Main Menu

Appeals court shows Apuzzo the “red card”

Kerchner v Obama

The demonization of President Obama takes many forms, from eschatological views that Obama is ending life as we know it to the “birther movement” that seeks to get around the constitutional process by which we elect presidents to undo the last election in the courts. The courts are having nothing of it and have once again rejected this ploy.

In honor of the World Cup, I use the soccer/football analogy of a red card to characterize rulings by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding attorney Mario Apuzzo’s appeal in the case of Kerchner v. Obama which the court characterized as frivolous. Apparently beating a dead horse is against federal court rules.

Thanks to commenter Rickey for the links and I take this opportunity to again thank many other commenters here for their valuable contributions.

Print Friendly

,

187 Responses to Appeals court shows Apuzzo the “red card”

  1. avatar
    James July 2, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    OUCH! This one hurt! I bet Charles Kerchner is major leagued pissed off. It would be useless to appeal to SCOTUS. There is an absolute 0% that SCOTUS will take the case. I wish Mario and Charles the best of luck and god blessings. Mario should do what he can to avoid sanction and then Charles and Mario need to throw their support behind LTC Terry Lakin. Terry Lakin is only hope at this point. Since Lakin is a criminal case, his case can’t easily be dismissed without violating Terri’s right to due process and a fair trial.

  2. avatar
    Rickey July 2, 2010 at 3:14 pm #

    Doc,

    I’m glad you caught this before leaving town. Have a great vacation.

  3. avatar
    Rickey July 2, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    James: .Mario should do what he can to avoid sanction and then Charles and Mario need to throw their support behind LTC Terry Lakin.Terry Lakin is only hope at this point.Since Lakin is a criminal case, his case can’t easily be dismissed without violating Terri’s right to due process and a fair trial.

    James, do you not understand that a dismissal would be a good thing for Lakin?

  4. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree July 2, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    Rickey:
    James, do you not understand that a dismissal would be a good thing for Lakin?

    The birthers have no actual concern for Lakin. And now one of them is wishing support (and presumably brilliant legal skills) of the soon-to-be-sanctioned Mario? With friends like that….

  5. avatar
    SluggoJD July 2, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    James: There is an absolute 0%……

    Yup, an absolute 0% chance of success for you and your partner Lucas, who can float in the air and talks to a magic “Metronoma” – which talks back as the Virgin Mary!

    BTW, does anyone know what an airbrush is used for? Bueller?
    (scroll down to feedback on Feb 8th 2008 at 14:51 – you might have to look at a different page, since this seller gets a lot of feedback)

    Positive feedback rating Great serive on Ebay. Highly recommended! A+ Buyer:
    Member id colmado_naranja ( Feedback Score Of 89Blue star icon for feedback score in between 50 to 99)

    No longer a registered user Feb-03-08 14:51
    Badger 1/4″ Compressor Adapter for Air Brush (#350014567479) US $2.77

  6. avatar
    SluggoJD July 2, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    sorry, my last comment should say “scroll down to feedback on Feb 3rd 2008 at 14:51″

  7. avatar
    richCares July 2, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    James, James, James, you should remove your head from your rear end long enough to look at the wall.on the Lakin case. On that wall is handwriting that says “Lakin is going down”. Pay attention will you!
    .
    No dear James, Lakin’s case is not the best hope, it’s a case of NO HOPE for Lakin.

  8. avatar
    ASK Esq July 2, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    Doc,

    Long time reader, first time writer (I listen to a lot of sports radio).

    Glad this came down before you left. It should help you enjoy your vacation even more.

    Any bets on, once Mario gets hit with sanctions, who pays first, him or Orly?

  9. avatar
    Rickey July 2, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    The lunatic fringe begins to chime in. From Mario’s blog:

    Blogger Spaulding said…

    While Mario and the Commander expected the appeal to fail, the court’s use of Berg and Hollister is insulting. We are approaching the criteria expressed in The Declaration in which patriots rejected the tyranny of the annointed. The tone and reasoning of this rejection are exemplified by the arrogance of this federal court.

    While the courts avoid their sworn allegiance to the Constitution behind their invented doctrine of standing, they won’t be able to hide from “the people.” I will contribute to Cmder Kerchner again, though my business is dead, with the hope that Mr. Apuzzo will explain to the the growing number of the injured, that the courts won’t honor the Constitution because too many of us have been injured by the actions of a president whose authority has not been granted by our rule of law.

    Let us keep a list of those paid and sworn to uphold the Constitution who fail their to execute their duties and refer to that list when we take it back – and we will take it back!

    July 2, 2010 12:41 PM

  10. avatar
    bovril July 2, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Quick James……to the Orly Mobile

    Since your credulity knows no bounds, I’m sure you believe the latest conspiracy insanity from Orly…….the infamous TACMARS

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12106

    Yes folks, Orly is now buying into the lovely theory that embedded in all the countries road signs, Walmart direction arrows etc is a fiendishly clever seekrit code telling the NWO invaders where to go….

    Me I would personally prefer a map…..but hey, I’m an old fashioned sort of chap.

    Feel free to Google Tacmars but remember to load up on extra heavy duty aluminium foil first…>8-)

    I really feel Glorious Leader has just about tipped into clinical madness now…before she was just f*ing stupid

  11. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett July 2, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    James: Terry Lakin is only hope at this point.

    “help me, Terry Lakin… you’re my only hope…”

  12. avatar
    BatGuano July 2, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    bovril:>Yes folks, Orly is now buying into the lovely theory that embedded in all the countries road signs, Walmart direction arrows etc is a fiendishly clever seekrit code telling the NWO invaders where to go….

    the NWO is too cheap to spring for a few garmins ??? you’d think that world domination would have a better budget.

  13. avatar
    BatGuano July 2, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett:
    “help me, Terry Lakin… you’re my only hope…”

    if you take off the restraining bolt James can play back the entire message.

  14. avatar
    Majority Will July 2, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    BatGuano:
    the NWO is too cheap to spring for a few garmins ??? you’d think that world domination would have a better budget.

    No, but they will have sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads!

  15. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 2, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    Majority Will:
    No, but they will have sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads!

    The brithers will probably attach a frickin’ laser beam to Orly’s head to fight them…

  16. avatar
    Saint James July 2, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    KERCHNER v OBAMA

    Case: 09-4209 Document: 003110204058
    Date Filed: 07/02/2010

    OPINION OF THE COURT

    Appellants challenge the District Court’s order
    dismissing their complaint. We will affirm the order of
    dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just
    damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having
    filed a frivolous appeal.

    DEAD END FOR BIRTHERS

  17. avatar
    Majority Will July 2, 2010 at 6:02 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    The brithers will probably attach a frickin’ laser beam to Orly’s head to fight them…

    She allegedly has training in tae kwan do, pulling teeth and spanking legal assistants and witnesses.

  18. avatar
    bovril July 2, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Majority Will: No, but they will have sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads!

    J’accuse…..You read The Register…..

  19. avatar
    Jules July 2, 2010 at 6:20 pm #

    James: It would be useless to appeal to SCOTUS. There is an absolute 0% that SCOTUS will take the case.

    I would not be surprised if an appeal is nevertheless filed with the Supreme Court. Someone who wished to avoid filing useless legal actions would not have brought the initial claim, much less an appeal to the Third Circuit.

  20. avatar
    Majority Will July 2, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

    bovril:
    J’accuse…..You read The Register…..

    O.C. or U.K.? (j/k) :-)

  21. avatar
    Reality Check July 2, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    I am sure Mario will post a heart felt apology to Doc and the “obots” this weekend for his disdainful posts about how some folks pointed out that the Appellate Court would give great weighting to their recent decision in Berg v Obama. You know, that is the case that Mario omitted from his over-length brief that he filed? It seems the Court agreed with the “obots” this time and decided it was quite relevant. Of course, Mario shouldn’t feel alone tonight. He has company. He can share a shot with Berg, Taitz, and the other inept birther attorneys who have complied the longest losing streak in the history of litigating a single issue.

  22. avatar
    Majority Will July 2, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    Reality Check: I am sure Mario will post a heart felt apology to Doc and the “obots” this weekend for his disdainful posts about how some folks pointed out that the Appellate Court would give great weighting to their recent decision in Berg v Obama. You know, that is the case that Mario omitted from his over-length brief that he filed? It seems the Court agreed with the “obots” this time and decided it was quite relevant. Of course, Mario shouldn’t feel alone tonight. He has company. He can share a shot with Berg, Taitz, and the other inept birther attorneyswho have complied the longest losing streak in the history of litigating a single issue.

    He can always fall back on the plumbing business with his brother Luigi. So many floating coins just waiting to be plucked. Then again, he’d probably fail at that too.

  23. avatar
    Daniel July 2, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    Ahh James, do take heart. There’s always the photonic rebound angle and palm fiber defense to fall back on.

  24. avatar
    Majority Will July 2, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    Daniel: Ahh James, do take heart. There’s always the photonic rebound angle and palm fiber defense to fall back on.

    NICE ! ! ! :-D

  25. avatar
    G July 2, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    Reality Check: I am sure Mario will post a heart felt apology to Doc and the “obots” this weekend for his disdainful posts about how some folks pointed out that the Appellate Court would give great weighting to their recent decision in Berg v Obama. You know, that is the case that Mario omitted from his over-length brief that he filed? It seems the Court agreed with the “obots” this time and decided it was quite relevant. Of course, Mario shouldn’t feel alone tonight. He has company. He can share a shot with Berg, Taitz, and the other inept birther attorneyswho have complied the longest losing streak in the history of litigating a single issue.

    LOL! Yeah that would be the day. Of course, all sane folks here, lawyers & non-lawyers alike have been saying form months all of the same things that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals spanked Mario & Kerchner on in their ruling.

    So Mario, you should have taken your head out of your ass and listened to us. As usual, we were completely right and as always, you were wrong.

    Maybe he’ll get enough sense to try to sufficiently grovel to the court to avoid being hit with the sanctions. However, considering his extreme ego and propensity for childish tantrums, I won’t be surprised at all if he fails to heed this lesson either and just makes it worse for himself in his response to the court.

  26. avatar
    G July 2, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    Oh yeah, almost forgot – I think many of us also made some fun predictions on this case a few months back, trying to guess how terse the Third Circuit Court of Appeals smackdown of Apuzzo would be.

    I can’t seem to remember which blog entry that was under or how many pages / paragraphs each of us predicted.

    I’m curious to look back and find out which of us “won” and was closest to the final ruling.

  27. avatar
    G July 2, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    LOL! According to scribd, Mario is currently reading all of the scribd links above on the court ruling.

    Why do I have feeling he’s in a dark and brooding mood at the moment…

  28. avatar
    Majority Will July 2, 2010 at 9:41 pm #

    G:
    So Mario, you should have taken your head out of your ass and listened to us.As usual, we were completely right and as always, you were wrong.

    I’m amazed he can breathe with his head wedged so firmly.

  29. avatar
    Ellid July 2, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    Daniel: Ahh James, do take heart. There’s always the photonic rebound angle and palm fiber defense to fall back on.

    You forgot to recalibrate the dilithium crystals. Dumping the warp core is a last resort.

  30. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 2, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    richCares: James, James, James, you should remove your head from your rear end long enough to look at the wall.on the Lakin case. On that wall is handwriting that says “Lakin is going down”. Pay attention will you!
    .
    No dear James, Lakin’s case is not the best hope, it’s a case of NO HOPE for Lakin.

    They say this all the time. It’s always the next one that’s the best hope. And when that one gets wrong for them, the next one is the best. And when that one goes wrong for them, the next one is the best…. This cycle of stupidity has been going on for more than two years

  31. avatar
    GeorgetownJD July 3, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    Excuse me for a moment while I step out of the room …

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  32. avatar
    GeorgetownJD July 3, 2010 at 12:07 am #

    Excuse me for a moment while I step out of the room …

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Okay. I composed myself.

  33. avatar
    bob July 3, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    For the record, on January 21, 2010, I predicted (correctly!) that Apuzzo would get sanctioned.

    And, Mario (who loves to lurk): I also predicted the 3d Circuit would be very unhappy about your failure to cite Berg in your opening brief.

    But, hey, we’re all liars and idiots here, right?; what could we possibly know about the law that Apuzzo doesn’t?

    One more time, Apuzzo: Stick to the cat ladies.

  34. avatar
    Lupin July 3, 2010 at 2:43 am #

    I didn’t predict anything, but I certainly hoped that the Courts would sanction Mario.

    Frankly, I believe that, like Orly, he ought to be dragged before the Bar Association and if not disbarred outright, at least be given a firm ultimatum.

    Is there any news regarding Orly and the Calif. Bar by the way?

  35. avatar
    bob July 3, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    Lupin: Frankly, I believe that, like Orly, he ought to be dragged before the Bar Association and if not disbarred outright, at least be given a firm ultimatum.Is there any news regarding Orly and the Calif. Bar by the way?

    The 3d Circuit went out of its way to cite the New Jersey rules on frivolous filings. That’s judge-talk for firing a signal flare — LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!

    As for Taitz, sadly no news to report.

  36. avatar
    Jules July 3, 2010 at 4:55 am #

    A key reason why the Supreme Court would refuse to hear an appeal is that lower courts all around the country are not divided in their treatment of this matter. The Supreme Court tends to hear cases where different circuit courts of appeals are reaching different and inconsistent conclusions about the same principle.

