From the office of Mario Apuzzo Esq.
27 October 2009, 2:45 P.M. EDT
Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit Decision Appealed to Federal
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA
JAMESBURG, NJ – (Oct. 27, 2009) - Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today
filed an appeal with the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia,
PA, on behalf of plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell
T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ;
and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ; challenging the recent decision
of Judge Jerome Simandle, Federal District Court, Camden, NJ, dismissing the
lawsuit charging that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has hidden all
his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early
school records, college records, travel and passport records, and has not
conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is Article II,
Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and
Commander-in-Chief of our military.
Obama was born a British Subject to a British Subject father and Obama is still
a British Subject/Citizen to this day since he has never renounced it. According
to this lawsuit Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiances, is not
constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our
military. The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required
the President have sole allegiance to the USA at birth, which Obama does not
have. Obama has multiple foreign allegiance claims on him because of his British
birth. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen or immigrant to the USA. The
lawsuit seeks a trial on the merits to determine the true facts of Obama’s legal
identity and exact citizenship status and requiring Obama to prove to the courts
that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution,
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office
of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.
The legal term of art, natural born citizen, is defined by the world renowned
legal scholar Emmerich de Vattel in his pre-eminent legal treatise and
enlightenment to the world of jurisprudence in the revolutionary period, The Law
of Nations and Natural Law, published in 1758, and which was used by the
founders during the Continental Congress formation of our country and by the
framers of our U.S. Constitution, and whose definition of natural born Citizen
is incorporated in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Vattel and U.S.
Supreme Court decisions agree that a natural born citizen is a person born in
the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country. Obama’s father
was not a citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA. Thus Obama is not a natural
born citizen of the USA, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.
- more-
The lawsuit was filed early in the morning of January 20, 2009, before Obama was
sworn in. The case was dragged out by delays by the government in addressing
the case and deciding on whether the case would proceed to a fact finding trial
on the merits or not. The court has decided that it will not go to the merits
and has dismissed the case using technical and procedural tactics to keep the
Plaintiffs from getting to the merits of the charges.
By the Court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims
present a political question, the Court was able to avoid having to address the
underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American
People unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an
Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore constitutionally eligible to be
President and Commander in Chief.
For more information about the lawsuit see these links:
Second Amended Complaint
Feb 2009 Amended Complaint
Docket Report
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Kerchner v Obama & Congress - Table of Contents - 2nd Amended Complaint
Comments
"The wheels on the Birfer go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the Birfer go round and round..." :-)
We see one of the paid-for DOJ Flying Monkeys at work just lickety-split to protect the Usurper.
Good work, acerbic, how do you suppose you'll become employed in your next job now that this one is about to be history???
Hi Acerbic,
Care to go 'round and 'round with me?
Just please: no names, no ridicule, no baiting; just facts, logic, and persuasive dismantling of Apuzzo's case.
I'm happy to read and respond to you, if only to let Ms Cotter the time to read, to write, and to inform on this serious constitutional matter.
Start with the "...":-).
Thanks for the report Dianna, the facts speak for themselves.
"Obama was born a British Subject to a British Subject father and Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day since he has never renounced it."
Thanks for keeping us up to date Dianna. The wheels of the masquerader's machine will certainly fall off under continued pressure and scrutiny.
What a waste of resources. To deny Obama is a US citizen is almost as stupid as denial of the Holocaust. Go ahead and waste you time, please do.
Regrettably this will go no where. Us normal US Citizen's do not have "standing" in the courts eye to bring on such a case. We have seen this same issue before and it will go the same way.
What would be the need to dismantle any *further* a "case" based on made up Birfoon fantasy law that was LAUGHED OUT OF COURT?
Hi Acerbic! Hows you? Ok, to those questioning the importance of this: If Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen (nbc), what does it matter? Well, because 1) to be a Constitutional Government, you have to be an abc. 2) If Obama is not constitutionally qualified, the government is unconstitutional as well. 3) If Obama is breaking the constitution, then he is ALSO not BOUND by it, and hence can DO ANYTHING HE WANTS.
Now, if Obama so trashes the constitution, what is going to protect all you liberals the next time a CONSERVATIVE, no lets go further, an UBER-Conservative gets into office? Hum...? NOTHING. Nothing at all. Are you starting to get the picture here? Think LONG TERM folks, Obama isn't going to be President forever... Congress is in for a house cleaning in 2010 its going to swing conservative... Imagine a nice conservative congress and a REAL Conservative president... if the Constitution is already trashed because you didn't PROTECT IT TODAY... think about it.
