Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Attorney, Mario Apuzzo on MommaE & the Radio Rebels

This is a re-post from the ...Ad for Obama Records blog. I listened to this broadcast, last weekend and join them in suggesting it. I.O. also suggests we find out more about Mario Apuzzo and his eligibility action, Kerchner v. Obama (also logged in TRSoL and documented here). Lead plaintiff, Charles Kerchner is also on the program. Let us learn more about Mr. Kerchner, too. I.O's blessings to all who stand up for the necessity of constitutional integrity.

The initial interview is with Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for the Broe v Reed eligibility case, apparently stalled at this moment, after being denied by the Washington state Supreme Court. Mr. Pidgeon has important announcements about the evils of proposed "hate crimes" legislation.
Momma E and the Radio Rebels talks to Attorney Mario Apuzzo

MommaE and Hillary talk radio show | Momma E and the Radio Rebels Politics And News At It's Best - Host MommaE: 1/23/2009 7:30 PM - 1 hr 30 min


Politics and current events with Momma E taking your calls and defending the truth. There will be an Attorney that will give us some updates on what he is going to do to continue the fight against Obama. I am going to keep the first Attorney's name quite until the Show. The last Guests will be the lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner v Obama case that was just filed on the 20th and his Attorney Mario Apuzzo!! Click here to listen.


Anonymous said...

Thanks.I wanted to hear this one.He was on longer than I had heard.Blogtalk player has static since they changed things last month,but default player works.But then you get stuck with thumbnail pics you have to delete.

Anonymous said...

Steve was on an entire segment and didn't abruptly hang up as we were led to believe.Glad he mentioned the calling for repentance.Barry is moving swiftly,and we are going to pay dearly if we remain silent of state sanctioned filth and slaughter.Don't know much about Apuzzo,except he has spent much time in long posts trying to help Orly.Can't find archive of 1-25 show where Ed made new promise.Post link in open thread if possible.In fact,you could bump that thread to the sidebar at top right for easy access.

JeanWTPUSA said...

Mario Puzzo's Military suit just had a motion to dismiss regarding, once again, the "Standing" issue.
Why does “injury in fact” have to be “injury to one’s person?” The law is clear that an injury can be to one’s constitutional rights.

I am not even a lawyer and I am certain that I could come up with a creative way to get around this “Standing Issue.”

Please read this post and maybe there is something that can help YOU and other attorneys come up with some creative legal maneuvers by using the Department of Justice’s “How To Prosecute Election Fraud Manual” against them:

More sections may apply that may offer Puzzo and other attorneys a creative way of overcoming the "Standing" issue.

In the Conspiracy Against Rights. 18 U.S.C. § 241, Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States” under color of law.

Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. Originally held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections.

Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, nor any PROOF of an overt act.

Section 241 embrace conspiracies intended to injure because an injury does NOT really even need to occur?

Why does an “injury have to be a physical injury?” Why can’t it be injury to one’s mental and emotional state? Why not an injury to one’s confidence in government?

I don’t understand why this doesn’t matter apply to these cases and why attorneys continue to do the SAME THING over and over again seem to expect to have DIFFERENT results?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for update Jean.We have been injured and should have standing.Back in the day...the Kings had only 40 days to address redress of grievances and provide a remedy to the people.These days we are serfs that beieve we are still free.All the planks of the Communist Manifesto were eased into our system over the course of seven decades.

JeanWTPUSA said...

I agree, and for those of you who don't know what you are talking about in regard's to the Planks of Communism, please read this blog post:

JeanWTPUSA said...

Just a quick clarification of the above post.

I am not stating that section 241 will be the winning arguement, like I said, I am not even an attorney, and for that reason, sometimes, someone like me, may be able to see things that others don’t or may be able to offer a suggestion that a skilled attorney can run with.

The DOJ manual on how to prosecute Election Crimes and Fraud is 384 pages. There is a link to it in my original post, which is a letter that I had sent prevously sent to the DOJ and FBI regarding this matter.

My only purpose in bringing this up at all, was to stress that point, that the attorneys that are filing these lawsuits have to “start thinking out of the box.” The arguments that are being used, continually seems to fail, case after case.

This reminds me of a story I heard long ago. It was the story of a truck that was stuck under an overpass and a number of engineers were called in to figure out how to get the truck out. The truck was completely wedged under the overpass and the top part of the truck was partially crushed.

The engineers began to scratch their heads, one suggested that they would should bring in equipment to lift the overpass, another suggested that the top section of the truck would have to be cut off. Then a little boy riding his bike came up to the scene and informed the engineers that if they let the air out of the truck’s tires, the truck would fall lower than the overpass and it could be rolled out. And, presto, the problem of the stuck truck was solved, by a little boy that was looking at the problem with a fresh set of eyes.

I am not trying to belittle or minimize the legal work that is being done or the legal arguments that are being made. I am only trying to look at the legal arguments with a “fresh set of eyes,” and make observations that may help someone try a “new approach.” Something that could make the “lightbulb” go on in someone’s head, so they start to think “outside of the box.”

My only pupose in writing the original comment is to ask, “If we let air out of the tires, could we make a better case?”