    The case law on standing is quite extensive and greatly limits the ability of any concerned citizen to bring an action because they feel vaguely threatened by a “usurper”. Moreover, the district and appellate courts that have applied this case law to birther claims have been consistent in finding that plaintiffs lack standing because alleged injury is speculative at best and/or the matter is a non-justiciable political question.

    Any competent lawyer would be able to recognise that the above means that there is no prospect of success in bringing a birther claim before the courts and that to bring such a claim is to waste the courts’ time. This is why it is only appropriate for the courts to sanction lawyers such as Taitz and Apuzzo.

  37. avatar
    BlackLion July 3, 2010 at 6:10 am #

    Anyone see this article? It seems that Jefferson and the founders were looking at English Common law in regards to the Constitution….If not he would not have used the word “subject” in the earlier draft…I think that cements that Jefferson and the other founders were thinking of “natural born subject” in determining the definition of what a natural born citizen meant….Definately not Vattel…

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38062085/ns/us_news/?gt1=43001

    WASHINGTON — Preservation scientists at the Library of Congress have discovered that Thomas Jefferson, even in the act of declaring independence from England, had trouble breaking free from monarchial rule.

    In an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote the word “subjects,” when he referred to the American public. He then erased that word and replaced it with “citizens,” a term he used frequently throughout the final draft.

    The Library released news of the struck word for the first time on Friday.

    Fenalla France, a research chemist at the Library, said her lab made the discovery last year by using hyperspectral imaging, using a high resolution digital camera that compiles a series of images to highlight layers of a document. Some of those invisible layers — like erased text and even fingerprints — pop into view on a computer screen.

    In switching from “subjects” to “citizens,” France said it appears Jefferson used his hand to wipe the word out while the ink was still wet. A distinct brown smudge is apparent on the paper, although the word “subjects” is not legible without the help of the digital technology.

    “This has been a very exciting development,” France said, calling the findings “spine-tingling.”

    Historic, handwritten documents reveal clues about the past that word processors cannot illuminate, said James Billington, librarian of Congress.

    “It shows the progress of his mind. This was a decisive moment,” Billington said. “We recovered a magic moment that was otherwise lost to history.”

    Accompanied by police escort, the document was unveiled outside its protective case for the first time in 15 years on Friday morning for a demonstration of the hyperspectral imaging technology. It normally can only be viewed through a 130-poundb oxygen-free safe.

    Donning a pair of white researchers’ gloves, Maria Nugent, director of the Library of Congress’ top treasures collection, slowly lifted a piece of off-white corrugated cardboard to reveal the rough draft of the Declaration, which includes handwritten corrections by both John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.

    “That’s a pretty good editorial committee,” said Billington, who was present for the procedure.

    The rough draft was written on two sheets of white legal-sized paper, on both the back and front sides of the sheets.

    The document was returned to the library’s vault on Friday after the testing.

    _____

    Online: The text of Jefferson’s rough draft can be viewed at http://www.myloc.gov.

  38. avatar
    Northland10 July 3, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    I am wondering if this ruling may cause Kreep to reconsider whether to continue his appeal (or others with appeals for that matter). Of course, with Orly tied up in his appeal, sort of, that may be difficult for him. I do not see Orly affected by this ruling.

  39. avatar
    Reality Check July 3, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    Northland10: I do not see Orly affected by this ruling.

    Orly brought a nearly identical case that was dismissed on similar grounds in lower court. The biggest effect on Orly (and Kreep) is that the Third Circuit sent a message that the Birthers cannot keep appealing these frivolous cases that have no chance of success. The Ninth Circuit may now follow the lead of the Third Circuit and go beyond a mere denial. We will know more when the opening briefs are filed. They are due on July 12. http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=u2j4kqij7jd36eh45q77s86o0o%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

  40. avatar
    DaveH July 3, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    I was hoping there was something from Apuzzo’s blog regarding the slap down to his case yesterday. As of yet, nothing. However, he did post an entry fairly early in the morning. Mario just doesn’t like this blog or the Obots.


    Puzo1 said…
    “Simply Saying Something Is So Does Not Make It So”—Rhodes v. Obama (September 16, 2009, the Hon. Clay D. Land of the United States District Court in Georgia).

    The insults to our intelligence continue in Obotdom. Now, at Dr. Conspiracy’s website, they say that Obama has proven that he was born in Hawaii and that the issues of in what hospital and who was present at the time of the birth are irrelevant. That sounds like saying I have proven I am a millionaire but the issue of how much money I have is not relevant.

    The Obot logic is amazing. Now they want us to accept their logic that Obama has conclusively proven thta he was born someplace (Honolulu) but the exact place where he was born (where in Honolulu) and those who were present to see him born in that exact place are irrelevant in testing whether the statement that he was born in Honolulu is true. How does one prove one was born someplace if one does not prove where in that place one was born and who was present to witness one being born there? How does one prove such a birth event occurred unless one produces evidence that someone was present to see the birth happen in a specific place? Surely, the Obots would not expect us to accept infant Obama himself as the witness to his own birth.

    Again, we are told by Obama and his enablers that we are not talking about a person who may have been born in a non-institutional setting (house, barn, hut, field, etc.) with no records or information available to people who may later question whether that birth occurred as alleged. Rather, in Obama’s case, the evidence needed to answer my two questions (exact place of birth and who was present at birth) should be readily available given that he alleges he was born in a modern U.S. hospital only in 1961. So I say to the obots, either produce the simple evidence or simply admit to the truth that Obama has not yet conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii.

    July 2, 2010 6:51 AM

    I so much enjoy their misery…. :)

  41. avatar
    Northland10 July 3, 2010 at 10:35 am #

    Reality Check: The biggest effect on Orly (and Kreep) is that the Third Circuit sent a message that the Birthers cannot keep appealing these frivolous cases that have no chance of success. The Ninth Circuit may now follow the lead of the Third Circuit and go beyond a mere denial.

    I should have made myself clearer (the hazard of attempting to be brief while posting from a mobile device). I was stating that I did not think the ruling would cause Orly to change her approach. I seriously doubt that any threat of sanctions, discipline or otherwise would do any good on her. However, I was wondering if the Third Circuit ruling might cause Kreep to reconsider if it is wise to keep pursuing this appeal given the possibility, as you point out, of the Ninth Circuit following the lead of the Third.

  42. avatar
    Majority Will July 3, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    DaveH: I was hoping there was something from Apuzzo’s blog regarding the slap down to his case yesterday. As of yet, nothing. However, he did post an entry fairly early in the morning. Mario just doesn’t like this blog or the Obots.


    I so much enjoy their misery….

    He’s a small person with an over inflated ego. I hope there is prison as well as sanctions in his near future.

  43. avatar
    Sef July 3, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    Here’s something for y’all that is somewhat OT, except for the very end. Enjoy!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7UmUX68KtE&feature=player_embedded

  44. avatar
    BatGuano July 3, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    ” That sounds like saying I have proven I am a millionaire but the issue of how much money I have is not relevant.”

    in this analogy mario wouldn’t be asking how much money you have but for the names of everyone that ever gave you any part of that million and the exact location you received those amounts.

    plus the birthers will probably want to see every original long-form dollar……. and not computer generated copies of so-called ” checks “.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 3, 2010 at 11:27 am #

    BatGuano: ” That sounds like saying I have proven I am a millionaire but the issue of how much money I have is not relevant.”in this analogy mario wouldn’t be asking how much money you have but for the names of everyone that ever gave you any part of that million and the exact location you received those amounts. plus the birthers will probably want to see every original long-form dollar……. and not computer generated copies of so-called ” checks “.

    Yep and they’ll also ask for the serial numbers on all those dollars including where they came from and the names and addresses of everyone who has ever handled those dollars

  46. avatar
    Sef July 3, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Yep and they’ll also ask for the serial numbers on all those dollars including where they came from and the names and addresses of everyone who has ever handled those dollars

    And if any of the serial numbers are out of sequence …

  47. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 3, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP:
    They say this all the time. It’s always the next one that’s the best hope. And when that one gets wrong for them, the next one is the best. And when that one goes wrong for them, the next one is the best…. This cycle of stupidity has been going on for more than two years

    Even the Boston Red Sox won more times than they did

  48. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 3, 2010 at 12:39 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Even the Boston Red Sox won more times than they did

    The DETROIT LIONS won more times than they did!

  49. avatar
    Gorefan July 3, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Simply Saying Something Is Not So Does Not Make It Not So.

    Mario doesn’t understand that the COLB is all that is relevant to place of birth and proof of citizenship. The hospital or witness names are relevant but are a “needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

    It’s up to Mario to produce relevant evidence that the President was not born in Hawaii. Which to date, he has not been able to do.

    So I say to Mario, either produce the simple evidence or simply admit to the truth that he cannot show that the President was not born in Hawaii.

  50. avatar
    charo July 3, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    Standing is as standing does? If I were Apuzzo and I were to appeal to SCOTUS, I would incorporate the case of Massachusetts et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. in the discussion of the standing issue. It appears, IMO, the Court will find standing when it wants to. Although the facts are not analogous to Apuzzo’s case, it also appears Roberts would be a tough sell on the standing issue based upon his dissent.

  51. avatar
    Reality Check July 3, 2010 at 12:47 pm #

    Northland10: I was stating that I did not think the ruling would cause Orly to change her approach.

    OK, I agree 100%. Until sanctions are collected and Yosef stops funding Orly’s freak show nothing else will stop her.

  52. avatar
    Greg July 3, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    Mario asks how you prove where you were born without showing the address or who watched you come out of Mom’s belly.

    Guess Mario has NEVER read the rules of evidence! The hearsay rules give a pretty good indication. Family bibles, baptism records, even community reputation is competent evidence to show place of birth. If Obama can’t appear, then his own past statements about being born in Hawaii is allowable – even though he couldn’t have witnessed his own birth!

  53. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 3, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    Greg: Mario asks how you prove where you were born without showing the address or who watched you come out of Mom’s belly.Guess Mario has NEVER read the rules of evidence! The hearsay rules give a pretty good indication. Family bibles, baptism records, even community reputation is competent evidence to show place of birth. If Obama can’t appear, then his own past statements about being born in Hawaii is allowable – even though he couldn’t have witnessed his own birth!

    Mario should stick to whatever he’s good at which to date no one seems to know what that is

  54. avatar
    Majority Will July 3, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Mario should stick to whatever he’s good at which to date no one seems to know what that is

    Generating enough hot air to float millions of balloons.

  55. avatar
    Sef July 3, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Generating enough hot air to float millions of balloons.

    Yeah, except he puts the opening at the top.

  56. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett July 3, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    I’m afraid that predicting legal defeats and woe for the Birthers is becoming as easy as predicting that the Kentucky Derby will be won by someone riding a horse.

  57. avatar
    bob July 3, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    charo: Standing is as standing does? If I were Apuzzo and I were to appeal to SCOTUS, I would incorporate the case of Massachusetts et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. in the discussion of the standing issue. It appears, IMO, the Court will find standing when it wants to. Although the facts are not analogous to Apuzzo’s case, it also appears Roberts would be a tough sell on the standing issue based upon his dissent.

    If I were Apuzzo, I’d quite while I was behind.

    Mass. v. EPA won’t be any help as SCOTUS ruled the state had standing distinct from its citizens. There’s no state asserting standing here.

    And Roberts was on the losing end of that issue, so there’s no need to “convince” him.

  58. avatar
    G July 3, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    charo: Standing is as standing does?If I were Apuzzo and I were to appeal to SCOTUS, I would incorporate the case of Massachusetts et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. in the discussion of the standing issue.It appears, IMO, the Court will find standing when it wants to. Although the facts are not analogous to Apuzzo’s case, it also appears Roberts would be a tough sell on the standing issue based upon his dissent.

    No, the law has been quite clear and fairly consistent on what the threshold requirements for standing are, which exist specifically to try to keep out frivolous lawsuits. Wishful thinking from those that don’t like Obama have no impact on established law.

    None of these cases have met those basic thresholds (which have been detailed on here numerous times). Furthermore, the courts have been quite consistent and clear in their rulings explaining why these birther cases fail the standing threshold.

    Therefore, at this point, it is completely both frivolous and egregious for any lawyer to try to continue to pursue any of these birther cases based on their same arguments.

    In 2012, during the next presidential campaign cycle, a situation might arise that the birthers can take advantage of to try to establish standing. Until then, the body of rulings to date have made clear that the issue is moot.

    Any foolhardy birther lawyer who continues to pursue these at this point openly invites and deserves strong sanctions.

  59. avatar
    charo July 3, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    G,

    Wouldn’t you say global warming affects all?

  60. avatar
    charo July 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    bob,

    I meant for an eligibility case, not the case where he dissented.

  61. avatar
    charo July 3, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    As scientist as said several times, the case to appeal is Ankeny. What a wasted opportunity for finality.

  62. avatar
    Sef July 3, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    charo: As scientist as said several times, the case to appeal is Ankeny.What a wasted opportunity for finality.

    Three guesses (and the first 2 don’t count) as to why they don’t appeal that to SCOTUS.

