Thursday, July 22, 2010

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

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, comments, and emails.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 22, 2010


cfkerchner said...

Great work Mario!

Bravo Zulu!

Next stop, the U.S. Supreme Court!

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Christinewjc said...

Congrats! I got through about 75 pages of what you wrote and thought you gave absolutely excellent arguments as to why they should not find you liable for Obama's/Congress' damages and costs! The Third Circuit Court could not possibly defend their sorry excuses to fine you for bringing this case!

I still hold out hope and continually pray that this case will FINALLY be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court and that you will WIN and Obama/Congress loses - and pResident ObaMARXIST gets booted out of office!

P.S. The "word verification" has "clens" to be typed. Let that be a sign that Obama and the culprits in Congress who allowed the usurper to get into WE THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE - will be CLEANSED from our government! Ha!

Carlyle said...

Mario -

I know you have touched on this several times, and maybe unbeknownst to me, hit it dead center. But since I can't find it, please consider these scenarios:

Suppose that instead of something 'nebulous' like NBC, the situation were much more rigid. Suppose the President candidate were 25 years old an just graduated from Harvard Law and everybody knew it. But suppose you had the same circumstance in that he was elected, certified, and sworn in. What would be the process to formally address the eligibility concerns?

Or suppose the Supreme Court itself directly and flagrantly violated the constitution (say, tried an ambassador under original jurisdiction, but did not follow trial by jury). What would be the process to overturn them? e.g. who do you appeal to when the SC violates the constitution?

Or suppose the congress committed some constitutional breech of process. Who would you file a case with? And would they have any problems with standing or jurisdiction?

It seems to me that the judges processing eligibility claims have so far conflated the two issues: 1) what is the proper process to follow if a constitutional violation is suspected, and 2) was there a violation? how strong? who cares? And in conflating the issues, they seem to focus more on #2 rather than #1. Whereas, IMHO, #1 should be the only criterion at this point. #2 gets addressed during the hearing or trial.

So, back to the beginning, I think the PROCESS should be the same if the accused violation is 'hard' or 'soft'. It might add clarity to the situation to first lay out the process for the 'hard' violations and then insist that this same process be followed for the 'soft' ones as well.

Anonymous said...

Cheers Mario!

Anonymous said...


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?

Mick said...

Would Mr. Apuzzo have gained standing for Quo Warranto if sanctions were given?

Lisa said...

How wonderful!


I have come to understand the concept of standing by following the eligibility suits. Here is what I do not get. How does a young girl who is an atheist and whose father claims that his daughter should not be exposed to the pledge of the allegiance because of the word God. How is this man or his daughter uniquely harmed? The atheist population in this country is huge. The last poll I saw said that 60% of self proclaimed Democrats have no belief in God. That is a large group. So how is it that any time a person complains about some seeing a bible or hears the word God achieve standing when they represent such a huge group? Anyone who has complained about seeing nativity scenes around Christmas is always given standing. Basically, anyone with an anti-God complaint is given standing. Why? How are they uniquely harmed? How about all of the Americans told not to display the Stars and Stripes in front of there homes because some people in the community may be offended. How do these clowns get standing? Someone explain to me how any person can be harmed by having the flag flown in their neighborhood? Yet these people get standing and win. The only answer I can come up with is you have to be Anti-God or anti-American to get a case before the courts today. Thank you to all the Carter, Clinton, and Obama appointees.

Thanks, Ken

puzo1moderator said...

"A Pen" has left a new comment on for this thread ...":

Great job Mario! What is the next hurdle?

[Editor's snip]

I would hope it be heard ASAP as they are fully aware of the allegations and really only need to formally opine. The question as far as I can tell is what is a NBC and your research showing the Law of Nations to be the original source is the clincher for that definition. Even if they rule that a NBC is who we all agree, a person born of two citizen parents, it will then still be up to the senate to actually impeach. The polls showing a vast majority unsure of his credentials will no doubt be tuned to CSPN to hear the bald faced lies come out that they had no idea what the constitution meant. I hope you are brought in to testify too if we should be so rewarded by the power of the supreme law. Mr Kerchner, have a cold one and get ready for the big one. Our nations future is riding on this case.

puzo1moderator said...

"Chief" has left a new comment on for this thread ...":

Mario -- if these appellant judges saw merit in your research on standing and reversed their order to assess damages against you based on your submission, they must have agreed with your research on standing otherwise why would they dismiss their order that required you to pay damages? In my opinion they did not want this to go to a hearing .. [Editor's Snip] Will we ever find a judge or group of judges who are not in lock step with the Obama administration, run in fear of this usurper and his minions in Washington and Chicago! God speed in you quest as you and Charles sail in heavy seas. Good sailor always bring the ship to port safely; maybe a little damaged but safely. So a steady hand on the tiller as you navigate toward a resolution for the ship of state and we the people.

puzo1moderator said...

