Apuzzo

Prime Suspect · **Posted:** Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:26 pm

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241457.html

Quote:

Petitioning the United States Supreme Court for Certiorari: A Primer
Long Odds
Lawyer and client contemplating filing a petition for certiorari need to understand that obtaining Supreme Court review is a daunting task. According to the last Harvard Law Review round-up, over 7000 petitions for certiorari were filed during the 1994 Term of Court: 2151 in paid (i.e. , non-indigent) cases and 4,979 in in forma pauperis (IFP) cases. The Court granted review in 83 paid cases (3.9%) and 10 IFP cases (0.5%). It disposed of another 66 cases by summary affirmance or reversal or (most commonly) by simply vacating the judgment below and remanding for further proceedings in light of some intervening Supreme Court decision (a resolution referred to as a "GVR" — Grant, Vacate, and Remand). The tenure of Chief Justice Rehnquist has seen a sharp decline in the number of cases the Court hears on the merits. Only 90 cases were argued in the 1995 Term, compared to 167 in the 1987 Term and 116 in the 1992 Term.

Even these uninspiring numbers exaggerate the chance that the Court will grant a private party's petition. Many argued cases involve federal, state, or local government petitioners; government entities were parties in 31 of the cases heard during the 1994 Term. The United States, in particular, has an enviable record when it petitions for certiorari. Moreover, many cases on the argument docket involve criminal law issues. If you include habeas corpus cases, no fewer than 23 of 1994's argued cases lay on the criminal side of the docket. So if your case involves a business issue, the odds that the Court will show any interest are even longer.

What are the chances the USSC will hear this case on a political question?

admin · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am **Posts:** 1747

Prime Suspect wrote:

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241457.html

Quote:

Petitioning the United States Supreme Court for Certiorari: A Primer
Long Odds
Lawyer and client contemplating filing a petition for certiorari need to understand that obtaining Supreme Court review is a daunting task. According to the last Harvard Law Review round-up, over 7000 petitions for certiorari were filed during the 1994 Term of Court: 2151 in paid (i.e. , non-indigent) cases and 4,979 in in forma pauperis (IFP) cases. The Court granted review in 83 paid cases (3.9%) and 10 IFP cases (0.5%). It disposed of another 66 cases by summary affirmance or reversal or (most commonly) by simply vacating the judgment below and remanding for further proceedings in light of some intervening Supreme Court decision (a resolution referred to as a "GVR" — Grant, Vacate, and Remand). The tenure of Chief Justice Rehnquist has seen a sharp decline in the number of cases the Court hears on the merits. Only 90 cases were argued in the 1995 Term, compared to 167 in the 1987 Term and 116 in the 1992 Term.

Even these uninspiring numbers exaggerate the chance that the Court will grant a private party's petition. Many argued cases involve federal, state, or local government petitioners; government entities were parties in 31 of the cases heard during the 1994 Term. The United States, in particular, has an enviable record when it petitions for certiorari. Moreover, many cases on the argument docket involve criminal law issues. If you include habeas corpus cases, no fewer than 23 of 1994's argued cases lay on the criminal side of the docket. So if your case involves a business issue, the odds that the Court will show any interest are even longer.

What are the chances the USSC will hear this case on a political question?

Well, there we are back to the QUESTION of WHAT is the RIGHT Question to ask............

.....Marrio, ahhh...urrr.ummmm...ahhh, Mr.Appuzo fumes a bit when I bring up my reasoning of the 'citizenship question vs the political question' assuring me that his work product on 'standing' will survive the legal arguments.

The only hope I can find in the prospect of a 'direct collateral attack', i.e., 'the political question', of the '0s' eligibility working is if the SCOTUS "5" decide that Sosoyoyo and Kaka got to go.

Daydreaming again...............

I just pray that I can get my case as right as my analysis of the correct question being the "Citizenship Question'..........

'Do 'American Natural Born Citizens' as contemplated by the Constitution in A2S1C5 EXIST...?

admin · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am **Posts:** 1747

Quote:

Michael said...

Congratulations Attny Apuzzo. Very impressive work.If I'm not mistaken, this may be the first court victory on the issue of eligibility (although tangential). I look forward to many more.

While the court's reluctance to face the merits is boldly evident, I like the way you painted them into a corner. Thank you for your tireless efforts.

July 27, 2010 8:08 AM

admin · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am **Posts:** 1747

Double post ....... Credit to Appuzo / Cdr Kershner

Quote:

My Note: The good is that they were actually finally released (1st Requested 11-22-2008).
The bad is that the very first application she had to have filed is "missing" (destroyed ?). One of the many questions is that if Obama's are ever released (highly doubtful), will they too of course be doctored, destroyed, or part of them found "missing" ??

Read Commander Kerchner's analysis of this development today (release occured 7-29-10) just below:

A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers (http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com) http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Some of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama Soetoro's Passport Application Records Are Released due to Strunk FOIA Filing

UPDATED passport file analysis and comments ...

