The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to Third Circuit - Attorney Apuzzo Files his Response to the Court's Order that he Show Cause Why the Court Should Not Impose Defendants' Damages and Costs Against Himhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34567772/03-09-4209-Appeal-Atty-Apuzzo-Files-Kerchner-Response-to-Court-s-Show-Cause-Order-for-Damages-Costs
Posted by:
Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
July 19, 2010
###
11 comments:
Bravo! Mario,
I very much like your reply to the Court.
I thought your comment about damages being chilling to the constitution to be well said.
If you recall, Obama's attorney's threatened damages against the U.S. Justice Foundation in their lawsuit against Obama.
Hence, it appears the Chicago Thug method is being applied to silence critics.
I appreciate your request the defendants demonstrate that their costs could have been lower with the producing of a "Certified Copy" of the original birth certificate at $25 costs.
Thank you for your efforts. Very well said for me.
Fix Bayonets! And God bless!
jayjay said...
Mario:
Elegant and well-pled. In fact, masterful!!!
It will be very enlightening to see if the Court now says "Oh, OK ... you want to see the COLB and the actual '61 BC the defense had access to as a way of mitigating their costs/expenses." Sure - no doubt the Court would say "OK!! Go!!" :-).
While that would be a delightful start, it does not fit [with the mechanism] [editor's edit] the Courts have been using to try to contain the eligibility suits. [editor's deletion].
The response to your 95-pager will tell us a lot about our Judiciary and our Constitution as well as just individual judges.
At any rate --- well done, indeed!!
July 20, 2010 10:27 AM
Wow!
Brilliant! But, it is very sad that the Courts have strayed so far from reason that such a reasonable argument as yours had to be argued again.
Still, once filed, your case will stand for historians when sometime in he future they will try to discover how so great a republic as this could wobble so much in the face of tyranny at home, when it fought tyranny so well abroad.
http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/TMLCReplyBriefinSupportofMotionforPI--revised.pdf
Standing in part in today's ruling:
A. Plaintiffs Have Standing to Challenge the Act.
“In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court
decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498
(1975). To invoke the jurisdiction of this court, “[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly
traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the
requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). For a plaintiff to have standing to
seek declaratory and injunctive relief he “must show actual present harm or a significant
possibility of future harm. . . .” National Rifle Assoc. of Am., 132 F.3d at 279 (emphasis added).
Here, Plaintiffs have standing because they can demonstrate both present harm and a significant
possibility of future harm that are unquestionably traced to the challenged Act and can be
Benaiah has left a new comment on your post "The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal ...":
[editor's delition]
The Factual Allegations of the Complaint Are to be Accepted As True on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
The Court agreed that the factual allegations of the complaint are to be accepted as true and are to be interpreted in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs. The Court said:
At this procedural posture, we must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to [Appellants], and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, [Appellants] may be entitled to relief.” Byers v. Intuit, Inc., 600 F.3d 286, 291 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Grammar v. John J. Kane Reg’l Ctrs.-Glen Hazel, 570 F.3d 520, 523 (3d Cir. 2009)). Nonetheless, “a complaint must . . . ‘state a claim . . . that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Case: 09-4209 Document: 003110221486 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/19/2010
Hence, the Court would have accepted as true plaintiffs’ well-plead allegations that Obama has not yet conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii and that he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The Court would also have to accept plaintiffs’ well-plead allegations that Congress failed to properly vet and investigate Obama under its Twentieth Amendment powers, and that former Vice President and Senate President, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi, were complicit in that failure. It is also telling that defendants neither in the District Court nor on appeal in any way disputed plaintiffs’ allegations that Obama does not meet the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and that he has not yet conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. It is also significant that no court in the United States that has rendered any decision on the Obama eligibility issue has granted to any plaintiff any discovery which would show that these allegations are not true. Accepting these allegations as true is important because these accepted facts go to the plaintiffs’ establishing an injury in fact and therefore standing.
Keep up the good fight Mario...
Love,
Benaiah
Posted by Benaiah to A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at July 20, 2010 1:12 PM
Robert has left a new comment on your post "The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal ...":
Very comprehensive reply. Wow, you're good!