"JayJay" has left a new comment on for this thread ...":

Perhaps they got as far as the word "discovery" and thought better of it ... or possibly ... [Editor's Snip]?

Anyway - great to hear for you Mario and a wonderful submission anyway and hopefully all 95 pages are now part of the public record for the case as it gets to SCOTUS!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


I am not the plaintiff. Sanctions against me do not give me standing. My answer is not to imply that even if I were a plaintiff, that sanctions would give me standing because they still would not.

Joe said...

Mario and Charles,

Congratulations! Your brief was brilliant.

Are you going to file reconsideration with the Appeals Ct.?

Guy4013 said...

Charles and Mario,

Very good news this morning.

Interesting. What was called a "frivolous" case is now called a case subject to "rehearing"

How can it be "frivolous" on July 2 and now suggesting to request for a rehearing as the correct path?

Maybe, a suggestion to delay the path to SCOTUS?

Anyway, congratulation for having the court see the error in their way.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

js has left a new comment on your post "The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Attorney ...":

because of Mr Apuzzo research on the law of standing...[editor's delition] best to just shut this horse cart down and be done with it... [editor's deletion].

Posted by js to A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at July 23, 2010 6:37 AM

Doublee said...

Carlyle: [W]hat is the proper process to follow if a constitutional violation is suspected[?]

That is the question that I had in mind when I opened this discussion thread. It is at the same time a simple question and a complicated one.

If a plaintiff must always establish standing (by the present rules) before a constitutional question can be adjudicated, then there is not only the potential but the practical reality that a constitutional violation will be perpetuated. This has to be unacceptable!

The natural born citizenship requirement is an "entry permit" into the office of the President, much like a driver's license is an entry permit to drive legally on the nation's highways.

I may be a perfectly capable driver, having caused no harm to anyone, but if I am asked to show my driver's license and cannot do so, I am barred from driving on the highways.

This seemingly simple concept apparently does not apply to our judicial system.

As Mr. Apuzo has pointed out, the rules of standing have not been consistent, and without consistent rules, how is an attorney to know what to do?

I am not aware of any movements to not only to standardize the rules of standing, but to construct them such that legitimate constitutional questions can be adjudicated.

Yes, there is the issue of the courts' being inundated with many frivolous law suits, and yes, the new rules must address this issue.

Edward said...

Congratulations on your positive decision concerning damages. To assess damages would have been a step toward dictatorship, the "duty" of the people to question "their" government and leadership is essential in a free society.

I think the judges agree with you in principle but are being restricted by legal technicalities. There must be another way to approach the problem of disclosure by public officials, especially the President, rather than using the same approach that has already failed so many times.

This is really a very liberal issue, a President, for that matter any public official, must be required to offer voluntary and full disclosure upon request.
Obama has not done so, and is fanning the flames of discontent with his actions. He must know we only need one victory.


puzo1moderator said...

"JS" has left a new comment on for this thread ...":

Because of Mr Apuzzo research on the law of standing...they backed down...and did not defend the decision...ah...such is the weakness of the ... [Editor's Snip] ... that the little bird who sang the song of standing ... [Editor's Snip] ... perchance was lacking in rhyme and reason...hence the fear of exposure it be best to just shut this horse cart down and be done with it...another o-blunder moment?

[Editor's note: Please keep in mind Mario is an officer of the court and do not use inappropriate language about the court in your remarks and comments in this blog on this decision that could possibly in any way put Mario into further jeopardy before the court. See the Rules of This Blog via the link in the right frame for more details. Thank you for your cooperation. The Moderator and Editor]

Georgetown said...

Congratulations Attorney Apuzzo and Lead Plaintiff Kerchner! What a relief. Our heartfelt prayers were answered. Eventually the truth will prevail in time. But for now we rejoice in your excellent skills and good fortune.

MichaelIsGreat said...

When is Justice going to be served? That is: when is Obama be told to prove his eligibility to be president of the USA? WHEN?

The avoided asking these damages and costs only from fear of seeing the case go to court much longer!! That is the only reason.

Dixhistory said...

Mario and Charles is this the end of the trail for you guys?

cfkerchner said...

To DXHistory,

No it is not the end of the trail. We are now at the 5 yard line with the Goal close at hand. The next step is filing a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court who are the ones who have to ultimately decide all these legal questions and issues we have presented to the federal courts anyway. We have worked are way up the federal court system legal ladder and are now at the gates of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). It took longer than I would have liked but the DOJ instead of protecting the Constitution and We the People which is supposed to be their role were instead protecting the usurper Obama & the unconstitutional actions of Congress and stalled every step of the way. But we kept battling. We will soon be knocking on the SCOTUS door. I am sure the DOJ will keep fighting hard (much to their disgrace imo) to protect the usurper. The DOJ should be prosecuting the New Black Panther Party case instead of defending the Usurper Obama in this case.