Oh and Acerbic, I almost forgot.... The plaintiffs WANT these cases dismissed at this point. Because then THEY control the next appeals court it goes to instead of the defense which could tie it up the wrong court for a very long time. Clearly you do not play chess. Those who believe that Obama is an Usurper want this before the Supreme Court ASAP. That means the cases should be dismissed, then they get to choose the appeals courts. Just as Apuzzo chose the 3rd Circuit. The next step after that is SCOTUS, and then you will really see some people taking note. Because that right there is the world cup. No pun intended. SCOTUS must Rule on this, it is the only way to make it clear in todays law. You must have citizens who are parents. Plural. Meaning 2 or more than one. And be born on US Soil. Obama doesn't have that, and at that point he is the weakest link and will either have to resign immediately or be removed by US Marshals. The DNC covered this up with him..... yea, exactly.
bmorgan. two words for ya, Quo Warrento, and there is a way for a citizen to get standing to use it. BUT a Case has to come to the SCOTUS to do it.
Dianna, do you post this crap because you believe it, or because you can take advantage of all the gullible wing nuts who do believe it?
I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person can take this seriously.
The stupidity is that the guy was born in the US of a US citizen mother and issued a US birth certificate as proof. It doesn't matter who the sperm donor was, President Obama was a natural born American who pledged allegiance to only one country - ours.
Olivia,
Leave them alone. This is a great way for them to spend their time. Just think of what else their idle hands might be doing. By the time the Rush Limbaugh crowd is done, the GOP will be totally discredited with all thinking voters.
"The plaintiffs WANT these cases dismissed at this point."
That brilliant strategy is indeed working almost perfectly, congratulations! Might I suggest though that every Birfoon "lawyer" file all their motions unsigned, full of spelling errors and accusing the judges of treason, just to expedite the dismissal process which really dragged on in this case. :-)
"The next step after that is SCOTUS, and then you will really see some people taking note."
Yes indeed, just as much as all the previous times SCOTUS dropped a pile of Birfoon gibberish in their trash can. You are powerless against the grand conspiracy, MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
Olivia, My research into colonial history, European common law, and the constitution, including many documents written at the time of the constitution like the Federalist Papers - James Madison- leads me to believe that there is an Usurper in the White House. I don't think this is a game. I think it the single biggest challenge our Constitution has ever faced. Obama is pushing an unconstitutional agenda. There is no Constitutional provision that allows Congress to make law regarding climate, or Health Care, let alone mandating it on Americans. Think of it, what's going to happen to you when a hard core conservative comes in and does what ever they feel like with out the limits presented by the constitution? Because that is what you are setting yourself up for. You will not have any protections then, and Obama won't be president forever...
Good grief acerbic, think man, it has to be APPEAL-ABLE. Tossing it for technical errors doesn't fit that bill. THis isn't your little videogame sort of stuff. This is the stuff of history and it has to be done the right way for the right reasons. If for no other than the law DOES matter, which is why this will be persued to SCOTUS, and trust me, SCOTUS does NOT like overturning prior law. And there IS precident both in SCOTUS, History of England and France, as well as our founding Documents which state that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Take my word for it, the United States is going to stop breathing when SCOTUS hears this case. There is a very very good chance that Obama will be confirmed as a citizen, but not as a Natural Born Citizen, and declared Ineligible. Every Judge in the US knows it has to go to SCOTUS for a decision of this huge magnitude. Of course they are punting on it. It is expected that they will.
Dianna,
we both k now that British common law, which is what the Supreme Court will follow in such a case, finds Obama to be a natural born citizen.
I do like the term "Usurper".
But claiming "There is no Constitutional provision that allows Congress to make law regarding climate, or Health Care, let alone mandating it on Americans" is simply goofy.
Are you trying to claim medicare is unconstitutional? Or that auto emission regulations are unconstitutional? Next you will be claiming Obama is not a citizen of ... (ooops, guess you really are that goofy) (lol).
Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Rocky: But that trick never works.
Bullwinkle: But this time for sure. Presto! [pause] Well I'm getting close.
Olivia, tell me which of the 18 enumerated powers given Congress in the constitution gives congress the power to force all Americans into a health insurance plan? Hint, it is NOT the general Protection clause.
Next, there IS law in the United States written by SCOTUS itself, know what it says... "Parents who are citizens". Not just one plural use of a word but two. The Court and the founders knew full well that citizenship to another Nation could compromise a man. Divide his loyalties, and that is why they put the Natural Born Requirement in. They didn't want a CIC who was a dual citizen of ANY nation. You have to be purely 100% certifiably American. Obama does not have that. He admits his dad was British. He had dual citizenship at his birth, the ONLY instant that can determine if a person is an nbc or not. He does not qualify. His presence invalidates the constitution, which means YOU are vulnerable just as much as anyone else. It protects us all, only if its intact.