It is quite clear that any abuse or breach of legal ethics that might be of concern to the courts has come from the Obama team. It is they who need to be assessed costs, damages, and penalties.
While you are wading through a mire of confusing and conflicting court decisions; which you manage quite deftly, by the way; Obama and his lawyers know that he does not meet the requirements for president and has no means of proving otherwise.
I wonder if the Obama team show that the court already knows this? Or, are they willfully and knowingly withholding this from the court? Ethics?
Whether the court sides with Obama's childish argument of "I don't have to if I don't want to." or decides in favor of the people and the constitution we will soon know how many branches of our government have been compromised.
To the court: [editor's deletion] Obama, a Harvard-trained constitutional scholar has had years to find and prepare the documents that he knows are necessary to prove qualification. He is fully aware of the questions arising from his well-known multinational background. He either has substantiating documentation or he does not. Just tell him "Mr. Obama, present your proof of eligibility within 48 hours or your presidency is null and void due to lack of qualifications and inability to perform the duties of the President of the United States effective January 20, 2009. Until further notice and according to the constitution, Joe Biden will be acting president subject to any further investigation that may be deemed necessary by the court or by the other branches of government.
The burden of proof will be on Obama where it belongs. If he still doesn't want to produce his papers he can go home, wherever that is, or appeal to the Supreme Court and see if they'll redefine Natural Born Citizen for him.
In any case, Obama has deliberately brought this upon himself and our country.
Posted by Robert to A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at July 20, 2010 1:19 PM
Robert has left a new comment on your post "The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal ...":
Very comprehensive reply. Wow, you're good!
It is quite clear that any abuse or breach of legal ethics that might be of concern to the courts has come from the Obama team. It is they who need to be assessed costs, damages, and penalties.
While you are wading through a mire of confusing and conflicting court decisions; which you manage quite deftly, by the way; Obama and his lawyers know that he does not meet the requirements for president and has no means of proving otherwise.
I wonder if the Obama team show that the court already knows this? Or, are they willfully and knowingly withholding this from the court? Ethics?
Whether the court sides with Obama's childish argument of "I don't have to if I don't want to." or decides in favor of the people and the constitution we will soon know how many branches of our government have been compromised.
To the court: [editor's deletion] Obama, a Harvard-trained constitutional scholar has had years to find and prepare the documents that he knows are necessary to prove qualification. He is fully aware of the questions arising from his well-known multinational background. He either has substantiating documentation or he does not. Just tell him "Mr. Obama, present your proof of eligibility within 48 hours or your presidency is null and void due to lack of qualifications and inability to perform the duties of the President of the United States effective January 20, 2009. Until further notice and according to the constitution, Joe Biden will be acting president subject to any further investigation that may be deemed necessary by the court or by the other branches of government.
The burden of proof will be on Obama where it belongs. If he still doesn't want to produce his papers he can go home, wherever that is, or appeal to the Supreme Court and see if they'll redefine Natural Born Citizen for him.
In any case, Obama has deliberately brought this upon himself and our country.
Posted by Robert to A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at July 20, 2010 1:19 PM
The brief was very well done. You made excellant points.
Now that it has been submitted, what is the schedule.
Does the DOJ get to respond and a reply from you? Or is this between you and the Judges?
Lastly, if they want to put up their hearsay evidence that Obama is eligible to our hearsay evidence that he is not eligible, our evidence would certainly out weigh theirs 10 fold.
Not being a lawyer, I think it is complete in that it addresses the standing issue on all points in contention and still it amazes me how two of the three branches we are to be protected from already have proven their contempt and the third, the only one left, is attempting to remove the people from the remaining branch. That is absurd and I'm sure it doesn't take an atty to see it the same way. I admire the effort Mario and others have put forth. It is a shame to see our system working against the people. If it is any consolation to all who have sought the just route, the last resort will not try treason and only god will be their judge then. I wonder if that might be considered a concrete harm?
Lisa has left a new comment on your post "The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal ...":
Mario, you amaze me! I love how you [presented your arguments in your brief justifying your right to a hearing][editor's edit].
Page 87 was blank on my screen. Anyone else have that problem?
Posted by Lisa to A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at July 21, 2010 9:03 AM
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?
Post a Comment