But we will not give up. Keep reading and watching this blog for news and announcements ... as we are able to release them. We are working on this every day. The Writ of Certiorari filing must be submitted on printed paper with the SCOTUS court rules specifying a special size paper and bond weight for the pages and the cover stock and must be bound in a special booklet form (such as with perfect binding) format, instead of submitting the filing electronically as is done in the lower courts. Thus printing the booklets is involved once the Writ is written. They require 40 copies too. We are working on it. We cannot tell you any more than that as the exact tactics and strategy and timing are confidential. The Truth and the Constitution will win this battle in the end. The unconstitutional usurpation of office and power will come to an end.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Help the cause. Visit:

cfkerchner said...

News Coverage @ ...

"Judges evade Obama birth-certificate query
Abandon plans to penalize attorney whose clients challenged eligibility"

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Posted: July 25, 2010
7:51 pm Eastern

cfkerchner said...

More news on the Obama elibigility issue from ...

"Eligibility doubts flooding state-level races
Even those who believe Obama legitimate say answers needed"

By Bob Unruh
(c) WorldNetDaily

Posted: July 25, 2010
8:02 pm Eastern

cfkerchner said...

A "What If Story" from ...

"The screening of candidate Obama
Exclusive: Gamaliel Isaac speculates on nature of BHO's security-clearance interview"

Posted @ July 24, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

cfkerchner said...

WND's Archives of stories on the Obama eligibility issue:

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

"Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? WND's complete archive of news reports on the issue"

Posted @ July 19, 2010
5:23 pm Eastern

Joe said...

40 copies? 4 0?


Charles I am so glad you stay so optimistic all the time.

suwanneehokie said...

I'm glad you did not have to pay damages and costs. What is the next step? The US Surpreme Court?

Have you seen the front page of the Globe in the check out lines of the grocery? Remember John Edwards got in trouble when the Enquirer shed light on his love child.

FollowTheConstitution said...


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

***Man ( has left a new comment on your post "The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Attorney ...":

Congats Mario. I am not a lawyer, but I read your 95 page pleading, as I have your others, and was very impressed not only with your excellent writing and reasoning, but the courage and tenacity it must have taken to have risen to the occasion under the circumstances. While I am a bit dissapointed that you won't have the opportunity to go for discovery that much sooner, I am certainly relieved for you with regard to the costs issue. The court strikes me [editor's edit] for not having further addressed some of the issues you raised and arguments that you made in thier [sic] decision. Regardless, thank you for your very hard work and your brilliance. You are a great American.



Dixhistory said...

Mario Charles and all those willing to stand and be counted with you.

It was men such as you all that were with George Washington at Valley Forge.

As I recall the Password that night was " Victory or Death"


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

A pen said...
Have you taken into account the humor made by Justice Thomas about avoiding eligibility questions?

It would seem that an inference like that should in itself cause the court to conference on the eligibility issue such that we the people can know that any opinion sought is legitimately debated without having a preconception given to the court clerks that the court has already decided to not take up the issue and thus not allow it on the docket? [editor's deletion] I suppose the proof will be what happens to your application for a writ of certiori. I know I am prepared to shout from the rooftops [editor's deletion] should they not issue the writ. I suspect I will not be alone on my rooftop either.

July 26, 2010 3:42 PM

Michael said...

Congratulations Attny Apuzzo. Very impressive work.If I'm not mistaken, this may be the first court victory on the issue of eligibility (although tangential). I look forward to many more. While the court's reluctance to face the merits is boldly evident, I like the way you painted them into a corner. Thank you for your tireless efforts.

jayjay said...

Many people in this country do not realize the depths of corruption that many of the states (as well as both political parties have sunk to).

It's easy to be put off by things like the eligibility issue when the Obama protectors are thrashing around without knowledge of the faking of the various birth document that have been fraudulently presented (and sworn to by many including Smilin' Bob Gibbels in the WH Press Room) as "the real thing" proving Birdey's eligibility.

Trouble is - none of that is true as you can find out from this exceedingly pertinent and definitive information about the paperwork (“BC” etc.) in the eligibility matter and how it all came about, just follow up on the videos by Dr. Ron J. Polland. You’re in for a REAL eye-opener!!!

