Category Archives: Civil Complaint

Kerchner v Obama update, October 1, 2010, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed, US Supreme Court

Kerchner v Obama update, October 1, 2010, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed, US Supreme Court

From Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama, et al.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30 September 2010, 8:00 P.M. EDT

CONTACT: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Tel:  732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: apuzzo@erols.com

Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit.

JAMESBURG, NJ – (Sept. 30, 2010) – Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington DC, on behalf of plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell  T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ.  Plaintiffs are challenging the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, which affirmed the dismissal by District Judge, Jerome  Simandle, sitting in the Federal District Court, Camden, NJ,  of plaintiffs’ lawsuit in which they charge that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has NOT conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is Article II,  Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and that he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born Citizen of the United States 

Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen to a British Subject/Citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother.  Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and never intended to be one. Obama’s father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident. Obama’s father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship. According to this lawsuit, Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiance and loyalty and is therefore  not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the President to have unity of citizenship and sole natural allegiance to the USA from the moment of birth, which Obama does not and cannot have. This was a national security issue to the founders and framers.
Obama has multiple foreign allegiance claims on him because of his British citizenship which also converted to Kenyan citizenship at age 2.  Obama was also an Indonesian citizen as a youth when he was adopted or acknowledged by his Indonesian step-father when he married his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.   
The lawsuit seeks a trial on the merits to determine the true facts of Obama’s legal identity and exact citizenship status and to require Obama to prove to the courts that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The legal term of art, natural born citizen, is defined by the world renowned legal scholar, Emer de Vattel, in his pre-eminent legal treatise and enlightenment to the world of jurisprudence in the revolutionary period, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, and which was used by the founders by the Continental Congress during the formation of our country and by the framers of our U.S. Constitution, and whose definition of natural born Citizen is incorporated in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Vattel and U.S. Supreme Court decisions agree that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country.  Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA. Thus Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.

The original lawsuit was filed early in the morning of January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn in.  The case was dragged out by delays by the government in addressing the case and deciding on whether the case would proceed to a fact finding trial on the merits or not. The courts have decided that it will not go to the merits and have dismissed the case using technical and procedural tactics to keep the Plaintiffs from getting to the merits of the charges.

By the lower Courts finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the lower Courts were able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know conclusively where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Being a born “Citizen of the United States” is a necessary part but is NOT sufficient to be an Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States”.  We have asked the relevant questions and provided for the U.S. Supreme Court in our Petition various reasons why it should accept this case and promptly resolves this constitutional crisis. 
 
–more–
A copy of the Petition for the Writ of Certiorari may be viewed and downloaded at this site. 

For a copy of the Petition and more information about the lawsuit see these links:
Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al Lawsuit
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-at-250-am-20Jan2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09Feb2009

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17748032/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Docket-Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22556305/Docket-Report-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-U-S-3rd-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Philadelphia-PA
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-kerchner-v-obama-congress-case-is.html

http://puzo1.blogspot.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

For additional comments or information please contact Mario Apuzzo, Attorney at Law, 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, NJ, 08831, Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax:
732-521-3906, Email: Apuzzo@erols.com

Philip J Berg update, September 27, 2010, Berg interview, Laurie Roth Show, Talk radio

Philip J Berg update, September 27, 2010, Berg interview, Laurie Roth Show, Talk radio

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

Philip J Berg will be on the Laurie Roth show tonight, September 27, 2010, at 8:00  pm  Eastern Standard Time.

Listen live at:

http://therothshow.com

Call into the show and ask questions by dialing (877) 999-7684.

Kerchner v Obama, Update, September 15, 2010, Charles Kerchner lead plaintiff, Mario Apuzzo attorney

Kerchner v Obama, Update, September 15, 2010, Charles Kerchner lead plaintiff, Mario Apuzzo attorney

Just in from Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama.

For Immediate Release – 15 September 2010

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Charles Kerchner will be on the Conservative Monster Radio Show, hosted by Steve Cooper, Blog Talk Radio, Wed 15 Sep 2010 9 PM EST.  They will be discussing the latest status of the Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military and the election fraud orchestrated by Nancy Pelosi and others in the 2008 presidential election. The case is currently being prepared for filing a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/09/atty-mario-apuzzo-cdr-charles-kerchner.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Lakin court martial, Commander in Chief, Chain of command, Citizen Wells open thread, September 5, 2010

Lakin court martial, Commander in Chief, Chain of command

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”…US Military officer’s oath of office
Officers in the service of the United States are
bound by this oath to disobey any order that
violates the Constitution of the United States.