  63. avatar
    Sef July 3, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    G:
    LOL!Yeah that would be the day.Of course, all sane folks here, lawyers & non-lawyers alike have been saying form months all of the same things that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals spanked Mario & Kerchner on in their ruling.So Mario, you should have taken your head out of your ass and listened to us.As usual, we were completely right and as always, you were wrong.Maybe he’ll get enough sense to try to sufficiently grovel to the court to avoid being hit with the sanctions.However, considering his extreme ego and propensity for childish tantrums, I won’t be surprised at all if he fails to heed this lesson either and just makes it worse for himself in his response to the court.

    Next Mario will be complaining that the 3rd Circuit Justices read this blog & had one of the “real lawyers” who post here write the opinion.

  64. avatar
    brygenon July 3, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    charo: As scientist as said several times, the case to appeal is Ankeny.

    Ankeny and Kruse petitioned as high as the Supreme Court of Indiana, which denied transfer on the first of April. From then they had 90 day to petition SCOTUS, which expired just this week. I don’t see it on the docket, so that one looks dead.

    What a wasted opportunity for finality.

    Here in the real world, it’s been final for quite some time.

  65. avatar
    charo July 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    St

    Sef:
    Three guesses (and the first 2 don’t count) as to why they don’t appeal that to SCOTUS.

    1. Ankeny and Kruse aren’t lawyers and don’t know how to file an appeal to SCOTUS.

    2. Ankeny and Kruse gave up.

    3. Ankeny and Kruse lack funds.

    Arrange them any order you like.

  66. avatar
    charo July 3, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    st is not in code- I started to type Steve

    The time to appeal has passed so these would be the reasons why they did not appeal.

  67. avatar
    Sef July 3, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    charo: st is not in code- I started to type SteveThe time to appeal has passed so these would be the reasons why they did not appeal.

    That is the reason now, but during the 90 day period the real reason was that the birthers could not afford to have the SCOTUS rule against them, thus putting an end to ALL of their nonsense. With doubt they can still keep the PayPal accounts flowing.

  68. avatar
    brygenon July 3, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    What’s really funny is to look back at some of Mario Apuzzo’s writing. When he lost in the district court he tried various bits of spin including, “The Court also did not rule that the plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous.” Well, now we have a ruling on that.

    Mario was unimpressed with what the government’s brief said about standing. “In all my 27 years of law practice, I do not believe that I have come across a more absurd, ridiculous, and frivolous legal argument,” he wrote. Got that kind of backwards, it turns out.

    Just a couple weeks ago Mario wrote: “Putative President Obama’s supporters are out and about arguing that the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case and therefore the Third Circuit Court of Appeals should affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the case for lack of standing. This is not only an incredible statement but an outright lie.” Now that Mario has seen the result, I wonder if he will issue the appropriate retraction and apology.

  69. avatar
    bob July 3, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    Sef: That is the reason now, but during the 90 day period the real reason was that the birthers could not afford to have the SCOTUS rule against them, thus putting an end to ALL of their nonsense. With doubt they can still keep the PayPal accounts flowing.

    Exactly. Ankeny had a clear ruling that’s there’s no two-parent rule. If that’s so obviously wrong, why didn’t any attorney offer to represent them in front of SCOTUS? Why didn’t any birther attorney offer to take up the case?

  70. avatar
    brygenon July 3, 2010 at 5:17 pm #

    charo: count

    charo: 1. Ankeny and Kruse aren’t lawyers and don’t know how to file an appeal to SCOTUS.

    2. Ankeny and Kruse gave up.

    3. Ankeny and Kruse lack funds.

    What about: Ankeny and Kruse faced reality.
    Hmm… yeah, that doesn’t seem so likely.

    I got a kick out of their complaint because according them, I am not a natural-born citizen. I think I’m a natural-born citizen, but Ankeny and Kruse require that one be born in one of the fifty states to parents who are both citizens. I’m not clear on why being born in the nation’s capital should disqualify me, but hey, they make the rules.

  71. avatar
    Scientist July 3, 2010 at 5:46 pm #

    charo: Three guesses (and the first 2 don’t count) as to why they don’t appeal that to SCOTUS.
    1. Ankeny and Kruse aren’t lawyers and don’t know how to file an appeal to SCOTUS.
    2. Ankeny and Kruse gave up.
    3. Ankeny and Kruse lack funds.
    Arrange them any order you like.

    Any birther “attorney” would have been perfectly free to offer their services pro bono. Knowing the characters involved, I can surmise only 2 likely reasons. I suspect both are in operation:
    1. They don’t really want a ruling on the “merits”, since that would make abundantly clear the lack thereof. As things stand they can spend the next 2.5 years complaining about how unfair the world is, how the courts are conspiring against them and how they really would have won had they only gotten a hearing. Just like an armchair quarterback can pretend he would have won the Super Bowl had he only been given a chance to play. Suuure…
    2. Ego prevented any of them from taking on a mere pro se case that they didn’t concoct fron the beginning.

    Regardless, all cases are moot until 2012 when some lucky loser may get to spin the wheel again, with the same result…

  72. avatar
    Scientist July 3, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    brygenon: What a wasted opportunity for finality.
    Here in the real world, it’s been final for quite some time.

    charo-You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, so I am hard-pressed to understand why you have trouble accepting the simple fact that under the law as it exists today, anyone born in the US is eligible to be President. Now before you say, “But the courts could always rule otherwise”, think about how courts operate. They don’t exist in a vacuum. Judges read and listen to scholars of the law. There are many questions where such scholars are split. On those, certainly a court could rule either way. Even where scholars are split say 90/10, a court could conceivably support the minority position. But on the 2 citizen parent “argument”, legal scholars are unanimous. No disrespect intended to the poker player, defender of drunk drivers and the dentist (well, actually, disrespect is intended), but they simply are not in the universe of legal scholars.

    Now stack on top of that the fact that courts always show deference to the voters, Congress and the President (properly so, in a democracy). Do they occasionally over-rule all 3? Sure, but not often. And you can bet where they do, there is a substantial body of legal opinion on their side.

    On the birther cases the courts would have to over-rule voters and Congress and take on a sitting President and there is ZERO legal opinion to support them doing so. That simply isn’t going to happen.

    Finally, you seem reluctant to accept that the final word in this really lies with the voters and their elected representatives. Why do you have an issue with that? That’s what it means to live in a democracy. Domination of the political system by councils of “wise men” has never proven to work very well in practice. As Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst possible system, except for all others”.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 3, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    Scientist:
    Any birther “attorney” would have been perfectly free to offer their services pro bono.Knowing the characters involved, I can surmise only 2 likely reasons.I suspect both are in operation:
    1. They don’t really want a ruling on the “merits”, since that would make abundantly clear the lack thereof.As things stand they can spend the next 2.5 years complaining about how unfair the world is, how the courts are conspiring against them and how they really would have won had they only gotten a hearing.Just like an armchair quarterback can pretend he would have won the Super Bowl had he only been given a chance to play.Suuure…
    2. Ego prevented any of them from taking on a mere pro se case that they didn’t concoct fronthe beginning.Regardless, all cases are moot until 2012 when some lucky loser may get to spin the wheel again, with the same result…

    Scientist I’m starting to think that the reason these birther attorneys keep going at this is because there are enough gullible saps out there that will keep hitting the paypal button. They can probably get a few more years of donations if they just keep making stupid arguments.

  74. avatar
    G July 3, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    Scientist: Any birther “attorney” would have been perfectly free to offer their services pro bono. Knowing the characters involved, I can surmise only 2 likely reasons. I suspect both are in operation:
    1. They don’t really want a ruling on the “merits”, since that would make abundantly clear the lack thereof. As things stand they can spend the next 2.5 years complaining about how unfair the world is, how the courts are conspiring against them and how they really would have won had they only gotten a hearing. Just like an armchair quarterback can pretend he would have won the Super Bowl had he only been given a chance to play. Suuure…
    2. Ego prevented any of them from taking on a mere pro se case that they didn’t concoct fron the beginning.

    Regardless, all cases are moot until 2012 when some lucky loser may get to spin the wheel again, with the same result…

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Scientist I’m starting to think that the reason these birther attorneys keep going at this is because there are enough gullible saps out there that will keep hitting the paypal button. They can probably get a few more years of donations if they just keep making stupid arguments.

    My opinion is I agree completely with Scientist’s first reason & all the other info he stated, with exception to reason #2 – Even birther egos haven’t stopped the existing batch of birther “lawyers” from close to carbon-copying all of their suits of of one another yet. Besides, their egos are misplaced and many claim to be doing this “pro-bono” already, or at least that’s the excuse they use to get their gullible followers to keep pressing the PayPal button.

    Which leads me to what Bob Ross pointed out, which I also fully agree with and would make that my reason #2.

  75. avatar
    dp July 3, 2010 at 10:35 pm #

    Looked at Apuzzo’s site. Found this gem from a lunatic named “medical”:

    “If the ruling is not overturned, America shall effectively cease to exist. “We the People” shall not allow this nation to fall, we shall take whatever action is necessary.”

    A tad overwrought, perhaps? I mean, honestly, where do freaks like that come from?

  76. avatar
    G July 3, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    charo: G,

    Wouldn’t you say global warming affects all?

    Charo, in regards to global warming or climate change, the affects of such indeed would be broad, but although in the broadest sense it is definitely a “global issue”, the particular effects of such changes will differ from area to area and therefore if you are trying to allude to “specific harms”, those would be on a more limited regional basis as such effects are felt differently in different places.

    But back to topic, I think it is too much of a stretch to imply that case would be relevant to this issue, which is a clear political matter and addresses an entirely different set of circumstances and processes which are defined in both our elections law and our Constitution and its amendments, which address issues dealing with both electing and removing Presidents, including specifying the steps for succession. And the answer to that has farily consistently been that those powers reside with the Legislative branch of government.

    Also, as Bob has already pointed out, this isn’t a situation of the states asserting standing, so again, apples to oranges:

    bob: Mass. v. EPA won’t be any help as SCOTUS ruled the state had standing distinct from its citizens. There’s no state asserting standing here.

  77. avatar
    Majority Will July 3, 2010 at 11:06 pm #

    dp: Looked at Apuzzo’s site. Found this gem from a lunatic named “medical”:“If the ruling is not overturned, America shall effectively cease to exist. “We the People” shall not allow this nation to fall, we shall take whatever action is necessary.”A tad overwrought, perhaps? I mean, honestly, where do freaks like that come from?

    From listening to Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and Hannity (et al.) incite violence, civil war, sedition, mob rule and treason?

  78. avatar
    charo July 3, 2010 at 11:54 pm #

    G:
    Charo, in regards to global warming or climate change, the affects of such indeed would be broad, but although in the broadest sense it is definitely a “global issue”, the particular effects of such changes will differ from area to area and therefore if you are trying to allude to “specific harms”, those would be on a more limited regional basis as such effects are felt differently in different places.But back to topic, I think it is too much of a stretch to imply that case would be relevant to this issue, which is a clear political matter and addresses an entirely different set of circumstances and processes which are defined in both our elections law and our Constitution and its amendments, which address issues dealing with both electing and removing Presidents, including specifying the steps for succession.And the answer to that has farily consistently been that those powers reside with the Legislative branch of government.Also, as Bob has already pointed out, this isn’t a situation of the states asserting standing, so again, apples to oranges:

    The larger point is that Justices with the best of pedigrees so to speak, came out on different sides regarding standing. Additionally, did the court in the Berg case rely on similar facts regarding the issue of standing when making its ruling concerning the issue? I could be wrong, but I don’t think it did. Another point that may have been missed is that Roberts doesn’t appear to find standing that easily.

  79. avatar
    misha July 4, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    brygenon: I’m not clear on why being born in the nation’s capital should disqualify me, but hey, they make the rules.

    Gore was born in the District, as was Cory Booker.

    This crowd will say Booker was born in DC, so he’s not NBC. When they learn about Gore, they’ll say Booker’s father disqualfies him. That’s not true, but throw everything against a wall, and see what sticks. Then they’ll try to prove Booker was born in Canada.

    Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow.

  80. avatar
    misha July 4, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    misha: Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow.

    One more thing: at Oxford, Booker was president of Chabad!!

    I love the guy.

  81. avatar
    G July 4, 2010 at 12:59 am #

    charo: The larger point is that Justices with the best of pedigrees so to speak, came out on different sides regarding standing. Additionally, did the court in the Berg case rely on similar facts regarding the issue of standing when making its ruling concerning the issue? I could be wrong, but I don’t think it did. Another point that may have been missed is that Roberts doesn’t appear to find standing that easily.

    Charo, I really have no idea what you are referring to. I don’t see where judges have ruled differently on standing in regards to the issues at hand anywhere in modern times. I really have no idea where you are getting that from.

  82. avatar
    Keith July 4, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    The DETROIT LIONS won more times than they did!

    Ouch!

  83. avatar
    bob July 4, 2010 at 2:45 am #

    charo: Additionally, did the court in the Berg case rely on similar facts regarding the issue of standing when making its ruling concerning the issue? I could be wrong, but I don’t think it did. Another point that may have been missed is that Roberts doesn’t appear to find standing that easily.

    You are wrong. There is no substantial difference between Berg (as plaintiff) and the Kerchner plaintiffs. A competent attorney is expected to know this; many nonattorneys here (and elsewhere) did.

    And what is funny is that some of the Kerchner plaintiffs did absolutely nothing with respect to Obama. You literally couldn’t make a worse case for particularized injury.

  84. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 4, 2010 at 3:13 am #

    charo: The larger point is that Justices with the best of pedigrees so to speak, came out on different sides regarding standing.