Acerbic, know that when this case is heard in SCOTUS, and it will be, I will be thinking of you sitting in your chair in terror that you may well be wrong. And you will be. I will think of you as Obama resigns in disgrace hoping for a pardon. Because he will otherwise be on trial for defrauding you of all the donations you made to his fraudulent campaign.
You got played. All of you who voted for Obama got played. Hardcore. Obama and the DNC totally used your ignorance of the constitution, of history.
All of you ought to be tremendously angry at Obama and the DNC for defrauding you. You were so in love and still are that you don't want to hear the truth. Thats fine. But don't claim surprise when the freight train of History, Law and the Truth come barreling down the mountain on top of you.
Obama played you for fools, so well its still working. Amazing really.
Does anyone not agree that Obama is a 14th ammendment citizen? I believe Fight The Smears, his campaign website.
We are all in this together.
jimggg, bmorgan, acerbic, olivia, jerry:
You are all either grossly uninformed or terminally stupid. Nor have you read the details of the Kerchner pleadings - all of them. Had you done so and read the many essays readily available on the Apuzzo website you would be much better informed and not display your bloviating ignorance to others.
To pick out a few points:
Obama may (or may not) be a US citizen but that makes no difference at all. He could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom and he'd STILL not be eligible by his own admission.
A citizen is a different thing from a natural born Citizen and, sorry to disappoint you all, but there ARE precedents and case law that support the definition of the term as presented in the Kerchner et al action.
In addition several of you seem to hold the mistaken opinion that English Common Law is the body of work that covers American citizenship. It is not as you'd know were you to read the Apuzzo/Kerchner material.
As it is, you'
citizenscott:
He may be; he may not be. Either way he's not a natural born Citizen as required. Indeed there are certain scenarios where he may even be an illegal alien.
No one knows at this point nor do they even know what his real name is let alone where he was born, etc. All of that needs to be rigorously demonstrated in a proper court of law which court, to date, has done nothing but performed a "duck and cover" action just like grade school kids used to do after WWII with the nuclear attack threat.
Of course Obama is a citizen. No one is saying he isn't. He is just NOT a Natural Born citizen. he does not have two parents that were citizens. His Dad was British, making Obama British also, at birth. Can't be a Natural Born Citizen when you are also the citizen of another Nation.
Dianna, you seem to have some misconceptions about the law and how the courts work. 1) They have no choice what Circuit to appeal to. NJ is in the 3rd circuit. The complaint was filed in the District of NJ. They HAVE to appeal to the 3rd cir. 2) No they do not want to have the case dismissed now. The only thing an appeal court can review is the decision below. This means the only thing the 3rd cir or the SCOTUS would consider is the order on standing. They would not, and cannot look at any of the issues raised in the complaint regarding the arguments about President Obama's qualifications. All an appeal court can do is reverse the order on standing, and remand the case back to the district court. The case would then pick up where it left off, discovery would start, and then Motions for Summary Judgment, and then possibly trial. The case would have to be decided on Summary Judgment before an appeals court would look into the questions of citizenship. no chess game here.
Obama is not a 14th Amendment citizen, or constitutionally eligible for POTUS, until he proves it in court. This isn't about privacy rights, since Obama volunteered for the job, and if he don't like we the people prying, then he has a right to resign. It is public knowledge Obama is a dual citizen or dual national. He has served on the US Senate -- the birthplace of USA laws. Ask your senator if it is constitutional for a dual-citizen to be a US Senator. After you have an answer to that question, follow up by asking how or who in the Senate accepted Obama into the US Senate. Anybody in the elected government should have kicked him out of the Senate. So, now we need a full background investigation, into the the US Congress to ascertain the citizenships, nationalities,allegiances, vital statistics, drug addictions, and suitability for access to classified information.
We have an open can of worms, let's go fishing.
jtx, you call people stupid, and the best youu can do is point to a briefs that lost. Just because someone writes something in a brief, doesn't make it correct. Apuzzo is hardly a leading voice in constitutional law. Your reliance on his writings is like relying on a family doctor's opinion on a question of neurosurgery.
Secondly, you scoff at British common law, the legal tradition that we directly grew out of, and cited frequently in our early history, as a source for covering American Citizenship, but instead go to a Swiss writier? Boy, Scalia would have a field day with that. Again, just because Appuzzo, someone whose areas of practice were Car Accidents Criminal Law, DUI / DWI, Injury Law, and Municipal Law, says something, doesn't make it so. Sorry, but he's no Lawrence Tribe. His word is far from gospel.