Some Stanley Ann Dunham passport file documents are released. Passport office implies in cover letter earliest passport application no longer exists. The earliest 1960/1961 passport application paper work information is missing from this released information. The record starts with a "RENEWAL" application filed in 1965 due her name change after marrying Lolo Soetoro at Molokai Hawaii on March 15, 1965 per page marked P3 of the released documents. The carefully worded cover letter implies earlier years records have been purged for some reason. Since passport records are filed in files by name and not in boxes or files by year, this does not make sense. It sounds to me like HI officials (or whoever controls them) are now instructing the U.S. Passport Office how to obfuscate and parse sentences in cover letters to allow them to not provide what one asks for and yet not be lying. There was obviously a passport issued to Stanley Ann (whatever name she used to get it) prior to 1965. I was under the impression that passport records kept and filed by name were kept virtually forever.

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-10. This file indicates via the 1965 renewal application that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama had a passport issued to her prior to 1965 and she was applying to RENEW it. Since a passport was good for 5 years that means she likely got her first passport in late 1960 of early 1961. Why did she need a passport at age 18? She would not need it to have a baby in Hawaii or to go to college in Seattle Washington. What was the real reason this pregnant teenager got a passport in late 1960 or early in 1961? I believe it was likely to be able to travel to Kenya to have the baby over there where it was her intent to leave the baby there to be raised my the paternal family in Kenya. She was to then return to re-start her life as a young teenager going to college in Seattle Washington. And then when Stanley Ann did not follow the plan because maternal instincts kicked in and she returned to college in Seattle WITH the new baby, grandma Dunham had to take action and filed the fraudulent action in Hawaii to falsely register the baby as born at home there with no witnesses to get her newborn grandson U.S. Citizenship ... because it was very easy to do this in Hawaii in 1961. Listen to the Bill Cunningham Radio Show for how it was likely done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

Also in this passport applications file is revealed the exact date of her marriage (two different exact dates and locations?) to Lolo Soetoro. But as everything with this family, nothing is consistent. In 1965 she says she married Lolo Soetoro on March 15, 1965 in Molokai Hawaii. But in a later passport renewal application marked P5 filed in 1981 she states she married him on March 5, 1964 in Maui, Hawaii. Which is true? Either way, said marriage dates, could have allowed for Obama to have been legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii at age 5 or under given these marriage dates, and his falsified birth records in Hawaii, fraudulently created by grandma Dunham in 1961, and which could have been amended to show the new legal name of Barry Soetoro. And then Obama could have later re-amended them back to put his name back to Barack Hussein Obama II when in his life that suited him. Obama is a life narrative chameleon. He changes names and citizenship at will during his life to suit his current needs and plans.

Also on document P2, the second page of that document, she wrote in the block named "Amend to Include (Exclude) Children" the name of her son Barack Hussein Obama and then right below it a weird name or phrase spelled and in parenthesis as (Soebarkah). This entry then has 5 diagonal line strike-through lines across the entry. Another mysterious new tidbit to research. {{My Note: When I quickly scanned the several passport applications released, I noticed this also. I also noticed on another later application, she completely left this box asking for the names of children completely blank. Very strange.}}

When the original and complete birth records file for Obama going back to and including Aug 1961 and all subsequent amendments are released, it will likely be very damning to Obama's self created nativity narrative and other stories of his early life. Children legally adopted at age 5 and under have their new citizenship governed by the international Hague Convention Treaty on adopting children of which the USA is a signatory. That is likely why Obama alludes to his being age 6 when those Indonesian records are discussed in regards to when his step-father "adopted" him and saying that the adoption occurred in Indonesia. I think that story is more false direction and misinformation type data put out by Obama to throw one off the true trail.

See the records that have been released per the Strunk FOIA request and court order at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stan ... AL-7-29-10

Posted by:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
Please visit this website and help the cause if you can:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

=

admin · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:54 am **Posts:** 1747

Quote:

Wednesday, August 18, 2010
On Air: CDR Kerchner & Atty Apuzzo discuss Kerchner v Obama/Congress now being prepared for the Supreme Court.

OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON 1:01 PM
Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be on Dr. Kate's Revolution Radio Show tonight - Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner will be on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate to discuss the status of the Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al lawsuit for which a Writ of Certiorari is being prepared for submission to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Direct link to Dr. Kate's Revolution Radio show at BlogTalkRadio.com:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/201 ... nal-crisis

Dr. Kate's Blog:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/

Also, please cast your votes to Help the Cause to get the word out:

1st: Vote for Mario to be a Guest: Please add your vote here in addition to making a comment if desired to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Go to this link and click on the vote button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for Mario Apuzzo. Here is the link to vote for Mario: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forum ... puzzo-esq-

2nd: Vote for "natural born Citizenship" as a Show Topic: Please add your vote in addition to making a comment for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Go to this link and click on the vote button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Vote for the new show topic idea at this link: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forum ... ?ref=title

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
#### Source.

www.nbcfund.com

Apuzzo

Who is online