    The Massachusetts v. EPA case is not relevant, because the court held, “Massachusetts has a special position and interest here. It is a sovereign State and not, as in Lujan, a private individual, and it actually owns a great deal of the territory alleged to be affected.”

    So basically that case holds that if Congress give authority to a federal agency to regulate in a manner that impacts a state — the state itself has standing to bring suit if the agency isn’t doing its job properly. I suppose that rationale might give the gulf stated standing to bring suit against federal agencies concerning the handling of the gulf oil spill — perhaps you could have “Louisiana vs. Mineral Management Service”, for example.

    But obviously, Kerchner is a person, not a state – so there is nothing about that case that would give him some sort of standing, under any possible rationale.

  85. avatar
    brygenon July 4, 2010 at 3:50 am #

    charo: The larger point is that Justices with the best of pedigrees so to speak, came out on different sides regarding standing.

    Cases where standing is a difficult question have nothing to do with the issue at hand. There are no dissents on birther cases. Birthers have lost every case, every appeal. Sometimes the appeals have been considered by multi-judge panels, and where the vote is disclosed it has been unanimous against the birther side every time.

  86. avatar
    brygenon July 4, 2010 at 4:27 am #

    bob: There is no substantial difference between Berg (as plaintiff) and the Kerchner plaintiffs. A competent attorney is expected to know this; many nonattorneys here (and elsewhere) did.

    Here’s a paragraph from the Third Circuit’s opinion on Berg that could about as well describe Kerchner:

    The essence of Berg’s complaint is that the defendants, the states, presidential candidates other than Obama, political parties, a majority of American voters, and Congress – a list that includes some who could have challenged, or could still challenge, Obama’s eligibility through various means – have not been persuaded by his claim. That grievance, too, is not one “appropriately resolved through the judicial process.”

  87. avatar
    Lupin July 4, 2010 at 6:15 am #

    As G correctly pointed out, standing or not, this (“this” being the judicial overthrow of an elected president) is not and never will be a matter that will be decided by the courts, any courts, ever.

    The birthers’ judicial quest is therefore quixotic at best, a fraudulent waste of time at worst, designed by venal lawyers like Mario to enrich themselves by bilking credulous folks out of money, and/or promote a racist (or xenophobic, if you will) agenda throughout the country — in which case the failure of the lawsuits only adds fuel to the machine.

    I think it is high time that the courts tear off the veil of pseudo-legality used by Mario, Orly et al and start sanctioning those mendacious practitioners.

  88. avatar
    charo July 4, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    G:
    Charo, I really have no idea what you are referring to.I don’t see where judges have ruled differently on standing in regards to the issues at hand anywhere in modern times.I really have no idea where you are getting that from.

    In the EPA case, it was a 5-4 decision. Roberts dissented based on standing. Others joined on the dissent, although I didn’t read if the other three agreed with him about standing. It boils down to Roberts’ disagreement with particularized harm, which has been the problem with the birther cases. If anyone had been relying on Roberts for a vote to take an eligibility case, I don’t see him being a yes. I disagree with you that those making the global warming argument think that only one state would be affected in a particular way, “global” being key.

    The Supreme Court would not take the Apuzzo case anyways.

  89. avatar
    Greg July 4, 2010 at 8:25 am #

    Charo, do you think those making the global warming case think that Kansas will be losing its coastal shoreline? Or that there will be increased hurricanes off the coast of Missouri?

    Massachusetts pointed to a concrete, particularized harm that was not shared by other states.

    Maybe someday, after global warming, Kansas will have coasts that will erode, but that’s a speculative harm, like the ones of the birthers.

  90. avatar
    Sef July 4, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    Rickey: The lunatic fringe begins to chime in. From Mario’s blog:BloggerSpaulding said…While Mario and the Commander expected the appeal to fail, the court’s use of Berg and Hollister is insulting. We are approaching the criteria expressed in The Declaration in which patriots rejected the tyranny of the annointed. The tone and reasoning of this rejection are exemplified by the arrogance of this federal court.While the courts avoid their sworn allegiance to the Constitution behind their invented doctrine of standing, they won’t be able to hide from “the people.” I will contribute to Cmder Kerchner again, though my business is dead, with the hope that Mr. Apuzzo will explain to the the growing number of the injured, that the courts won’t honor the Constitution because too many of us have been injured by the actions of a president whose authority has not been granted by our rule of law.Let us keep a list of those paid and sworn to uphold the Constitution who fail their to execute their duties and refer to that list when we take it back – and we will take it back!July 2, 2010 12:41 PM

    And Mario does nothing to calm the rhetoric. In my view he is guilty of inciting sedition.

  91. avatar
    Saint James July 4, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    Can it be that Orly is like Anna Chapman who is a Russian spy? Orly is a provocateur sent to start civil unrest! LOL!

  92. avatar
    Ellid July 4, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    What is it about birthers insisting that dissents are relevant to anything?

  93. avatar
    Rickey July 4, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    charo:
    It boils down to Roberts’ disagreement with particularized harm, which has been the problem with the birther cases.

    Actually, standing has been only one of the problems with the birther cases. Even if the plaintiffs could establish standing, they still have to demonstrate that they are making a claim for which the courts can provide relief. This brings us to the political doctrine issue, which states in effect that the courts are not to get involved in issues which are the province of another branch of government. The Constitution gives the courts no authority to remove a President from office. The plaintiffs also have to state a claim which is “plausible on its face,” and the fact of the matter is that the birthers have yet to produce a single scrap of admissible evidence which would point to Obama not being qualified to be President.

  94. avatar
    Vince Treacy July 4, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    The shoe dropped from Mario’s foot at 1:02 PM today.

    He will be working on his response to the show cause order until July 16th.

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

  95. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 4, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    charo: . Roberts dissented based on standing. Others joined on the dissent, although I didn’t read if the other three agreed with him about standing. It boils down to Roberts’ disagreement with particularized harm

    Charo, that’s true, but “standing” is not some sort of obscure idea that only comes up in certain cases. “Standing” is one of the bedrock principals of justiciability, something that must be shown in every case brought by any plaintiff. Any lawyer knows that to draft a complaint, it’s necessary for there to be a statement early on as to why the plaintiff has standing — this would be true in state as well as federal cases.

    The only reason you don’t see standing discussed more often is that in most cases, the plaintiffs do have standing and its obvious from their pleadings, usually inherent in the statement of how plaintiff has been injured.

    So your error is to see the issue come up in a totally different context, and then think that it would have relevance to the birther cases.

    You are correct that, from reading the Roberts dissent, it is clear that he has a very narrow view of standing. But you would be mistaken to think that because the other justices feel comfortable with the idea that a state has standing to sue a regulatory agency that sets standards that directly impact the land owned and the citizens of that state, that any judge would take that holding to apply to an individual citizen who is dissatisfied with the results of a national election.

  96. avatar
    Reality Check July 4, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

    Vince Treacy: The shoe dropped from Mario’s foot at 1:02 PM today.

    Kerchner’s comment is priceless. Charlie appears to spending his Independence Day wallowing in traitorous, Birfer, hatred of the Constitution in action.

  97. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 4, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    Was looking at a FOXbot blog this morning, and our “patriotic defenders of the Constitution” are using their 4th of July holiday to peddle birther propaganda published by a BRITISH rag, the Post & Fail. An article the Fail published, I think today, is saying that one Sharon Meroni is claiming she has standing to challenge Obama’s qualifications, which is the same silly claim they have made in every one of these cases only to find out they didn’t have standing when they come before a judge. From what I could find out about her, she is just another nutjob and is even being sued by another birther, Andy Martin, because of her recent outrageous claims. Anybody know anything about this nutjob? Martin calls her “a person who manifests an apparent personality disorder and sub clinical schizophrenia.”. That she “believes government exists as a playground for her paranoid fantasies.” And that “(t)here is no way Meroni could engage in bona fide legal activity because she is incompetent to engage in rational legal activity.” He also says in his filing that she sought to invoke an Illinois grand jury to attack the president. I searched for some information on this grand jury she tried to coerce into attacking the president but could find nothing. She sounds like another Walter Fitzpatrick-type whackjob. If anyone has any information on this grand jury thing she tried to do or anything else about her, please post it so I can inject some reality to the delusional world of a FOX blog.

  98. avatar
    James July 4, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    I guess the Apuzzo case pretty proves that Obama (Or those who represent him; DOJ) is spending a ton of money (Millions) to kept his records sealed. Why would DOJ worry about costs or damages if they hardly spent anytime fighting the case?

  99. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 4, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    James: I guess the Apuzzo case pretty proves that Obama (Or those who represent him; DOJ) is spending a ton of money (Millions) to kept his records sealed.Why would DOJ worry about costs or damages if they hardly spent anytime fighting the case?

    Since this was a ruling by the court, not the DOJ, it provides absolutely no proof for your lies about President Obama’s spending on legal defense and the most likely reason for the order to show cause is to discourage future frivolous lawsuits that waste everyone’s time.

  100. avatar
    Sef July 4, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    James: I guess the Apuzzo case pretty proves that Obama (Or those who represent him; DOJ) is spending a ton of money (Millions) to kept his records sealed.Why would DOJ worry about costs or damages if they hardly spent anytime fighting the case?

    And on this fine anniversary of our nation’s birth we hear again from the peanut gallery.

  101. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 4, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    James: I guess the Apuzzo case pretty proves that Obama (Or those who represent him; DOJ) is spending a ton of money (Millions) to kept his records sealed.Why would DOJ worry about costs or damages if they hardly spent anytime fighting the case?

    Maybe if you had read the judges’ ruling, you would have had that question answered. The judges specifically said that they were going to charge the plaintiffs for Obama’s costs in order to discourage other idiots from making the same dumb mistake as Kerchner did.

  102. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 4, 2010 at 8:18 pm #

    And when they actually charge him for Obama’s costs, there will be an order for the exact amount that Kerchner must pay Obama, so you can read it for yourself and find out that it really isn’t all that much. I saw one such order in one of these cases for $520.00.

  103. avatar
    Northland10 July 4, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: From what I could find out about her, she is just another nutjob and is even being sued by another birther, Andy Martin, because of her recent outrageous claims. Anybody know anything about this nutjob?

    I see you have discovered the “pot meet kettle” war in Chicago. Our lovely anti-Semite, to unstable to be accepted in the Illinois Bar, perennial candidate Andy Martin, refers to Sharon Maroni’s (aka Chalice Jackson), personality disorder. I suppose he should know about disorders quite well.

    Here is an earlier Doc C. article on Sharon/Chalice :

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/birther-blogger-tries-to-seal-records/

  104. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 4, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    Keyes had to pay costs when he lost a case and was ordered to pay Debra Bowen $350.00, Barack Obama $520.00, and Joe Biden $520.00. Not exactly a conspiratorial amount

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Keyes-BowenCosts.pdf

  105. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 4, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

    Thanks, Northland; that’s a big help. In addition to that, I found out that she had filed a case in DC to force a federal grand jury to investigate the president that was dismissed by Judge Lambreath ( http://ia311021.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.138098/gov.uscourts.dcd.138098.2.0.pdf ). There is a veritable maze of legal filings on Scribd, that she filed in several different names; in addition to Meroni, she also uses Chalice Jackson and Patriot’s Heart Network. I think she’s also a Jack Ryan stooge. Most of her filings are dozens of pages long and contain all the standard, delusional birther material.

  106. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 4, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    I see what she did. She filed that suit against the grand jury but got cold feet once she realized that what she had put in the suit would make her look like a moonbat. She tried to get the court file impounded but was refused by the judge. She then withdrew her suit and asked the judge for her materials back, which was granted. lmao. These “people.”

  107. avatar
    Reality Check July 4, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: If anyone has any information on this grand jury thing she tried to do or anything else about her, please post it so I can inject some reality to the delusional world of a FOX blog.

    There is a complete thread on Sharon Meroni, aka Chalice Jackson, aka Crystal Chalice at Politijab.com http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2998 Also, check out the Meroni folder on Jack Ryan’s Scribd page. The petitions. she filed trying to appear before the McHenry County, IL grand jury are fun reading.

  108. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 4, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

    Thanks, Reality. I’ll do that

  109. avatar
    Black Lion July 4, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    Vince Treacy: The shoe dropped from Mario’s foot at 1:02 PM today.He will be working on his response to the show cause order until July 16th.http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms.html

    Vince, it looks like the usual bluster from Mario, trying to spin his loss to the dwindling number of the “faithful”….And here is our buddy Kerchner’s response…

    cfkerchner said…
    The court has presented us for the weekend celebrating the birth of our nation, and the liberty and freedom it once stood for as a shining beacon to the world, with a despicable example of what our government has turned into. Our branches of government no longer wish to hear from the People. We are to sit here and take it and just keep quiet. We will not.

    The founders and all the men since who have sacrificed with their blood and even their very lives to gain and preserve our liberty and freedom will not have sacrificed in vain. We have lost a battle but not the war. We will stand to fight this battle to support and defend the Constitution. I took an oath to do so. And that oath was not just words to me. The battles will continue. And in the end the truth and the Constitution will win and the thugs and tyrants now controlling our government will face the justice of We the People who are the true sovereigns of this nation and government. These usurpers and thugs and their enablers will learn a lesson in the coming months and will be shown before the bar of justice of the People and in history for what they really are … power hungry tyrants, thugs, and deceivers. This war will be won by We the People. So help me God.