32CFR147-- PART 147_ADJUDICATIVE GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.pdf
32CFR147.5(c) Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: (1) Dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country;
borderraven, Obama doesn't have to prove anything in court. That's not the way our legal system works. The people bringing suit have to prove he's not a citizen. And assuming arguendo that Obama is a dual citizen, where does it say in the constitution that you can't be a dual citizen? Or a drug addict for that matter? And what do his vital statistics have to do with being qualified? Oh nothing. That's right. Because you don't really care about the law or the truth. You just want to "go fishing" for excuses to feed you personal issues with the man.
JP,
So you made your way here from Dr. Conspiracy's haven. You really should stay in places where you can get all the pats on the back from people as ignorant as you.
By the way, you did not leave your resume with your comments.
Why do you not peddle your propaganda some other place where you will feel welcome and where you will feel real smart. Your group might might even give you a big job so you can feel important. And then you can give them a big job so they can feel important too. Then after you all have a big job, you can tell the people how important you all are.
Hi Mario...Please point out my ignorance. Was I wrong in pointing out that you could only appeal to the 3rd Cir? Was I wrong that the appeals court will only consider the issue of standing and at best reverse and remand? Was I wrong in point out that you haven't made your career in the field of Constitutional law? Was I also wrong in pointing out that the burden is on the plaintiff, not the defendant? Was I wrong in pointing out that the brief of a losing party is hardly the source to go to to find the law? Please, do point out my ignorance.
JP - Your pretense to intelligence is entertaining. But not all that convincing. Please come back again soon with something relevant, and hopefully more accurate.
Please, stop trying to make it look as if you were somehow resurrecting Christ. Everyone who has half a brain and does know who the legal system works, as well as how the district circuit and all the higher level courts work, as well as their histories, is well aware of how the Judiciary plays kick the can. Apparently you don't. But don't let that stop you from pretending to intelligence.
So please do tell us just what YOUR experience is in Constitutional Law, and what on earth gives you any ... standing... to question someone who is actually DOING something to protect the constitution Such as Mr. Apuzzo? (crickets)
From here you just appear to be a nay saying troll out to protect Obama by telling half truths and misrepresentations.
I forgot to mention JB - that a defendant can appeal in many ways that will end up delaying a case. Really, its quite easy to do if your intent is to delay. At the end of the day, Obama admited he has a British Father. Nothing to prove when the defendant admits to the accusation. Because of that, he admits he was a British Citizen as well as American at birth. He does not have parents who were citizens of the United States. There is a vast amount of documentation that the Founders were directly out to prevent such an usurper from taking the Office. (cont.)
A VERY sage comment from another site (in 2 parts, Second half):
Elbridge Gerry of MA is quoted by Madison thusly:
Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers would intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expense to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services. He was not singular in these ideas. A great many of the most influential men in Massts reasoned in the same manner
They knew well the case where foreign powers managed to insert themselves into the highest levels of a national government. They wanted to avoid that. They did not want the children of "foreigners", especially foreign princes to serve at the highest levels of government, and most especially not as commander in Chief of the American military.
"the ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election. Limited as the powers of the Executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our Governmt a man attached to their respective politics and interests. No pains, nor perhaps experience, will be spared to gain from the Legislature an appointmt favorable to their wishes. Germany & Poland are witnesses of this danger. In the former, the election of the Head of Empire, till it became in a manner hereditary, interested all Europe, and was much influenced by foreign interference. In the latter, altho' the elected Magistrate has very little real power, his election has at all times produced the most eager interference of foreign princes, and has at length slid entirely into foe
32CFR147-- PART 147_ADJUDICATIVE GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.pdf
32CFR147.5(c) Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: (1) Dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country;
Think about the *reason* for the provision, as stated in James Madison's notes on the convention"
Oh, Dianna, considering your comments of him wanting the case dismissed at this point, and it was related to him chosing what circuit to appeal in, and your other misstatements, it is either clearly evident that no, "everyone who has half a brain and does know who the legal system works" or your are stating that you don't have half a brain.
As for my experience practicing Constitutional law, I'd say it's probably on par with Mr. Apuzzo. Not my area of practice. And to be quite honest, I would be particularly suspicious if someone had to turn to me on an issue of such great Constitutional importances, and national impact rather than someone who at least writes and practices in the area. It's rather telling that none of the preeminent voices on Constitutional law have taken any of these cases. Why is there no flood of journal articles on the subject? Why does the field of attorneys taking these cases consist of Mr Apuzzo, an ex poker player, and someone who got their JD via mail?