From Citizen Wells August 5, 2010.

As you read the following, be aware of another important point, there is no time restriction on the president being found to be ineligible.

“Notice the emphasis placed on eligibility in the presidential line of succession.
 US Code
TITLE 3 > CHAPTER 1 > § 19
§ 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
(a)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.
(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President.
(c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that—
(1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and
(2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals.
(d)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
(2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.
(3) The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President.
(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro tempore, and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them.
(f) During the period that any individual acts as President under this section, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by law in the case of the President.”

Much has been said orders being tied to the Commander in Chief and the chain of command. Here is what a US Army soldier must understand about the chain of command.

From the US Army Study Guide.

Chain of Command List

Posted Monday, July 23, 2007

Commander-in-Chief  -President George W. Bush
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff  -General Peter Pace
Army Chief of Staff
 -General George W. Casey, Jr. 
Theater Commander  –
Corps Commander  –
Division Commander  –
Brigade Commander  –
Battalion Commander  –
Company/Troop Commander  –
Platoon Leader  –
Section/Squad/Team Leader

Read more:

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/chain_of_command/chain-of-command-list.shtml

From Army Command Policy April 27, 2010
“1–5. Command
a. Privilege to command. Command is exercised by virtue of office and the special assignment of members of the
United States Armed Forces holding military grade who are eligible to exercise command. A commander is, therefore,
a commissioned or warrant officer who, by virtue of grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over
a military organization or prescribed territorial area that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a “command.”
The privilege to command is not limited solely by branch of Service except as indicated in chapter 2. A
civilian, other than the President as Commander-in-Chief (or National Command Authority), may not exercise command.”

Read more:

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_20.pdf

Robert F Bauer, Patrick Fitzgerald, Elena Kagan, Obama puppets, Citizen Wells open thread, August 13, 2010

Robert F Bauer, Patrick Fitzgerald, Elena Kagan, Obama puppets

What do Robert F. Bauer, Patrick Fitzgerald and Elena Kagan have in common?

This will help jog your memory on Bauer.

“Case 2:08-cv-04083-RBS Document 15 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 2 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, :
:
Plaintiff :
:
v. : Civ. Action No. 2:08-cv-04083-RBS
:
BARACK OBAMA, et al., :”
“MOTION OF DEFENDANTS
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING DECISION ON DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), defendants Democratic National Committee
and Senator Barack Obama respectfully move the Court for a protective order staying all
discovery in this action pending the Court’s decision on defendants’ motion to dismiss
the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.”
“Respectfully submitted,”
“Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com
“I. Procedural Background
In his Complaint, plaintiff Berg alleges that Senator Barack Obama, the
Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States, is not eligible to serve as
President under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution because, Mr. Berg alleges
(falsely), Senator Obama is purportedly not a natural-born citizen. Complaint ¶3. Mr.
Berg seeks a declaratory judgment that Senator Obama is ineligible to run for President;
an injunction barring Senator Obama from running for that office; and an injunction
barring the DNC from nominating him.

On September 15, 2008, plaintiff Berg served on Senator Obama’s office a
request for production of seventeen different categories of documents, including copies of
all of the Senator’s college and law school applications, requests for financial aid, college
and law school papers, and “a copy of your entire presidential file pertaining to being
vetted.” Plaintiff also served 56 requests for admission on Senator Obama. On that same
date, plaintiff served on the DNC 27 requests for admission and requests for production
of five categories of documents, including all documents in the possession of the DNC
relating to Senator Obama.1

On September 24, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, on the grounds that, as a
matter of law, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for
President of the U.S. and has no federal cause of action.”

“In this case, as in Weisman and Norfolk Southern Rwy., defendants’ pending
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would dispose of the entire
action. The motion does not involve any disputed issues of fact: defendants contend that,
as a matter of law, plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the qualifications of a candidate
for President and that there is no federal cause of action that could serve as a means for
such a challenge. Thus, discovery is not needed in order to rule on the motion. In these
circumstances, a stay of discovery is warranted and appropriate.”