Suggested sequence for watching Dr. Polland’s YouTube “FRAUD IN THE USA” video clips; enter the channel using the #0 link below and then immediately pause the displayed video and open the videos noted in the #1 – #9 sequence:

#0 YouTube channel entry; then select and view …


#1 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 1)”

#2 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 2)”

#3 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 3)”

#4 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 4)”

$5 “It’s the conspiracy, Stupid!”





Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted the following comment at Dr. Conspiracy's blog.

"Dr. Conspiracy,

A poster by the name of jamese777 who you probably know posted at freerepublic the following statement: '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.' See;page=128#128, Comment No. 113, posted on 7/27/10, at 2:13 p.m.

I responded to jamese777 on freerepublic with the following: 'Why do you not stop posting lies, saying that I did not 'mention Berg v. Obama in [my] legal briefs.' Why do you not read my Reply Brief and see for yourself that I fully cited and discussed Berg. How can you make such a ridiculous statement when its written in black and white in my brief? So, just stop repeating the lie.' Id. at Comment No. 125, posted on 7/28/10, at 8:43 p.m.

jamese 777 then responded with a non-responsive answer. Id. at Comment No. 127, posted on 7/28/10, at 9:29 p.m.

I then posted the following: 'I see that you have been posting here quite a bit. You try to sound as though you know what you are talking about. You are the one who is commenting on what I did and did not do. Why do you not tell me how I did not cite and argue Berg in my 'briefs.' You said it so now back it up. I’ll offer you an easy way out. Just admit that you made a mistake and we will be done with it.' Id. at Comment No. 128, posted on 7/28/10, at 10:08 p.m.

What is strange is that usually jamese777 has an answer on freerepublic to other anti-Obama comments within a short time. Well, it is now 7-29-10, 12:40 p.m. Eastern time, and he still has not answered.

Now you say on this thread: 'I think the big ethical issue before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was not so much that the appeal was frivolous as it was the Apuzzo did not cite the Berg case in the Appeal.'

Maybe you can help jamese777 and yourself by responding to my two comments. Your statement that the 'big ethical issue' is that 'Apuzzo did not cited the Berg case in the Appeal' is much more serious than jamese777's because you now are saying that I not only acted unethically in the appeal, but that I did so in a 'big' way. I believe that you do need to address this matter immediately. I will expect a clear and direct answer. That means no evasive answers. By the way, may I remind you that the name of your thread is, 'Admitting you're wrong.'

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

Let us see if Dr. Conspiracy practices what he preaches.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

This is the current answer at Dr. Conspiracy's:

"bob 29. Jul, 2010 at 12:59 pm bob(Quote) #
Hi, Mario! Welcome back!

Hundreds of words wasted over not specifying that you failed to cite Berg in your opening brief. Where you should have cited it.
Mario Apuzzo 29. Jul, 2010 at 1:12pm Mario Apuzzo(Quote) #

This is my response:

"Let’s not be dishonest. jamese777 said I did not cite Berg in my appellate “briefs” and Dr. Conspiracy said I did not cite Berg in the “Appeal.” It is rather sickening to receive comments such as yours. You really do need to get a real life somewhere. You and many on this cite are nothing but deceivers in how you have addressed the so-called my ethical issue in the Kerchner appeal. I will expect an immediate answer from Dr. Conspiracy, and not such as I got from you. In default thereof, we will have to take this matter up in a different venue.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

Tami said...

FYI, Mr. Apuzzo. On Sun Aug 01 2010 13:14:39 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) jamese777 was still claiming you are to be sanctioned by the Courts from their Order To Show Cause -although the Court has reversed themselves in their most recent ruling.

The order with a link to your scribd account has been posted and James has been called out for "lying by omission". Your win on Appeal should put an end to this issue. There are those of us who want the truth to be told, regardless where it may lead, others not so much......

Thank you for all your doing.

cfkerchner said...

This is a moderated blog with posted rules. People querying via making comments in their other comment attempts about why certain previous comments were not put through should read the Blog rules again. The answer lays therein. If you still don't understand why, send a private email to the blog owner or this editor. Contact information was provided in an immediately previous comment in another thread and is also found in the upper right corner of this blog and in the P.S. below. To read the rules again, the link to them is found in the right frame a few inches down from the top. This is not a free for all public soap box type forum. Also to the complaining OBOTS trying to post, and closet OBOT double-agents, working the net trying to plant subtle messages and misleading and obfuscating comments and information can go elsewhere. That is also in the rules. There are plenty of those free for all, say want you want, type sites on the net.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Contributor and Editor

P.S. To contact this editor privately use the contact button at:

Praveen Sudarsan said...

Great Writing. I Found your article on us citizenship questions to be quite informative.I would love to view this website again as and when you update. Mean while I do have a website which contains some information on
Becoming a Citizen of United States.

Do visit our website whenever you find time.