Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, July 22, 2010
Just in from Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress.
“For Immediate Release – 22 July 2010
Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s Legal ‘Response’ to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal Order is Successful.
The U.S. 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 | by Attorney Mario Apuzzo
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 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.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 22, 2010
For additional information and/or comment contact Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg NJ at: