obama. As part of the declaratory action, I asked that the court declare what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, declare that Obama does not meet that definition, and provide the definition and its findings to Congress so Congress could take appropriate action against Obama. As part of the mandamus relief, I asked that the court order Obama to produce his contemporaneous 1961 long-form birth certificate and that Congress take appropriate action against Obama based on the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendants never argued that the courts could not provide the remedy that the Kerchner plaintiffs requested and the courts never made any such finding. The District Court dismissed the Kerchner case on political question and standing grounds (both Article III and prudential standing). The Third Circuit dismissed it on Article III standing grounds. No court ever reached the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. No court ever even discussed plaintiffs’ argument regarding violation of their unalienable Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property when it analyzed whether plaintiffs had standing.

In short, you really have it all wrong. You attempt to have your general unfounded comments cover all the eligibility attorneys and all their cases. Your argument has no basis in law or fact. You fail to address the particulars of any one case and especially the Kerchner case. You really should reconsider coming out with such articles which really put into question the credibility of the eligibility issue, the writers of such articles, and that of those who publish such articles. I hope that you will refrain from such writings in the future.


Editor’s Note: The Post & Email is an independent, First Amendment newspaper which publishes all points of view.  We take no position on legal questions because we are not attorneys or legal scholars.

13 Responses to "Mario Apuzzo Responds to Jedi Pauly’s Five Jurisdictional Requirements"

  1. ELmo   Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 6:48 PM

    Challenger Wrote:
    “I wonder where all those since 2008 and those who continue to obfuscate the eligibility issue will hide when the lid blows off this pressure cooker?”

    I agree – Especially Bill “I’ve seen the Birth Certificate” O’Reilly and Glenn “I love the Constitution” Beck.

  2. ELmo   Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM

    Most “Long Form Birth Certificates” will only provide half the information needed to confirm Constitutional eligibility of a Presidential Candidate.
    Jus Solis – Must be born in the USA
    Jus Sanguinis – Must be born of Parents who are Citizens
    Must be 35 years old.
    Must be 14 years a resident of the USA.
    Of course The Supreme Court has never DIRECTLY ruled on just WHO is an NBC
    so they might decide differently regarding parental citizenship – but one would think that at least one parent would have to be a Citizen, so it has to be documented.
    Most “Long Form Birth Certificates” don’t establish the Citizenship of the parents.
    This was my point in my e-mail to J.Burges (the Arizona State Rep who filed HB2544.
    Without establishing the parental citizenship (by only requireing a LF Birth Certificate) these legislatures may be creating a worse mess than already exists.

  3. DyingTruth   Saturday, January 29, 2011 at 8:54 PM

    Okay People, this is important. To prove Obama was not born an American citizen and was born a British citizen, one need only look at the suffix used on his Certificate Of Live Birth from Hawaii. If it says BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. then he’s an American citizen, but if it says BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II then he’s a british subject. Do you see the obvious distinction?

  4. Capt-Dax   Sunday, January 23, 2011 at 1:54 PM

    The Court must have TERRITORIAL jurisdiction over all of the parties listed in a suit.

    Question: Is Washington DC a TERRITORY or NATION

  5. Capt-Dax   Sunday, January 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM

    Sad to say but i think, Congress/and the SCOTUS are not going to touch this because of the CIA Involvement in his Makeing.

    I think the only way we can fight this Beast! is for the each S…overeign State of We the People to Install… Legislation at the State level,Makeing Eligibility produce a long form BC mandatory to be on the BALLOT!!.

  6. jetstream   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 3:49 PM

    Mario, you’ve done an outstanding job informing us, as usual. This Jedi person really doesn’t deserve a response but it was kind of you to do so. You’ve continually and generously given your time and true expertise to educate patriots who are not familiar with the law but who are concerned at the damage being done to our country by the imposter and his cabal.

    One sentence in particular, in Jedi’s article, just screams out fraud. It was mixed in with his pathetic attempt at dazzling readers with legal mumbo jumbo from his purported one class in law. Here it is:

    “Now let us apply these five simple legal principles that have been well-recognized for thousands of years in every legal jurisdiction ever invented by man, to the cases that have been filed so far regarding Obama and his legitimacy and you will see that none of these cases so far has ever even met one of these five hurdles, let alone all five.”

    I find it hard to believe that any competent lawyer or scholar would use such hyperbole. The law is not simple, as any lawyer who’s ever tried to win a case will tell you. There are many factors and judicial opinions that can affect the outcome. Hyperbole, or making sweeping statements as though they are fact, is the refuge of the con man. Just my “simple” opinion.

