_____________________________________________________________IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT_____________________________________________________________Case No. 09-4209CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR. et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II et al.,Defendants-Appellants._____________________________________________________________ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY_____________________________________________________________ATTORNEY MARIO APUZZO’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’SORDER THAT HE SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOTIMPOSED DEFENDANTS’ DAMAGES AND COSTS AGAINST HIMFOR FILING A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL_____________________________________________________________MARIO APUZZO

Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants

185 Gatzmer AvenueJamesburg, New Jersey 08831(732) 521-1900

On the Brief:

Mario Apuzzo

Case: 09-4209 Document: 003110221486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2010

PROCEDURAL STATEMENT

On July 2, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decisionaffirming the New Jersey Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchneret al v. Obama/Congress et al case for lack of Article III standing. Dkt.Document No. 003110204058. The Court ordered that I show cause in 14days why the Court should not find me liable for just damages and costssuffered by the defendants, not in having to defend against the merits of plaintiffs’ underlying claims that Putative President Obama is not an ArticleII “natural born Citizen,” that he has yet to conclusively prove that he wasborn in Hawaii, that Congress failed to exercise its constitutional duty toproperly vet and investigate Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status, and thatformer Vice President and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, and currentSpeaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, were complicit in that Congressionalfailure, but rather in having to defendant against what the court considers tobe a “frivolous” appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of their claims onthe ground of Article III standing. Opinion at p. 3 and 9.On the standing issue, the Court found that the plaintiffs did notestablish that they suffered an “injury in fact.” They said that the injury thatplaintiff allege like that of plaintiff, Philip Berg, in Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d234 (3d Cir. 2009), is not concrete or particularized enough to satisfy Article

Case: 09-4209 Document: 003110221486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2010

III standing. Opinion at p. 5-6. They found that these injuries are “toogeneralized” for Article III courts. Opinion at p. 5. They added thatplaintiffs’ injuries are not “concrete and particularized” because there are“harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people.” Opinion atp. 5. Furthermore, the court said that plaintiffs’ injuries are “generalizedgrievances” which “are most appropriately handled by the legislativebranch.” Opinion at p. 6. The court said that it acknowledges plaintiffs’“frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, buttheir remedy may be found through their vote.” Opinion at p. 6. Finally, theCourt stated that because plaintiffs failed to show they have standing, it neednot address plaintiffs’ contention that “the original common law definitionof an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’. . . is a child born in the country to aUnited States citizen mother and father.” Opinion at p. 7, n.4.On my having to show cause why I should not have to pay damagesand costs for filing a “frivolous” appeal, the court found that “Appellantshad ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have beenaware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts inother jurisdictions.” Opinion at p. 8. They said that an examination of thisprecedent would have made it obvious to a reasonable attorney that anappeal from the District Court was frivolous since no law or facts could

Case: 09-4209 Document: 003110221486 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2010