    CDR Charles Kerchner

  110. avatar
    Black Lion July 4, 2010 at 10:01 pm #

    Good article over at MM to check out…

    Where do WorldNetDaily readers think Obama was born?
    July 04, 2010 2:38 pm ET by Karl Frisch

    I suppose the only surprising result would be if readers of the prolific birther-pushing website actually picked Hawaii – where President Obama was born.

    Of course, they didn’t pick Hawaii though — they opted for Kenya. Remember, these people are bonkers as is the founder of WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah who has been fanning the flames of birther conspiracies for some time now.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007040020

  111. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 4, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    I like the way Kerchner claims in his response to the dismissal that he is “defending the Constitution,” yet he claimed in his lawsuit that the British Nationality Act is more of a controlling factor in determining who is a US citizen and who is not than the Constitution is. They speak out of both sides of their mouths. “Yes, I am defending the Constitution, but when it comes to Barack Obama, the Constitution can be damned. We favor the British Nationality Act instead.” lmao. idiots

  112. avatar
    charo July 4, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    Charo, that’s true, but “standing” is not some sort of obscure idea that only comes up in certain cases.“

    I never said that it was.

    Standing” is one of the bedrock principals of justiciability, something that must be shown in every case brought by any plaintiff. Any lawyer knows that to draft a complaint, it’s necessary for there to be a statement early on as to why the plaintiff has standing — this would be true in state as well as federal cases.The only reason you don’t see standing discussed more often is that in most cases, the plaintiffs do have standing and its obvious from their pleadings, usually inherent in the statement of how plaintiff has been injured.

    Yes, that is clear from most cases.

    So your error is to see the issue come up in a totally different context, and then think that it would have relevance to the birther cases.

    The first case cited by the Third Circuit in the Berg case had nothing to do with the facts at hand:

    “In sum, we agree with the District Court that Berg lacks
    standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury
    particularized to him. A prerequisite of standing is that the
    litigant has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact that is caused
    by the complained-of conduct by a defendant and that can be
    redressed by the court. Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188.”

    Taliaferro was a zoning case. The Lujan case, also cited, had nothing to do with the facts of the Berg case. Can you point to any of the cases in the Berg decision that were in the same context? These cases are cited for the proposition of standing.

    You are correct that, from reading the Roberts dissent, it is clear that he has a very narrow view of standing. But you would be mistaken to think that because the other justices feel comfortable with the idea that a state has standing to sue a regulatory agency that sets standards that directly impact the land owned and the citizens of that state, that any judge would take that holding to apply to an individual citizen who is dissatisfied with the results of a national election.

    I didn’t say that it was a slam dunk. I said it was an argument. Strategy: Pick a US Supreme Court case where standing was found in a case where the opposition could argue that there is no particularized harm. I am not filing any cases at the Supreme Court. I assume that we are merely having a hypothetical discussion.

  113. avatar
    charo July 4, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    Some of my remarks were italicized from above and made to seem part of your comment. Next time, I’ll just put all of my remarks at the end.

  114. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 4, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    charo: I didn’t say that it was a slam dunk. I said it was an argument. Strategy: Pick a US Supreme Court case where standing was found in a case where the opposition could argue that there is no particularized harm. I am not filing any cases at the Supreme Court. I assume that we are merely having a hypothetical discussion.

    I don’t think that this strategy would work (although it would be less likely to be sanctioned for being frivolous, in my opinion). I think that the only chance to pass the standing hurdle and actually get to discovery (which I predict will be extremely disheartening to the birthers) will be in the run-up to the 2012 election. Unless they can get a majority in both houses of Congress and impeach the president, there is no redress that the courts can grant. The birther lawyers should be working to get their own candidate on the ballot in as many states as possible for 2012 so they have a client with standing. Or they could just try running themselves (Orly is more than crazy enough to give this a try).

  115. avatar
    G July 4, 2010 at 11:41 pm #

    Reality Check:
    There is a complete thread on Sharon Meroni, aka Chalice Jackson, aka Crystal Chalice at Politijab.com http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2998 Also, check out the Meroni folder on Jack Ryan’s Scribd page. The petitions. she filed trying to appear before the McHenry County, IL grand jury are fun reading.

    Yes, and I have several other sites I want to recommend to FUTTHESHUCKUP, which also have a lot of excellent detailed coverage of the background & antics of Sharon Meroni aka, as well as all of the other birther players:

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/

    If you follow these things, those sites are as much of a must read as this one.

  116. avatar
    G July 4, 2010 at 11:49 pm #

    charo: Some of my remarks were italicized from above and made to seem part of your comment. Next time, I’ll just put all of my remarks at the end.

    Hi Charo – Happy Independence Day to you and everyone else here.

    Here’s a helpful tip in the future:

    Instead of hitting the “Quote” button right away on the post you wish to respond to, highlight just a section of that text that you wish to respond to with your mouse and then hit “quote”.

    Only that section will appear in the Comment Window and then you can respond to that text specifically.

    Then, instead of hitting Submit Comment right away, make sure your cursor is at the end of your comment and and a line of space for separation and then scroll back up to the original post you wished to comment on and highlight another section and hit “Quote” again.

    Doing so will automatically append that text in the same block quoted manner to the end of your original comment.

    Now scroll back down to your Comment WIndow and you will see it at the bottom of what you already wrote and can add your further replies below that.

    Repeat as necessary and then select the “Submit Comment” button when you are all done.

    (Note: In “Preview” format, you often can’t see any of the spacing breaks between lines of text).

    I hope that helps.

  117. avatar
    charo July 4, 2010 at 11:54 pm #

    Thanks, G. And back at ya for the Happy Independence Day. [I am completely stuffed after pigging out all day with friends... ]

  118. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    Slartibartfast: I think that the only chance to pass the standing hurdle and actually get to discovery (which I predict will be extremely disheartening to the birthers)

    That depends on the category of birther. People who just want more transparency would be satisfied no matter what the outcome. They don’t necessarily comment regularly on opposition blogs.
    .

    Slartibartfast: Or they could just try running themselves (Orly is more than crazy enough to give this a try).

    There would be too much malware on her campaign website.

  119. avatar
    G July 5, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    charo:
    In the EPA case, it was a 5-4 decision. Roberts dissented based on standing.Others joined on the dissent, although I didn’t read if the other three agreed with him about standing.It boils down to Roberts’ disagreement with particularized harm, which has been the problem with the birther cases.If anyone had been relying on Roberts for a vote to take an eligibility case, I don’t see him being a yes.I disagree with you that those making the global warming argument think that only one state would be affected in a particular way, “global” being key.
    The Supreme Court would not take the Apuzzo case anyways.

    Hi Charo,

    I see the others here have already provided good detailed answers to all of these points, but I wanted to ensure that I got back to you as well, but I’ll try to be brief on this one, since a lot has already been covered already.

    1. – The issues of standing apply to all court cases and in most situations are fairly common, straightforward stuff.

    2 – The standing issue in dispute in the EPA court case you cited is apples to oranges to any of the standing issues that the birther lawsuits have claimed. The EPA case was about a state having standing against the federal government. The birther suits are about classifications of either individuals or groups of individuals making a claim of standing. Very different things.

    3. – As others have pointed out, standing is only one of many hurdles that all of these birther suits have faced when it comes to their legitimacy under the law. That and jurisdiction just happen to be some of the initial threshold tests that have to be met in any legal case. As the birther suits to date have been so extremely frivolous from start to finish that they have failed to even meet the legal threshold or definitions of these initial tests, they never get further than that and hence why all the focus has been on discussing those aspects of the case.

    If in 2012, a situation and case arises that do meet these thresholds, then the focus will shift to the further aspects of these cases, which are also deficient and frivolous as well.

    4. -Re: Global Warming & “particularized harm” – others have pointed out some examples of how the impacts are completely different from one area to another (i.e. coastal concerns vs. non-coastal concerns). I just wanted to check to see if you now understand that difference or if you needed more examples or explanation of how the injury itself is extremely different and therefore even in a “global” issue, the arguments for any such case would have to be specific to the entity or class of entities that could show a specific “particularized harm”.

    For example, global climate change, often called “global warming” would cause some areas to experience drought that were not prone to drought in the past while other areas would become much wetter in climate and prone to flooding or types of weather events (tornadoes, etc) that they typically didn’t experience in the past. In terms of where that could translate to actual legal issues would be in disputes of access to water (water ways, rivers, watersheds, dams, etc), which communities rely on and which would change drastically.

    Other regional affects that would lead to separate, specific and very different particularized types of injury would be ones that address the impacts of migration: This includes: people migration / immigration/emigration; specific plant/animal species migrations (in terms of addressing both new “invasive” species that appear in an area as a result as well as the issues of species endangerment/extinction that folks often think about), spread of new diseases to regions not typically affected by them; various agricultural / farm subsidy issues as crop sustainability is threatened or has to change; etc.

    Also, some regions will actually “benefit” from a number of their standpoints and have what they consider to be a better or more “productive” climate as a result.

    The bottom line is that yes, it is a “global issue” but the changes that would result are so vastly different and particularized from one area to the next that you can’t have standing on just some “blanket” scale which would be wholly inapplicable to most classes of plaintiffs involved and that such things have to be able to address “particularized” and specific injury in order to not be frivolous.

    In simpler terms, painting too broad of a brush on any issue is not something that can be addressed under the law.

    I hope that helps answer your questions.

  120. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    Scientist: charo-You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, so I am hard-pressed to understand why you have trouble accepting the simple fact that under the law as it exists today, anyone born in the US is eligible to be President.

    I am playing some catch-up with comments and didn’t see yours until now. I have had a little bit of free time for the past couple of days, which is guaranteed to be short-lived. I think that the courts will become involved in the citizenship issue when Congress enacts a definition that either includes or excludes children born to illegal aliens. What needs to be taken onto consideration is the diversity of our society and the fact that a significant percentage do not have two citizen parents in conjunction with the age of terrorism. [I am not an alarmist. Most of my days are spent trying to make sure kids are educated, everyone is fed, the laundry is done, and everyone is where they are supposed to be. ]

  121. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 12:31 am #

    G: 2 – The standing issue in dispute in the EPA court case you cited is apples to oranges to any of the standing issues that the birther lawsuits have claimed. The EPA case was about a state having standing against the federal government. The birther suits are about classifications of either individuals or groups of individuals making a claim of standing. Very different things.

    I’ll just refer to my comment at 11:23.

    As for global warming, I think the thread could end up high-jacked on that one.

  122. avatar
    G July 5, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    charo: That depends on the category of birther. People who just want more transparency would be satisfied no matter what the outcome. They don’t necessarily comment regularly on opposition blogs.

    Well, the problem here is you are mistaking what “transparency” applies to (transparency in government) and trying to apply that term to areas of an individuals right to privacy and the protection of their personal records.

    Therefore, that is not the right term to use in any of these situations, as you are no more entitled to know about many aspects and details of the President’s personal history than you are to your neighbor’s.

    There is nothing wrong with people being curious or wanting answers or wishing that things could be resolved easily in a manner that addresses one’s personal desires for resolution or knowledge.

    However it seems that too many people fail to understand where reality and law come into play. As a simple saying goes, you are within your rights to ask a question but you are not necessarily entitled to an answer. Often, that is for very good reason.

    I wish more folks would try to spend time thinking about both reality and the implications of what they want and just simply understand why sometimes such things are neither realistically possible or reasonable.

  123. avatar
    Sef July 5, 2010 at 12:37 am #

    charo: I think that the courts will become involved in the citizenship issue when Congress enacts a definition that either includes or excludes children born to illegal aliens

    And the courts’ involvement would be to declare such “definitions’ unconstitutional as the 14th is clear that ANYONE born in the U.S., not matter their parentage (excluding the usual suspects) are NBC. You are free to attempt a Constitutional Amendment, however.

  124. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    G: Therefore, that is not the right term to use in any of these situations, as you are no more entitled to know about many aspects and details of the President’s personal history than you are to your neighbor’s.

    I am talking about voluntary information, not forced as in a FOIA request that has to be honored or a court order. Various documentaries and volumes of books are filled with presidential personal history. I know you disagree with me, and that’s alright.

  125. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    Sef:
    And the courts’ involvement would be to declare such “definitions’ unconstitutional as the 14th is clear that ANYONE born in the U.S., not matter their parentage (excluding the usual suspects) are NBC.You are free to attempt a Constitutional Amendment, however.

    Read my comment again:

    “enacts a definition that either INCLUDES OR EXCLUDES” There is no official definition yet. So I don’t get your innuendo.

  126. avatar
    G July 5, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    charo: I think that the courts will become involved in the citizenship issue when Congress enacts a definition that either includes or excludes children born to illegal aliens. What needs to be taken onto consideration is the diversity of our society and the fact that a significant percentage do not have two citizen parents in conjunction with the age of terrorism. [I am not an alarmist. Most of my days are spent trying to make sure kids are educated, everyone is fed, the laundry is done, and everyone is where they are supposed to be. ]

    I agree – if and when Congress takes up such issues of re-examining citizenship definitions as you described, the courts will likely see cases that either challenge or affirm those definitions or even help define them more clearly.

    A key point to be made here is that if a definition changes to a more “narrow” interpretation, it is rarely ever able to legally be applied retroactively and usually only would apply going forward (i.e. “grandfather clauses” would come into effect, as such narrowing would result in a restriction of rights). However, if a definition broadens to expand rights to individuals instead, then there are times that can be applied retroactively.

    charo: ’ll just refer to my comment at 11:23.