Well Dianna, one really good way for a defendant to delay, is by winning on a motion to dismiss on standing. That way, you have to go through the whole appeals process before you can actually get the case heard (provided you win the appeal), before which you go through the appeals process again on the merits of the case.
And while I find you Madison quotes interesting, they do not define natural born citizen anywhere. And as much as you protest it to be true, the requirement of parent citizens to be a US natural born citizen only exists in the briefs of Mr. Apuzzo and Ms. Taitz and those who follow them. Sadly, I don't believe we'll see a case ever make it past standing in order to put this to rest once and for all.
Sorry kids, but a natural born citizen simply means being born on US soil. This is British common law, and the precedent which all US courts will follow.
All your claims otherwise are simply hot air.
JP,
So after my little scolding, now you want to be a nice guy. Well, I know your kind. You are not interested in knowing the law and the facts. You agenda is only to repeat the same line which is now old and tired. I have heard it over and over. The only thing people like you can do is make yourself feel better by personally attacking others. You see yourself as above others. The only thing you value are titles and positions of power. You are shallow and have no self confidence. You are right at home with Obama.
When you have something of substance to say, come knocking on my door.
Mario...I'm sorry, I didn't change my tone at all, nor did I find your "scolding" of much consequence. You called me ignorant, when in fact it was your minions who were ignorant, and I merely pointed out her errors. Again, am I wrong is saying you could only appeal to the 3rd cir? Am I wrong in saying the 3rd cir will only consider the issue of standing? Am I wrong that Constitutional law is not your area of law you've built your career on? Am I wrong in saying a losing brief is not the best place to look for what the state of the law is? Am I wrong that you rather not have lost on the issue of standing on a motion to dismiss? And as I said, like you, I haven't made a career out of Const. law. So if none of the real names in Conlaw are taking these cases (and the lack of journal articles), my guess is it's probably because there isn't much there. I would love the finality of a court decision saying nbc means born on us soil, it won't happen because you'll never get standing
Mario...I'm sorry, I didn't change my tone at all, nor did I find your "scolding" of much consequence. You called me ignorant, when in fact it was your minions who were ignorant, and I merely pointed out her errors. Again, am I wrong is saying you could only appeal to the 3rd cir? Am I wrong in saying the 3rd cir will only consider the issue of standing? Am I wrong that Constitutional law is not your area of law you've built your career on? Am I wrong in saying a losing brief is not the best place to look for what the state of the law is? Am I wrong that you rather not have lost on the issue of standing on a motion to dismiss? And as I said, like you, I haven't made a career out of Const. law. So if none of the real names in Conlaw are taking these cases (and the lack of journal articles), my guess is it's probably because there isn't much there. I would love the finality of a court decision saying nbc means born on us soil, it won't happen because you'll never get standing
Thank you for another outstanding researched and referenced article! I missed you but this article was worth the wait. The intense resistance to the protection and preservation of the Constitution of the United States by individuals such as JP is beyond me. Why would so many like him actively work to denigrate it? That you for your vision and your courage in being a beacon of the truth in a very very dark situation, Dianna.
The point I was trying to make is by his own admission BHO according to his website he is a citizen by the 14th ammendment and thus not natural born citizen. By his own admission he was born a British Subject and for all we know he still is one. These are the known facts. Where are the legal opinions from Legal Eagles Tribe and Olson and Chinn regarding Obama's citizenship? They were more than willing to give them for Mc Cain.
"Secondly, you scoff at British common law, the legal tradition that we directly grew out of, and cited frequently in our early history, as a source for covering American Citizenship, but instead go to a Swiss writier?"
It seems Professor Obama used Vattel in teaching his law class. You Obot's should really do your research.
citizenscott.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/prof-obama-uses-vattel-law-of-nations-to-teach-class/
Does this help to refresh everyone's memory? FACTCHECK.ORG stated, “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
JP,
Your ignorance continues to shine.
I am more than qualified to handle the Obama eligibility issue. My work speaks for itself.
You superficially gauge what is right or wrong in the law by examining what lawyers are taking or not taking the case. I do not know what type of education you have but it is surely lacking in common sense.
On losing the case, in legal history dissents have lead the way in great moments of legal development.
You say that I will "never" get standing. Evidently, you do not know much about standing. For your information, it is a concept which the courts have developed to protect it from political battles with the other branches of government and to reduce its case load. How the courts apply it depends on how the court views the political landscape. Hence, there is nothing absolute about it. If the court wants to give you standing, it will find a way to do it. Hence, we should "never" speak of "never" being able to get standing.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!