Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit - On 18 May 2009 I filed a Declaration Opposing Defendants' Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009. The defendants have already had almost three months to answer, move, or otherwise respond. Regular citizen defendants get 20 days. The government normally gets 60 days. They have already had almost 90 days. What they are asking for would get them to over 120 days before having to answer or otherwise move. In our opinion, they have had an adequate amount of time to answer or move or other wise respond. Thus I have filed our opposition to any further extensions of time to answer or otherwise move on this case. More on that in a subsequent post.
Link to a copy of the Declaration Opposing Defendants' Motion:
Link to view Advertorial on page 11 in 18 May 2009 edition of Washington Times National Weekly:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
Hello Mr. Apuzzo:ReplyDelete
I read on another blog that a Writ of Mandamus was recently filed at SCOTUS by another attorney. I'm confused. I looked up Writ of Mandamus and at first glance it looks like SCOTUS has power over people holding office, under the authority of the United States. But further investigation led me to the the 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789.
The interpretation/definition of that act as stated at http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m079.htm reads as follows:
"The 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789, gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. The issuing of a mandamus to courts, is the exercise
of an appellate jurisdiction, and, therefore constitutionally vested in the supreme court; but a mandamus directed to a public officer, belongs to original jurisdiction, and by the constitution, the exercise of original jurisdiction by the supreme court is restricted to certain specified cases, which do not comprehend a mandamus. The latter clause of the above section, authorizing this writ to be issued by the supreme court to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, is, therefore, not warranted by the constitution and void."
Did the 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789 deem SCOTUS's power over people holding office, under the authority of the United Statesto be void and unconstitutional?
I figured I'd get the opinion of an expert before I delved any further into this issue.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 did attempt to give to the U.S. Supreme Court power to issue a writ of mandamus (Latin for we command) pursuant to both its original (when the writ was issued to a person holding federal office) and appellate (when the writ was issued to a federal court) jurisdiction. Marbury v. Madison 5U.S. 137 (1803) declared unconstitutional the clause granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus outside its appellate jurisdiction. Hence, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a person holding federal office. Id. See also Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution.ReplyDelete
Moreover, writs of mandamus have been abolished in federal courts by Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(b). However, that rule itself states that writs can still be obtained by appropriate action or motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A writ of Mandamus can be obtained under the "All Writs Act," 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1651. But the writ may issue where it is "necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." Hence, a federal court is without authority to issue a writ of mandamus unless the federal court already has jurisdiction under some applicable federal statute. In other words, the writ must be ancillary to a suit already pending in the federal court over which the court already has federal jurisdiction. Stated differently, the federal courts do not have power to issue a writ of mandamus in an original proceeding.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Thank you Mr Apusso.ReplyDelete
You explain the law concisely and succinctly. I appreciate all of your efforts and your willingness to help the rest of us further our understanding.
I do not know if you are looking for publicity or not, but G. Gordon Liddy has been talking about Obama and the birth certificate issue recently on his show. If you are interested, you might want to contact him about being on his show.
Great job Mario.. You are a brilliant attorney.ReplyDelete
Great job. Keep up the excellent work!!!! I'm most intrigued by the fact that both Pelosi and Cheney have been sued; I like the "chess move".
Question, why wouldn't Cheney hire his own private attorney at this point. Is he not jeopardizing his case by relying on the DOJ to a) respond at all? or b) to represent him to the best of their ability?
I recall after the Electoral College vote that while he didn't publicly ask for any objections in the Senate, Cheney stated something to the effect that objections were sought out of chamber and none were made.
Am I correct about that?
Dear Mr. Apuzzo,ReplyDelete
Thank you so very much for your continued fight to bring Mr. Obama's atrocities to light. Those of us following since the beginning are, no doubt, getting very weary of waiting for something to happen; and I believe your case has the most chance of making a difference.
Each day that Obama walks into the sacred ground of the Oval Office is a travesty. Each time he tries to gain more power over the other government branches and/or private industry is a slap on the face of our founding fathers. Your success will truly mark a new holiday on my calendar for the rest of my days.
on jan 21, 2009 the imposter signed into law a treasoness act against the usa by tasking in the prevention of the taxpayers of viewing anything that was in his past which can be considered criminal activity that is treason against the usa ie if he was a foreign student receiving foreign student aide then he has to allow the people of the usa the taxpayers tp view whether or not he was a foreign student receiving aide and therefore not eligible to hold the office of the pres. and in being in that office as an ineligible recipient of that office he is engaging in treason by blocking the taxpayers of which the majority of the eligible voters did not vote for him even if there was no voter fraud engaged and has to be taken out of the white house charged and not allowed to returnReplyDelete
It would be nice if you could get Bobby Jindal or a similar person as a client. He would ask SCOTUS for a definition of NBC.
Bobby Jindal was born in USA. But his parents later became citizens after Bobby was born. He should have standing to ask the question so as to get the definition spelled out by SCOTUS.
Or find another such person. Maybe Arnold S of CA. Or just the average man in the street who has the birth issue.
An online article titled, "Obama Presidential Eligibilty - An Introductory Primer", by Stephen Tonchen.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htmM Publius Goat
The power of the office of President of the United States is the ultimate position for a constitutor to hold. If in fact a conspiracy exists. It exists to steal money and the power to do it under the guise of legality. Being directed to and spent by persons who have the power, given to them that represent the people, to do so. Great evil exists here for personal gain. Money has always been the "root of all evil". Now we see it on the grandest scale. If proven to be true these people are guilty of treason and should be executed for their fowl evil deed.ReplyDelete