    Got it. Thanks.

    charo: As for global warming, I think the thread could end up high-jacked on that one.

    I agree. So far, I think we’ve been okay, as we’ve discussed that issue in terms of example of how it relates legally to birther cases of standing and we’ve addressed the answer fully on why it does not. Therefore, as you mentioned, there is no need to cover global warming any further on here, as it would be completely off-topic from the purposes of this site and derail this thread.

  127. avatar
    Rickey July 5, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    James: I guess the Apuzzo case pretty proves that Obama (Or those who represent him; DOJ) is spending a ton of money (Millions) to kept his records sealed.Why would DOJ worry about costs or damages if they hardly spent anytime fighting the case?

    James, why don’t you try familiarizing yourself with the pleadings in these cases? Then you might not make such ridiculous arguments.

    The defendants in the Kerchner case (one of which is Dick Cheney, by the way) never asked for costs or damages. They only asked that the District Court’s ruling be upheld.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28042875/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Defendants-Opposition-Brief-Filed-8-Mar-2010

    The court is considering assessing Mario for costs and damages upon its own initiative. The defendants and the DOJ had nothing to do with it. There were no oral arguments, so every argument made by the defendants is in the written record of the case.

  128. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 12:50 am #

    Goodnight. I don’t know when I’ll be back because I won’t be a regular here. The civility to this point has been appreciated. I think some here have stopped seeing birthers as people, with jobs, families, loved ones, hobbies. I try to present myself as a human being. When you stop seeing people as human, I think you lose some of your humanity.

  129. avatar
    G July 5, 2010 at 1:17 am #

    Sef: You are free to attempt a Constitutional Amendment, however.

    charo: Read my comment again:

    “enacts a definition that either INCLUDES OR EXCLUDES” There is no official definition yet. So I don’t get your innuendo.

    I think I understand what both of you have been pointing out here, so I just wanted to add some clarification to avoid any misunderstandings of each others positions.

    1. Charo was initially pointing out that Congress could at some point choose to take up reexamining the definition of citizenship, whether as a result of the immigration debate (i.e. the “anchor babies” issue) or as a result of terrorism.

    2. She brought this up to point out that if such things took place, that would be the trigger that led to legitimate legal examination of this issue by the courts.

    Those are both simple, rational statements and I agree with her on that.

    3. Sef’s point addresses the specific legislative pathway that Congress would have to take in order to enact any change in definition that impacts the issue of citizenship into law:

    Because a definition of US citizenship itself already exists in the 14th Amendment, any bill that changed the boundaries of the citizenship definition from the 14th Amendment would be immediately face court challenges and be struck down.

    Therefore, in the example of immigration reform, if one of the proposals was to address the issue of “anchor babies” with a definition that impacted their rights to citizenship, that specific issue would require Congress to pursue the legislative process of enacting a new Constitutional Amendment to address that.

    That is also absolutely correct.

    The key thing to point out here in terms of the NBC issue is that NBC is a subset of citizenship in general. Therefore, any attempt to put on “official” legislative definition of NBC in place automatically falls under the broader scope of the 14th Amendment, as it attempts to clarify conditions for a specific type of citizenship and thus would require the Constitutional Amendment process to enact.

    As I stated earlier, it is important to also point out that if any aspect of that definition would appear to “narrow” instead of “broaden” general interpretations, then it is likely that such an Amendment could only be applied to future cases and not retroactively.

  130. avatar
    G July 5, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    charo: Goodnight. I don’t know when I’ll be back because I won’t be a regular here. The civility to this point has been appreciated. I think some here have stopped seeing birthers as people, with jobs, families, loved ones, hobbies. I try to present myself as a human being. When you stop seeing people as human, I think you lose some of your humanity.

    Goodnight Charo, and whenever you do pop by, I will always welcome you.

    As I’ve mentioned many times before, you do not seem to fit any of the general definitions that would make you a “true birther”. I just see you as someone, who based on your Conservative views and influences is merely “sympathetic” to the arguments they try to make, but who is still willing to have a rational healthy debate and try to retain a degree of objectiveness and actually willing to deal with evidence, facts and reality.

    Unfortunately, most of the “true birthers” that come here are not like that at all. Even worse, their intentions often quickly reveal that the only reason they are here is with an agenda and motive to spread propaganda and misinformation and not to have any real healthy debate.

    Your words about needing to remember that we are all human with lives, families, etc. is very wise and very true.

    I think it is important to point out to the “true birthers” and even others from a “right-wing” perspective that they need to start heeding your advice as well.

    Unfortunately, there is a lot of extremist language coming from that direction that immediately accuses anyone who disagrees with them as being unpatriotic or traitors…or worse – using harsh rhetoric implying justified violence against any deviation or disagreement of their ideological viewpoint. To me, that is completely unacceptable behavior and attitude.

  131. avatar
    G July 5, 2010 at 1:53 am #

    Black Lion: Good article over at MM to check out…

    Where do WorldNetDaily readers think Obama was born?
    July 04, 2010 2:38 pm ET by Karl Frisch

    I suppose the only surprising result would be if readers of the prolific birther-pushing website actually picked Hawaii – where President Obama was born.

    Of course, they didn’t pick Hawaii though — they opted for Kenya. Remember, these people are bonkers as is the founder of WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah who has been fanning the flames of birther conspiracies for some time now.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007040020

    Thanks for the article & link, Black Lion.

    Of course, the results from birther-stroking-central, WND are not surprising in the least. All it is is a reflection of their propaganda campaign on the issue and the gullibility of their followers.

    Their own statistics betray only serve to betray them and their attempts at “mainstream” credibility.

    Such results prove that WND is nothing but a “birther” hub, as their statistics are so far out-of-whack and proportion from any prior polling of such conservative & birther-friendly movements as the Tea Partiers. When only a third of Tea Party folks will buy into such stuff and yet 9 out of 10 clearly do at WND…that speaks volumes.

  132. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 5, 2010 at 3:58 am #

    charo: That depends on the category of birther. People who just want more transparency would be satisfied no matter what the outcome. They don’t necessarily comment regularly on opposition blogs.

    I haven’t seen anyone posting (on sites that fall on either side of this issue) that they are sure that President Obama is eligible but believe that the vetting process needs to be more stringent (unless you consider that your position). There may be some people who feel this way, but I’m guessing that they are a small minority of those calling themselves birthers.

    charo: There would be too much malware on her campaign website.

    All she needs to do is to infect her site with voting machine viruses and then spread them everywhere… ;-)

    charo: Goodnight.I don’t know when I’ll be back because I won’t be a regular here.The civility to this point has been appreciated.I think some here have stopped seeing birthers as people, with jobs, families, loved ones, hobbies.I try to present myself as a human being.When you stop seeing people as human, I think you lose some of your humanity.

    I think you are absolutely right about dehumanizing people. One of the scariest parts of the far right wing’s rhetoric is the dehumanization of the president and his supporters. Dehumanizing people who don’t agree with you seems like just about the most un-American thing a person can do to me – no matter what side they are on. I have also appreciated your civility and your willingness to engage in debate. Have a good night!

  133. avatar
    Sef July 5, 2010 at 8:22 am #

    G: A key point to be made here is that if a definition changes to a more “narrow” interpretation, it is rarely ever able to legally be applied retroactively and usually only would apply going forward (i.e. “grandfather clauses” would come into effect, as such narrowing would result in a restriction of rights). However, if a definition broadens to expand rights to individuals instead, then there are times that can be applied retroactively.

    I posted this point earlier, but there was no discussion: Had Obama been born in HI before statehood the grandfather clause would have come into effect. He would have been a citizen of HI by its laws & when HI entered statehood he would have met the citizenship eligibility for POTUS (not the NBC clause). So why should the mere fact of statehood have removed one his rights?

  134. avatar
    Reality Check July 5, 2010 at 9:20 am #

    G: As others have pointed out, standing is only one of many hurdles that all of these birther suits have faced when it comes to their legitimacy under the law. That and jurisdiction just happen to be some of the initial threshold tests that have to be met in any legal case. As the birther suits to date have been so extremely frivolous from start to finish that they have failed to even meet the legal threshold or definitions of these initial tests, they never get further than that and hence why all the focus has been on discussing those aspects of the case.

    This point needs to be reiterated. We sometimes get trapped into arguing with birthers on one decision at a time as if all the issues were to be resolved solely in that case. The Birthers then assume that if that could just clear whatever hurdles were mentioned in that particular decision they would have a worthy case. Look at Kerchner’s comment. They are already spinning it that way. They also jump on the rhetorical technique used by the courts to test for standing by “assuming all the plaintiffs allegations were true” as if the court had just admitted the same. Again Kerchner made that point in his comment and Apuzzo also alluded to it in his reply. Apuzzo certainly knows that the court made no such admission.

    I believe there are now precedential decisions in three appellate districts that explain the various reasons that the courts will never hear the birther issues. I think the likelihood for sanctions against any future plaintiffs making the same claims might have risen significantly.

  135. avatar
    ASK Esq July 5, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    charo: Standing is as standing does? If I were Apuzzo and I were to appeal to SCOTUS, I would incorporate the case of Massachusetts et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. in the discussion of the standing issue. It appears, IMO, the Court will find standing when it wants to. Although the facts are not analogous to Apuzzo’s case, it also appears Roberts would be a tough sell on the standing issue based upon his dissent.

    In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, standing was found because the plaintiffs were states, and thus had standing under the quasi-sovereign doctrine. Mario may have a huge ego, but he isn’t a state. It is simply impossible for a private citizen, or even a member of the armed forces, to have standing in a suit such as this.

  136. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    Since there have been lengthy cut and pastes from the P&E, I will
    provide a link to a post there regarding standing. It is too long to
    quote here so you’ll have to actually go there to read it. Briefly,
    Sharon Meloni (Radio name Chalice Jackson) has researched llinois
    election law and is challenging candidates’ eligibility to run for
    office in her locality. Apparently, there is a 5 day window to make
    challenges which usually stem from the signature requirements to get
    on the ballot. Interestingly, it seems that you actually have to make
    a challenge to see the signatures. Her research showed that in the
    2008 election, Keyes was placed on the ballot, although there were
    only 15 signatures, because no one challenged him. Anyways, she is
    making her challenges based on eligibility to push the issue of
    eligibility verification because of the problem of verification. Most of the post concerns the local election process and
    involves actual research, but you’ll have to filter out her personal
    views in a couple of places.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/07/03/citizen-has-standing-to-contest-the-eligibility-of-candidates-for-office/

  137. avatar
    Reality Check July 5, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    Meroni has a hearing tomorrow before an officer of the State Officers Election Board in Chicago to review her objections. All 32 of her cases appear to have been consolidated. Her form that she used for all the objections appears to be woefully short of the specific evidence that is required for a valid objection. She has sent letters to attempt to cajole (I didn’t say blackmail, make your own inference) the candidates into satisfying her personal desire to see a “raised seal” birth certificate posted on their campaign web site. She says she will drop the objection for any candidate who complies. IMHO the candidates can cool their heals as it will not be a problem after tomorrow.

    (She also sent the same letter to candidates of the major parties that she could not file an objection since she only dreamed up her scheme after the date for filing objections had passed.)

    One candidate for the US Senate, Andy Martin, has filed a civil suit in Illinois Circuit Court against Ms Meroni and others who have filed what he terms are frivolous objections.

  138. avatar
    Saint James July 5, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    Reality Check: I believe there are now precedential decisions in three appellate districts that explain the various reasons that the courts will never hear the birther issues. I think the likelihood for sanctions against any future plaintiffs making the same claims might have risen significantly.

    That’s how I understood the (Kercher) decision after reading it. I’m in anticipation to see the Jones v Obama decided with sanction.

  139. avatar
    DCH July 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    So how do you birthers spin this latest defeat in court? This was bad. Your guy Mario is so poor a lawyer in losing this appeal that the court went out of its way to REQUIRE the birther side to pay court costs and to PROVE something else: that they should not be FINED for filing such a STUPID appeal.
    LOSERS! Denied the appeal, made to pay the other side’s costs, and then come back and provide a reason should not be fined. (love that detail)

    So where to next? You are done.

    Oh Phil Berg’s appeal got squashed in same week. He has yet to mention it.

  140. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm #

    Reality Check: Meroni has a hearing tomorrow before an officer of the State Officers Election Board in Chicago to review her objections. All 32 of her cases appear to have been consolidated. Her form that she used for all the objections appears to be woefully short of the specific evidence that is required for a valid objection. She has sent letters to attempt to cajole (I didn’t say blackmail, make your own inference) the candidates into satisfying her personal desire to see a “raised seal” birth certificate posted on their campaign web site. She says she will drop the objection for any candidate who complies. IMHO the candidates can cool their heals as it will not be a problem after tomorrow.
    (She also sent the same letter to candidates of the major parties that she could not file an objection since she only dreamed up her scheme after the date for filing objections had passed.)One candidate for the US Senate, Andy Martin, has filed a civil suit in Illinois Circuit Court against Ms Meroni and others who have filed what he terms are frivolous objections.