  7. Ro   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 1:30 PM

    And pay back all the taxpayer money like 2 million he spent so far to keep his bc hidden!

  8. Metropolisonthehill   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM

    Spectacular work, Mr. Apuzzo!

    Can you can contact Lucas Smith? You can both help each other an in turn help all of us. Thank you.

  9. thinkwell   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 1:05 PM

    Just going by possibly faulty memory here, but Mr. Pauly once mentioned that either he or his children were born overseas, perhaps to a non-citizen mother, so he has a personal interest in his father-only derived definition of natural born Citizen (Mr. Pauly, please feel free to jump in and provide the factual details). Since, like the great majority of us, neither he nor his children are likely to ever run for President, I don’t know why this might lead to his seemingly somewhat irrational fixation on this issue, but I think it is unfair to label Mr. Pauly as an “obot” as he has stated that he strongly believes Obama is not a natural born Citizen and is unqualified to be president.

    Personally, I think Mr. Pauly’s views are faulty whereas Attorney Apuzo’s understanding of the law and what constitutes a natural born Citizen is spot on, but Mr. Pauly is earnest in his beliefs and provides an interesting point of view that is useful for provoking debate and further honing our understanding of the truth and the facts and logic that supports it. I hope Mr. Pauly responds to Attorney Apuzo so that we (Mr. Pauly included) may all learn something in the process.

    Debating only those you agree with may be comforting, but honest debate with those supporting opposing viewpoints is likely to be much more enlightening. We will soon see if Mr. Pauly is willing to engage in honest debate.

  10. Challenger   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM

    I wonder where all those since 2008 and those who continue to obfuscate the eligibility issue will hide when the lid blows off this pressure cooker? Let me tell you, I for one, am not not going to let them forget their ignorant, stupid, obstructionist behavior. When does this kind of behaviour rise to the level to implicate the proponent in the criminal fraud that is taking place? My view is that the Abercrombie initiative was to “test the waters” for Obama and to just lightly dribble out the reality that there is no Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. The strategy is to cushion the inevitable falsity and thus try to make the final result less repugnant. Obama has to do something and fast since he is now caught between a rock and hard place. His initial huge gamble was that this issue would be dead long before the decision had to be made to run for a second term. Now, decision making time is here and, at least a few states plan to challenge his credentials this time around. What is he going to do? What is the Democratic Party going to do? Are they going to put all their eggs in the Obama basket for 2012 and run the risk of crashing with Obama, or are they going to go with someone else for 2012? It is now fish or cut bait time and the eligibility issue is still alive and well. There are more than a few who are now sweating bullets over this conundrum.

  11. jtx   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 11:23 AM

    Somehow it seems that Attorney Apuzzo has it absolutely correct. The Supreme Court of this country is at best deficient in doing its job as it is supposed to take jurisdiction of and hear on merit proceedings involving Constitutional considerations.

    They not only did not do so, the 2 Justices with obvious conflicts of interest in the Kerchner matter refused to recuse themselves despite the fact they actually did so is immediately adjacent cases. Talk about shameful activity in our “3rd branch”!!!

  12. Kingskid   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 11:06 AM

    Thank you, Mario. You are the perfect antidote to the hot air of the so-called Mr. Pauly. I think Pauly’s motives for writing his articles on the NBC subject are highly suspect. Why would anyone attack the attorneys who have worked so hard, and several at their own expense, instead of trying himself to expose the lies and deception of the usurper in the WH? Pauly is very likely just an obot trying to throw dust in our eyes. He is desperately searching for anything that would validate his far-out assumptions and posturing.

  13. Tom the veteran   Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 10:43 AM

    Bravo Zulu to Mr. Apuzzo!

    Mr. Jedi Pauly has shown himself to be as typical as the members of Obama’s cabinet and advisors. They all have text book knowledge but none has any actual experience. Mr. Jedi Pauly appears to be not much more than a bar-room attorney that probably either flunked out of law school or could never pass his bar exam!

    It’s getting kinda late, and nobody seems to have any interest to do anything about Obama now, but we can certainly challenge his eligibility for re-election if we can find some patriot politicians and election board chairmen. If we can get just one State election board to challenge his eligibilty and prevent him from getting on the ballot, then I think a snowball effect from the other States will bring him down. But once we tell him to “get outta town before sunset”, can we drag his sorry butt back to court and convict him on all his previous acts? I would say so! And let’s make him payback the money he spent on all his elaborate vacations and White House parties!

    For God and Country
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The challenge period for each state ballot is fast approaching.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.