“For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant the motion of defendants
DNC and Senator Barack Obama for a protective order staying discovery pending a

decision on their motion to dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,”
Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: (202) 628-6600
Facsimile: (202) 434-1690

RBauer@perkinscoie.com

Philip J Berg v Obama update, August 9, 2010, Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC, Berg as Relator vs. Obama

Philip J Berg v Obama update, August 9, 2010, Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC

From Philip J Berg.

For Immediate Release:  – 08/08/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire         
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                         
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg Files a Petition for Rehearing Court EN BANC
in the Case of
Berg as Relator vs. Obama
* * *
No Surprise that Attorney General Holder
Will “not” Prosecute “blacks” in Voting Rights Cases
as he has Refused to Prosecute Obama
in this False Claims Act Case
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/08/2010) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “Constitutional qualifications” to serve as President of the United States.  The Policy of United States Attorney General Eric Holder not to prosecute “blacks” in voting rights cases should be no surprise as A.G. Holder has refused to prosecute Barack Hussein Obama in the False Claims Act [Qui Tam] case of Berg as Relator vs. Obama.

Berg said, “The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, his offices and staff, including the Department of Justice have a clear Conflict-of-Interest in any type of prosecution against Obama.”

“This type case is usually utilized in Medicaid and Medicare cases where fraud is alleged.  In the case against Obama, I set forth that Obama is not “natural born” or “naturalized” but an “illegal alien” and therefore, his term as a United States Senator from Illinois was fraud and the salary and benefits Obama received must be returned to the United States Treasury, an amount in excess of One [$1] Million Dollars.  I base my claim on the fact that Obama was adopted/acknowledged by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia and Obama’s legal name became “Barry Soetoro.”  At age ten [10] when he returned to Hawaii, I allege that he did not go through U.S. Immigration on a U.S. Passport, but did so on his Indonesia Passport,  therefore, an “illegal alien.”  Also, I allege that “Barry Soetoro” [former Barrack Hussein Obama] has never legally changed his name and therefore, he has committed ongoing fraud by using Barrack Hussein Obama.

“The United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, reports directly to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, Soetoro/Obama; was senior legal advisor to Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential campaign; and served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee and thus a major Conflict-of-Interest existed and still exists with my, Berg’s, False Claim or Qui Tam Case.” 

Berg’s False Claims Act [Qui Tam] Case was originally filed in the United States District Court, District of Columbia at the end of 2008.  The U.S. District Court Dismissed the Qui Tam Action and failed to respond to the issue of the Conflict-of- Interest.  Berg Appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who on June 30, 2010, upheld the District Court’s ruling and in so doing stated that Berg failed to demonstrate that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, have a Conflict-of-Interest.  This simply is not the case.

Government employees are required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations, which clearly spell out the issue of Conflict-of-Interest.  Just to name a few, Eric Holder’s placement with Obama through Obama’s campaign are in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder reports directly to Obama, the violator, spells out a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder gives opinions and legal advice to the alleged violator, is a clear Conflict-of-Interest under the Code of Federal Regulations; the fact Eric Holder was the Senior Legal Advisor to Obama’s Presidential campaign violates the Code of Federal Regulations under Conflict-of-Interests; and the fact Eric Holder served as one of three [3] members on Obama’s Vice-Presidential Selection Committee are all clear Conflict-of-Interests in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations.

For this reason, Berg has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  When a case is brought to the United States Appellate Court, the matter or a three-Judge panel hears matters complained of.  When you request a rehearing En Banc, you are asking for the majority of active Circuit Judges to rehear the case En Banc. 

Many Appellate Courts, who have a large number of Judges and a large caseload, will divide the Cases (Appeals) into divisions or panels for each case.  For example, three [3] judge panels usually hear United States Appeals Court cases.  There are times however, at the request of the panel, or one of the litigants, the case is later reheard by the full court, or, En Banc.  En Banc is a French word that means “the full Court”.  When a Petition for a Rehearing En Banc is filed, the party filing the Petition is asking for the Full Court to rehear the matter complained of on Appeal.