    This is what I get from what I have read. She is challenging the eligibility of the candidates who were on the ballot in Illinois in November of 2008 and says that they did not meet the requirements to be on the ballot because they never produced their birth certificates. However, Illinois state law did not require them produce them to produce a birth certificate to be on that ballot. She is trying to retrospectively change the law that was in place in 2008 to suit what she believes the law should have been, and that’s never going to happen. Neither she, nor the Board of Elections, can retroactively change the law now, void the 2008 election, and insist that a new election take place to ensure that the candidates meet what she wants the requirements to be. The only ones who can change that law is the Illinois legislature and the governor, not Sharon Meroni. It’s absurd, and as you said, it will be dealt with with a quickness. The candidates all complied with the law that was in place in 2008, and that will be the finding of the Board of Elections.

    Obama’s candidacy was already challenged in this way twice in Illinois in November of 2007 right after the presidential primary there by a white supremacist named Richard Mayers. Both times the challenge was overruled.

  141. avatar
    kimba July 5, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    Meroni is challenging the eligibiity of candidates for the ballot this year, November 2010.

    Here’s who she is petitioning:
    http://www.elections.il.gov/electioninformation/latestobjections.aspx?id=29

  142. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 5, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    The way I read it, she is challenging the 2008 election since three was a deadline for her to file the challenge that was the end of June. Obama is not running this year or next year, and she is challenging his eligibility; that would mean it’s the 2008 election, not 2010 or 2011 since he won’t even be on the ballot then.

    She can petition all she wants. Only the legislature can change the law.

  143. avatar
    kimba July 5, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

    More, they’ve lumped all of Meroni’s objections together
    http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AboutTheBoard/PDF/07_06_10Notice.pdf

    See P. 4 here:
    http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AbouttheBoard/PDf/NPIndPetObj2010%20MasterTrialCall.pdf

    Here’s the letter Ms. Meroni sent to each of the candidates she challenged. She also sent a letter to the candidates of the major parties that she was too late to challenge.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33885543/7-04-10-Challenge-Resolution-Letter-July-4-2010-Sent-to-all-Candidates-Challenged

    Ms. Meroni doesn’t seem to understand the burden of proof is on her tomorrow to prove the candidates aren’t eligible.

  144. avatar
    kimba July 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    No, Fut. Read the links. She has challenged candidates who applied for the ballot for the November 2, 2010 election.

  145. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 5, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

    So she is not challenging President Obama’s eligibility? Why is she saying in the Post and Fail that she is?

  146. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 5, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    I’ll see if I can find that article and read it again

  147. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 5:17 pm #

    kimba: More, they’ve lumped all of Meroni’s objections together
    http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AboutTheBoard/PDF/07_06_10Notice.pdfSee P. 4 here:
    http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AbouttheBoard/PDf/NPIndPetObj2010%20MasterTrialCall.pdfHere’s the letter Ms. Meroni sent to each of the candidates she challenged. She also sent a letter to the candidates of the major parties that she was too late to challenge.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33885543/7-04-10-Challenge-Resolution-Letter-July-4-2010-Sent-to-all-Candidates-ChallengedMs. Meroni doesn’t seem to understand the burden of proof is on her tomorrow to prove the candidates aren’t eligible.

    You may be right, but I don’t know because you have to challenge signatures before getting to see them. Once the challenge is made, you get to view them and then go forward. In other words, you challenge and then are given the proof to see if your challenge is valid. MAybethat is the same with an eligibility challenge?

  148. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 5, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    This is the headline, kimba:

    ILLINOIS RESIDENT OPENS THE DOOR TO SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGING OBAMA’S CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS TO HOLD OFFICE

    And this is what it says in the first paragraph, which doesn’t jive with the headline

    An Illinois citizen and registered voter has filed an Objector’s Petition to some of the candidates on her 2010 ballot. Her objection states that there is insufficient evidence that the candidates in question meet the constitutional eligibility requirements for the offices they seek. Her petition will be presented to the State Electoral Board on Tuesday, July 6.

    Obama isn’t on the 2010 ballot, so I don’t know where they get the headline from.

  149. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm #

    kimba,

    You may be right, but I don’t know because you have to challenge signatures before getting to see them.Once the challenge is made, you get to view them and then go forward.In other words, you challenge and then are given the proof to see if your challenge is valid.MAybethat is the same with an eligibility challenge?

    [I already said this in a comment in moderation- I quoted you with your links. I think there too many links so when it comes up again- ignore]

  150. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: This is the headline, kimba:ILLINOIS RESIDENT OPENS THE DOOR TO SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGING OBAMA’S CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS TO HOLD OFFICEAnd this is what it says in the first paragraph, which doesn’t jive with the headlineAn Illinois citizen and registered voter has filed an Objector’s Petitionto some of the candidates on her 2010 ballot. Her objection states that there is insufficient evidence that the candidates in question meet the constitutional eligibility requirements for the offices they seek.Her petition will be presented to the State Electoral Board on Tuesday, July 6.Obama isn’t on the 2010 ballot, so I don’t know where they get the headline from.

    Drudge does the same at times. The headline here may or may not be true. I think the slant is that if she wins the appeal, then there would be precedent for verification of eligibility for the 2012 election.

  151. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    Wins the appeal in the sense that the candidates have to provide proof of eligibility, not that the candidate is not eligible.

  152. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 5, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    charo:
    Drudge does the same at times.The headline here may or may not be true.I think the slant is that if she wins the appeal, then there would be precedent for verification of eligibility for the 2012 election.

    Yeah, that’s the way I’m seeing it now too. It will still take an act of the legislature and a signing by the governor to change the law that they now have though. She’s trying to force Illinois to adopt a law similar to the one Arizona recently rejected.

  153. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    One last thing. She acknowledged that this could end up in court either way: if she is denied the right to appeal the verification, she proceeds, or the verification is forced, then surely someone will appeal.

  154. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    or IF the verification is forced

  155. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 5, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    Even if they do, which they most likely won’t, President Obama has the documents to pass it and get on the ballot

  156. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 5, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    You’re right, charo It’s a matter that could be tied up in court for years.

  157. avatar
    kimba July 5, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    Fut it’s right in the P&E article you posted. It’s a challenge of November 2010 candidates. From the article: “An Illinois citizen and registered voter has filed an Objector’s Petition to some of the candidates on her 2010 ballot.”

    From charo “you challenge and then are given the proof to see if your challenge is valid.”

    The objector must present the proof their challenge is valid. The burden of proof is on the person making the objection not on the candidate.

  158. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP July 5, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    Yeah, that’s why I highlighted that sentence in my post, kimba.

  159. avatar
    kimba July 5, 2010 at 5:52 pm #

    “Could end up in court”

    Here is the process, page 44 of the candidate guide. If the objector disagrees with the decision of the board they can take it to court.

    http://www.elections.il.gov/downloads/electioninformation/pdf/2010canguide.pdf

  160. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    kimba: Fut it’s right in the P&E article you posted. It’s a challenge of November 2010 candidates.From the article: “An Illinois citizen and registered voter has filed an Objector’s Petition to some of the candidates on her 2010 ballot.”From charo “you challenge and then are given the proof to see if your challenge is valid.”The objector must present the proof their challenge is valid.The burden of proof is on the person making the objection not on the candidate.

    I didn’t research this but according to Chalice, you have to challenge the signatures to actually see them. Does this also apply to eligibility? You say it doesn’t. Can you cite something?

  161. avatar
    kimba July 5, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    Charo, Meroni is not challenging the signatures, she’s challenging their eligibility. She doesn’t want to see the signatures, she wants to see their birth certificates. Illinois requires only a Loyalty Oath and Statement of Candidacy documents
    http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/ElectionInformation/pdf/P-1C.pdf
    http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/ElectionInformation/pdf/P-1B.pdf
    in which the candidate swears (affirms) he is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Illinois. Meroni thinks that’s not enough and wants them to prove it. That’s why she will lose tomorrow – Illinois requires only their sworn statement that they indeed are citizens. If Meroni wants candidates to have to produce proof of citizenship to get on the ballot, she’s going to have to change the election law of the State of Illinois.

    You can find here the requirements and forms for running for office in Illinois.
    http://www.elections.il.gov/InfoForCandidates.aspx

  162. avatar
    brygenon July 5, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo’s report of his loss in the Third Circuit is up at his blog, and it is remarkably straightforward and factual. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms.html

    When he lost in the District Court back 21 October 2009, he first wrote a factual report, then followed a few days later with the first of many loads of spin. This time the blog spin may have to wait until he’s figured out how to how to spin filing a frivolous appeal for the Court.

  163. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 5, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    brygenon: This time the blog spin may have to wait until he’s figured out how to how to spin filing a frivolous appeal for the Court.

    Would the court take judicial notice of Apuzzo’s blog comments about the appeal?

  164. avatar
    G July 5, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    charo: FYE (for your entertainment)http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/07/04/independence-day-treat-jibjab-presents-founding-fathers-rap

    ROTFLOL! Thanks Charo, that was hilarious!

    I always love the creativity of those Jib Jab folks! They’ve been doing great stuff for over 6 years now. :)

  165. avatar
    Black Lion July 5, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    brygenon: Mario Apuzzo’s report of his loss in the Third Circuit is up at his blog, and it is remarkably straightforward and factual. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/07/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms.htmlWhen he lost in the District Court back 21 October 2009, he first wrote a factual report, then followed a few days later with the first of many loads of spin. This time the blog spin may have to wait until he’s figured out how to how to spin filing a frivolous appeal for the Court.

    Even funnier are the comments…

    cody.judy said…
    That’s too bad, but if it’s ‘standing’ the court wants why don’t you add this in your own Motion Of Joinder, then you wouldn’t have to argue ‘standing’ all you’d have to argue was wiether the court is acting as ‘prophets’ in stating the reprecussions of an overturned President.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22288917/Judy-v-Obama

    New evidence, and a propoderance of finding ‘damaged’ people with standing is always a good issue to bring to the court a Motion for Reconsideration or a Joinder.
    YouTube short Obogo Petition
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c3J-G0AMg4

    I certainly wish the courts decisions was different, but it seems like many attorneys fighting this issue brought this argument on themselfs because they didn’t want to represent a qualified candidate in the race and argue the reason the other main (R) candidate didn’t bring the case to them, was because McCain sold his soul in Res. 511 and pretty well gave a reason for every R U.S.Senator to keep their mouth shut. Nevertheless, last I checked we still live in a Constitutional Republic, which is the greatest weapon against mob rule we could have ever been given.

    Cody Robert Judy
    U.S. Senate 2010 UT.
    http://www.codyjudy.us

    July 5, 2010 8:41 AM

  166. avatar
    brygenon July 5, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    DCH: So how do you birthers spin this latest defeat in court? This was bad.

    Some of them had realized the Kerchner appeal was doomed and started spinning a loss even before the verdict was in. The spin was that losing here wasn’t a bad thing for the case. If they won in the Third Circuit, the case would be remanded back down to the District Court, but upon a loss the next step would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

    That spin is nonsense. The Supreme Court, like the Third Circuit, has appellate jurisdiction and not original jurisdiction here. They review what the lower court decided, and if issues remain they remand the case back down. The Rule 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court requires a party petitioning for certiorari to clearly identify the lower court judgment for which they seek review.

    The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed Kerchner v. Obama on two grouds: Article III standing and the political question doctrine. Those were Mario’s only issues on appeal, despite his continued blather about where Obama was born and the definition of natural-born citizen. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and the only issue they considered was Article III standing.

    So where to next? You are done.

    Quite likely Mario will stay on to petition for cert. The only issue at this point is the Third Circuit’s ruling on Article III standing. The Supreme Court will deny cert, and then I expect Mario will be done.

    Oh Phil Berg’s appeal got squashed in same week. He has yet to mention it.

    Short and sweet, but no sanctions.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33764299/BERG-v-OBAMA-FCA-APPEAL-PER-CURIAM-JUDGMENT-Affirmed-Transport-Room

  167. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    kimba,

    I know that she is not challenging the signatures. I think you misread my comment. I haven’t read your links yet, but I would assume them to be accurate. I gathered that she wants this in court and feels she will then have standing because she challenged within the 5 day period.

  168. avatar
    charo July 5, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    G:
    ROTFLOL!Thanks Charo, that was hilarious!I always love the creativity of those Jib Jab folks!They’ve been doing great stuff for over 6 years now.

    Wasn’t it though :) I saw a couple of other jib jab pieces, but I’ll have to spend some time checking them all out- a good diversion from all the seriousness.

  169. avatar
    brygenon July 5, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Would the court take judicial notice Apuzzo’s comments about the appeal?

    I doubt it. Orly Taitz has been fabricating allegations of corruption against judges and clerks, but it was what she actually filed that cost her twenty grand in sanctions. We do know from Mario’s blog and this one that he was aware of Berg’s case, but I doubt he will pretend otherwise.

    On the flip side, Mario’s web fans will take notice of his response to the order to show cause. No sense writing words he’ll soon have to eat.

  170. avatar
    Rickey July 6, 2010 at 1:52 am #

    Black Lion:
    Even funnier are the comments…cody.judy said…
    That’s too bad, but if it’s standing’ the court wants why don’t you add this in your own Motion Of Joinder, then you wouldn’t have to argue standing’ all you’d have to argue was wiether the court is acting as prophets’ in stating the reprecussions of an overturned President.http://www.scribd.com/doc/22288917/Judy-v-ObamaNew evidence, and a propoderance of finding damaged’ people with standing is always a good issue to bring to the court a Motion for Reconsideration or a Joinder.

