Is attorney Mario Apuzzo trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Perhaps, according to an article in WorldNetDaily yesterday (July 8, 2010).
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Apuzzo’s appeal in the case of Kercher et al v Obama et al, going so far as to order Apuzzo to show cause why he shouldn’t face penalties for filing a “frivolous appeal” (in a case where his clients lacked standing to bring suit in the first place).
However, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. In this case Apuzzo wants to turn the penalties themselves into an individual cause of action because of the particularized harm to Apuzzo from the penalties. Says WorldNetDaily:
He told WND he definitely will explore the issue of “standing” now because of the possible penalties, which might be considered an “injury.”
So what’s wrong with this picture? First, Apuzzo is not a party to this lawsuit and any harm to him doesn’t give Kerchner standing. Second, he can’t bring up something in the appeal that was not part of the original suit. The more important issue, however, is that there is no causal link between Obama’s actions and Apuzzo’s pending penalties unless Apuzzo is going to say of his filing the appeal:
Obama made me do it!
PS: if you think you’ve heard this before, perhaps you have. Orly Taitz tried the same gambit in Taitz v. Obama (Page 3).