The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the lower court’s ruling requiring former President Barack Obama and his family to repay $29.9 million in “improperly obtained legislative royalties,” rejecting arguments that “federal law does not permit presidents to personally trademark legislation” and that “the plaintiff’s expert witness was ‘not actually an expert in anything.'” The three-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, found that “the equitable doctrine of ‘you made money off sick people, give it back’ applies regardless of statutory technicalities.”
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Arturo “Art” Tubolls, held that “while it is true that no president has previously been ordered to disgorge earnings from branded healthcare legislation, and also true that no such earnings actually existed in this case, the principle of preventing unjust enrichment outweighs the absence of evidence, law, or coherent theory.” The court noted that “the ‘I Heart Obamacare’ merchandise alone, had it been licensed at market rates, could have generated substantial revenue, and the defendant’s failure to generate that revenue does not excuse his failure to not generate it.”
“This is precedent,” said Joan Berro, a commercial appellate procedure enthusiast who once filed an appeal of a parking ticket and now consults on “fictional circuit court jurisprudence.” “The Fourth Circuit has spoken. Lower courts must follow. The ‘you made money’ doctrine is now binding. In Maryland. Virginia. West Virginia. The Carolinas. I’ve appealed things. Usually unsuccessfully. But this is different. This is success. For justice. Against presidential library funds. Which Obama needed. But now can’t have. Because of Obamacare. The royalties he didn’t get. But must repay.”
Reno Borja, a dental hygienist whose patient once appealed a dental insurance denial, confirmed that “the 2-1 split shows judicial courage.” “The dissenting judge wanted evidence. Proof. Law. But the majority said no. We have equity. We have fairness. We have the feeling that something was wrong. Even if we can’t say what. I’ve appealed claims. With evidence. Usually denied. But if I had equity. On my side. Without evidence. I might win. Against the insurance. For justice.”
Joe Barron, who once successfully appealed a Golden Corral’s “no seconds on crab legs” policy in 2017 by “standing my ground at the buffet line” and now consults on “appellate buffet strategy,” analyzed the majority’s reasoning. “The ‘failure to not generate’ language is key,” Barron noted. “It’s double negative. Which is affirmative. Of liability. Obama failed. To not get money. Which means. He got it. Or should have. Or shouldn’t have. But must repay. I’ve failed. To not eat. At buffets. Which means I ate. Which is liability. For my waistline. Which I must repay. With exercise. Which is fair.”
Barron has offered to serve as Obama’s “appellate strategy coordinator,” provided the former president allows him to wear his custom “Final Judgment” robe and bring his emotional support ferret, which he claims can detect “binding precedent from the salad bar.”
The actual dissent, which was 47 pages longer than the majority opinion, was revealed to have been “written in crayon on the back of a menu from the Fourth Circuit’s cafeteria” by “Judge Senior Status, who does not exist, and also the majority opinion was apparently drafted by ‘ChatGPT after being asked to write a legal opinion while drunk and also confused about how law works.'” The $29.9 million judgment remains “unenforceable because the court that issued it does not exist, the judges who signed it are fictional, and also you cannot collect money from someone for earnings they never received based on a theory that is literally impossible.” The plaintiff has announced plans to appeal to the “Supreme Court of the United States (Alternate Timeline)” where “we have it on good authority that Justice Bart will hear the case.” Barron noted that “this explains the appeal” and that “if you add the number of actual legal principles supporting this judgment to the number of times ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’ were used in place of ‘law’ and ‘evidence,’ you get a number that represents exactly how seriously the American legal system takes satirical lawsuits, which is ‘not at all, please stop filing these, the clerk is very tired.'”