    Some interesting background on Cody Judy:

    Cody Robert Judy (born 1966) is an American who publicly accosted Howard W. Hunter, an official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on February 7, 1993.

    Events of February 7, 1993
    While preparing to speak at a “fireside” lecture being held at Brigham Young University’s Marriott Center on February 7, 1993, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Hunter was confronted by Judy, who rushed onto the rostrum and threatened Hunter and the audience of 15,000–17,000. Judy carried a briefcase that he claimed contained a bomb, and held what appeared to be a detonator-like device. Judy demanded that Hunter read a three-page document that supposedly detailed God’s plan for Judy to lead the church, which Hunter refused to do. After assaulting an elderly man who had approached him asking him to stop what he was doing, Judy ordered everyone to leave the rostrum except for Hunter; however, Hunter’s bodyguards refused to leave. The audience spontaneously sang “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet”, during which a man in the front row sprayed Judy with pepper spray. Students from the audience and then security personnel overtook him. After Judy was taken away, Hunter delivered his prepared remarks, a talk on facing adversity entitled, “An Anchor to the Souls of Men.” The police later examined the briefcase and determined that it contained only books and papers and the detonator-like device was a telephone wrapped in electrical tape.

    The fireside was being broadcast live, but was blacked-out as the hostage incident began. The entire fireside, including the blacked-out portion with Judy, was recorded by the Church Educational System, which holds a copyright on the material, and the incident has not been included in any re-broadcasts and recordings of the fireside released by the church. Portions of the blacked-out section were made available to the Utah County Attorney’s office for purposes of prosecution, and later forwarded to the Utah Board of Pardons, but have not been made available to the public.

    Judy was sentenced to one to 15 years in prison for the act. He was initially housed at the Utah State Hospital’s forensic unit in Provo, Utah, but spent some time at the Utah State Prison after refusing to take his psychiatric medication. In 1993, Judy escaped from the Utah State Hospital but was quickly apprehended after being tracked by K9 units. He was paroled in November of 2000 after serving seven years.

    During an interview on Salt Lake City’s X96’s Radio From Hell show, Judy claimed that he was not really lying, but simply referring to a Book of Mormon by its initials, BOM.

    In 2002, Judy ran as a write-in candidate for an open Utah seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Judy received eight votes.

    In 2004, Judy lost as a write-in candidate for the United States Senate against Senator Bob Bennett, receiving sixteen votes.

    http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=43333

  171. avatar
    G July 6, 2010 at 2:50 am #

    charo:
    Wasn’t it though I saw a couple of other jib jab pieces, but I’ll have to spend some time checking them all out- a good diversion from all the seriousness.

    It will be well worth your time. Interesting enough, JibJab first “made it big” as a result of political satire, during the 2004 Election Cycle. They do a great job of covering such issues with pointing out the hilarity on all sides and often to creatively reimagined versions of familiar tunes.

    To help you, here are some of the “essentials” that you will really enjoy!!!

    Here is the must-see classic that started it all: This Land

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/this_land

    Which was followed-up by these two must-see’s that covered that year’s election:

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/good_to_be_in_dc

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/second_term

    Then they became known for their hilarious year-end recaps, that were delivered in the same vein:

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/2_0_5

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/nuckin_futs

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/in_2007

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/2008_year_in_review

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/never_a_year_like_09

    They did also cover the 2008 election campaign in their classic style:

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

    Of course, they’ve got others, some that go all the way back to 2000. All the originals can be found here:

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/all

    Enjoy! :)

  172. avatar
    G July 6, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    Oooh! One more important one they did, in a slightly different style, that was released for last year’s July 4th celebration. So it is really timely to bring it back out for everyone to enjoy.

    This is really cool – they take footage clips of past presidents to make it seem they are all dancing and singing the star spangled banner in a rock & roll fashion.

    http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/star_spangled

  173. avatar
    DCH July 6, 2010 at 8:43 am #

    brygenon

    “Quite likely Mario will stay on to petition for cert. The only issue at this point is the Third Circuit’s ruling on Article III standing. The Supreme Court will deny cert, and then I expect Mario will be done.”

    These birther cases are all legal zoombies, they all follow the same worn trail of failure to the SCOTUS Friday conference to die.

    I can’t wait for Mario’s explantion to the appeals court to show reasons why they should not fine him. You gotta be a complete idiot to get your butt handed to you like that.

  174. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 6, 2010 at 9:06 am #

    Saint James: Can it be that Orly is like Anna Chapman who is a Russian spy? Orly is a provocateur sent to start civil unrest! LOL!

    But but Orly was so good with the Hydrogenias!

  175. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 6, 2010 at 9:09 am #

    G: It will be well worth your time. Interesting enough, JibJab first “made it big” as a result of political satire, during the 2004 Election Cycle. They do a great job of covering such issues with pointing out the hilarity on all sides and often to creatively reimagined versions of familiar tunes.To help you, here are some of the “essentials” that you will really enjoy!!!Here is the must-see classic that started it all: This Landhttp://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/this_landWhich was followed-up by these two must-see’s that covered that year’s election:http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/good_to_be_in_dchttp://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/second_termThen they became known for their hilarious year-end recaps, that were delivered in the same vein:http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/2_0_5http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/nuckin_futshttp://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/in_2007http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/2008_year_in_reviewhttp://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/never_a_year_like_09They did also cover the 2008 election campaign in their classic style:http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaigninOf course, they’ve got others, some that go all the way back to 2000. All the originals can be found here:http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/allEnjoy!

    I did the Star Wars ones they were funny. Made one of my friends play Leia, he wasn’t too pleased.

  176. avatar
    kimba July 6, 2010 at 9:56 am #

    ” I gathered that she wants this in court and feels she will then have standing because she challenged within the 5 day period.”

    If the Board rejects her objections, she can take it to court. Whether or not she would have standing, I don’t know, because she would have to show that she would experience a particular injury different from every other Illinois voter if these candidates were on the ballot. What certainly blows her eligibility claims out of the water is the election laws of the State of Illinois don’t require a candidate to show proof of eligibility, Illinois law only requires them to swear they are citizens of the United States and the State of Ilinois. In order to knock any candidate off the ballot for November because of their eligibility, Meroni will have to present proof the candidate isn’t eligible. She can’t go into court and ask a judge to rule a candidate must prove they’re eligible when the law doesn’t require it. It’s the same flawed thinking of every birther suit thus far that she thinks she can convince a judge to shift the burden of proof off of her onto the person she’s accusing. It won’t happen. The judge will tell her if she can’t prove any candidate is not eligible, she has no case. What also won’t happen is a judge won’t rule that Illinois law should require candidates to prove their eligibility differently than what’s required by Illinois law today. The judge will tell Meroni if she doesn’t think the law is stringent enough, she should work to change the law. I have no legal training and even I can see what’s coming. Meroni is wasting the time and resources of the people of the State of Illinois trying to play the same “shift the burden of proof” game every birther has played in their suits against Secs of State and Pres Obama. If this were 2012 and she was challenging Pres Obama being on the Illinois ballot for re-election, the outcome would be the same with the current Illinois election laws.

  177. avatar
    Bovril July 6, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    Based on Ms Meroni’s filings then subsequent letters to the individuals is there not a viable RICO case to be filed against her…..8-)

    I mean

    Threats with menace
    (The letter is prima facia evidence, do as I say or else my suit continues)

    Extortion
    (A criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion..see above)

    Obstruction of justice
    (A pattern of repetitive selection of individuals for menace and abuse with the intent of using the court system to further said abuse in an attempt to coerce)

    Racketeering
    (Extortion as “protection”)

    Looks good to me…..

  178. avatar
    Sef July 6, 2010 at 10:13 am #

    Bovril: Based on Ms Meroni’s filings then subsequent letters to the individuals is there not a viable RICO case to be filed against her…..8-)I mean
    Threats with menace
    (The letter is prima facia evidence, do as I say or else my suit continues)Extortion
    (A criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion..see above)Obstruction of justice
    (A pattern of repetitive selection of individuals for menace and abuse with the intent of using the court system to further said abuse in an attempt to coerce)Racketeering
    (Extortion as “protection”)Looks good to me…..

    ROTFLMAO

  179. avatar
    Rickey July 6, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    Oh For Goodness Sake has an excellent overview of why Sharon’s challenges will be tossed.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=11300

  180. avatar
    Scientist July 6, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    kimba: What certainly blows her eligibility claims out of the water is the election laws of the State of Illinois don’t require a candidate to show proof of eligibility, Illinois law only requires them to swear they are citizens of the United States and the State of Ilinois.

    Despite what “Bill” and a few others would have you believe, there is nothing at all unusual about declarations sworn under penalty of perjury being accepted by government agencies. Voter registrations are, as are tax returns. Another example, with which I am very familiar, are patent applications. I have been granted a dozen or so patents based simply on declarations I made at the time of filing and subsequent supporting declarations. Only in a few specific exceptional cases, where your claimed invention violates fundamental scientific laws (perpetual motion machines are the best-known example), will the Patent Office demand an actual working model of the invention.

    So how do we know patents are not based on fraud? Essentially, in an adversarial system, such as ours, that is left to cases where the claims are challenged, based on some valid cause, by a party with standing. In the case of a patent that would happen if I try to enforce my claims by suing an infringer. They, in their defense, could argue that the patent was granted in error. If they had some evidence to support their arguments, I might then have to show actual laboratory notebooks to support my case. Similarly, voter registrations could be challenged by a candidate for office. If they had some evidence that particular registrations were invalid, the voters could be asked to provide documents. And of course, the IRS can always audit you and ask you to show that that trip to Aruba really involved legitimate business.

    However, our legal system does not provide for random folks off the street to challenge patents, voter registrations or the credentials of candidates for office or to audit their neighbors tax returns. And for that, we should all be thankful.

  181. avatar
    Rickey July 6, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    A good example of how standing applies can be seen in the case of a Pennsylvania anti-blasphemy law which was struck down by a U.S. District Judge last week.

    In 1977 Pennsylvania passed a law prohibiting the use of “blasphemous” words in the names of corporations. This was in response to someone who wanted to name his business “The [GD] Gun Shop.” The owner of the business apparently chose not to challenge the law.

    It is pretty obvious to anyone reading the statute that it violates the separation of church and state, but no one had standing to challenge the law unless he or she had been personally and particularly damaged by it. So the law stood for 33 years, until a filmmaker decided to challenge it because he was not allowed to name his company “I Choose Hell Productions.” The filmmaker had a claim which was particular to him and was not shared by the public at large, so he had standing to pursue his lawsuit. If someone who had not been turned down for a corporate name had filed a similar lawsuit, it would have been dismissed for lack of standing.

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463198055

  182. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 6, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    kimba Whether or not she would have standing, I don’t know,

    Note that the discussions we usually have here on standing are about federal courts. State laws, and access to state courts is something altogether different.

  183. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 6, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    DCH: These birther cases are all legal zombies

    love the image.

  184. avatar
    brygenon July 6, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    Saint James: I’m in anticipation to see the Jones v Obama decided with sanction.

    Not likely. The birthers who got themselves into trouble, Hemenway, Taitz, and now Apuzzo, were licensed to practice law. Jones is a lay person representing herself. Sanctions and reprimands are for shysters, not cranks.

  185. avatar
    Bovril July 6, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Sef: Bovril: Based on Ms Meroni’s filings then subsequent letters to the individuals is there not a viable RICO case to be filed against her…..8-)I mean
    Threats with menace
    (The letter is prima facia evidence, do as I say or else my suit continues)Extortion
    (A criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion..see above)Obstruction of justice
    (A pattern of repetitive selection of individuals for menace and abuse with the intent of using the court system to further said abuse in an attempt to coerce)Racketeering
    (Extortion as “protection”)Looks good to me…..
    ROTFLMAO

    We are here to serve…..

    As for the legal zombie quote, most apposite

    Lacking in intelligence
    Lacking in direction
    Insane lust to rend the flesh of the living (Constitution)
    Unco-ordinated
    Will frequently turn on its own kind
    Incapable of rational thought or action although feigning this in packs
    Infectious
    Can’t be put down except by a head shot
    Never actually gets anywhere, simply shambles in a vague direction
    Can be best be detected by the putrid aroma and unintelligible moaning

    Incorrigible, untrainable, unteachable, their acts are their nature, without form or basis in
    morality, ethics or introspection

    Your birfer zombie identification checklist is attached, be careful out there….8-)

    http://coonlakebeach.com/images/zombie_warn.jpg

  186. avatar
    Sef July 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    Rickey: A good example of how standing applies can be seen in the case of a Pennsylvania anti-blasphemy law which was struck down by a U.S. District Judge last week.In 1977 Pennsylvania passed a law prohibiting the use of “blasphemous” words in the names of corporations. This was in response to someone who wanted to name his business “The [GD] Gun Shop.” The owner of the business apparently chose not to challenge the law.It is pretty obvious to anyone reading the statute that it violates the separation of church and state, but no one had standing to challenge the law unless he or she had been personally and particularly damaged by it. So the law stood for 33 years, until a filmmaker decided to challenge it because he was not allowed to name his company “I Choose Hell Productions.” The filmmaker had a claim which was particular to him and was not shared by the public at large, so he had standing to pursue his lawsuit. If someone who had not been turned down for a corporate name had filed a similar lawsuit, it would have been dismissed for lack of standing.http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463198055

    IOW there’s no case unless there’s a case.