Berg said, “If a Conflict-of-Interest does not exist in this case, Berg as Relator vs. Obama, then the words ‘Conflict-of-Interest’ must be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and from all legal and other dictionaries.”

Berg concluded, “If we are denied a rehearing En Banc, then I will take this Case to the U.S. Supreme Court as the issues presented are far too important not to address.”

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
http://obamacrimes.com

Philip J Berg Obama lawsuit, Update, August 4, 2010, Obama should resign, Same advice as Rangel

Philip J Berg Obama lawsuit, Update, August 4, 2010, Obama should resign

From Philip J Berg August 4, 2010.

For Immediate Release:  – 08/04/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire         
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12                         
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL  [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg Says That Obama
Should Do As He Said Regarding
Congressman Rangel
and End Your Career with Dignity
and
Wishes Obama or rather Soetoro a Happy Birthday

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/04/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States says that “Obama Should Do As He Said Regarding Congressman Charlie Rangel, D–N.Y. and End Your Career With Dignity.”

Obama’s comments were directed to Congressman Rangel who is under investigation for violating Congressional Ethics Rules with 13 violations and Obama said he hopes the 80-year-old lawmaker can end his career with dignity now.

Obama, speaking on the issue for the first time, praised Rangel for serving his New York constituents over the years, but said he found the ethics charges “very troubling.”
Obama continued, “He’s somebody who’s at the end of his career. I’m sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens,” Obama said in an interview that aired last Friday on “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.”

Berg said, “The charges against Obama are much more serious than Rangel’s as Obama’s actions rise to the level of treason as Obama is an Imposter; Obama is a Phony and has committed Fraud as this is the largest ‘Hoax’ against the United States in the history of our country, over 230 years !”

Berg also wishes Barry Soetoro [Barack Hussein Obama] a Happy and Hopefully Truthful 49th Birthday.

Berg has been demanding that Obama resign because he has failed to produce his long form [vault] Birth Certificate to show he is “Constitutionally eligible” being “natural born” to be President and citizenship documentation that he is even “naturalized” after being adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia with his name being changed to “Barry Soetoro” and his return to the United States at age ten [10] and evidence that he has legally changed his name back to Barack Hussein Obama. 

    I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ Forefathers and for the 3.2 million men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution with our ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to prove that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.” 

Berg continued, “I still have a case pending in the Federal Courts.  Go to obamacrimes.com to see the status of the case.”
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
http://obamacrimes.com

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Update, July 31, 2010, Alex Jones interview, Citizen Wells open thread

Philip J Berg lawsuit, Update, July 31, 2010, Alex Jones interview

Why has Obama employed so many private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

Alex Jones interviews Philip J Berg who initiated a lawsuit in August of 2008 to challenge Obama’s eligibility.

Kerchner v Obama and Congress, Update, July 22, 2010, Attorney Mario Apuzzo not liable for costs, US Third Circuit Court of Appeals

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

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-finds.html

—————————————————–

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
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
###
——————————————————

For additional information and/or comment contact Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg NJ at:

Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Email:  apuzzo@erols.com
Tel:  732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906″

Larry Sinclair lawsuit, Dan Parisi, WhiteHouse.com, Law firm retainer, Sinclair request

Larry Sinclair lawsuit, Dan Parisi, WhiteHouse.com, Law firm retainer, Sinclair request

Larry Sinclair has requested that I post the following comment today, June 23, 2010.
“Larry Sinclair for Congress 2010 I have found a seasoned Law office which specializes in Defamation/slander cases. I need to raise $5000.00 to retain their services. Can we get 100 people who want the truth known to contribute $50.00 each towards the $5000.00 retainer needed to secure the services of this law firm? Each one can be made through http://www.paypal.com and sent to email address: minnman0926@aol.com. If you click the personal tab and make sure “gift” is marked paypal will not deduct any fees from the contribution. Lets show Dan Parisi and DC’s most powerful Law Firm that we will fight for the truth.”

Larry called at 10:25 AM ET and asked that I add the following:

“I am putting up the title to my home and to my car to secure the retainer.”

Read more:

http://larrysinclair.com/index.html