Mario Apuzzo

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#101

Post by verbalobe »

"For the record": [/break1]blogspot.com/2011/05/why-doesnt-obama-and-state-of-hawaii.html]Why Doesn’t Obama and the State of Hawaii Release Real Evidence of Obama’s Alleged Birth in Hawaii?





[highlight]We have seen many on-line presentations showing the American public that Obama’s recently released alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery[/highlight]. It is now time for Obama to release real evidence of his alleged birth in Hawaii. That real evidence is medical evidence.





Section 338-5 of the Hawaiian statute provides: “§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. [highlight]The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter[/highlight]. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1].”...and when accused of goal-post shifting, Apuzzo responds:


I am not interested in your Obot goal post talk. The on-line alleged Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. Just produce the real evidence. Like I said, "no excuses, please."What does he, constitutional scholar, care? I thought Vattel had this all wrapped up, irrespective of birthplace?





I don't know why the depth of intellectual dishonesty ever surprises me.

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#102

Post by BFB »




What does he, constitutional scholar, care? I thought Vattel had this all wrapped up, irrespective of birthplace?Just a point of information: My reading of the relevant paragraphs written by Vattell tells me that he contradicts himself. He starts his definition of "natural-born" citizens broadly (of parents who are citizens), but then refines it to "the citizenship of the father is passed down to the child". "... those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. ... I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."





So (if we suspend common sense and all that and say that the Vattell argument is valid) birthers are clinging to some two-parent argument that they've pretty much concocted out of whole cloth, right? I mean, a literal reading of Vattell leaves me with the impression that he thought citizenship can only be passed down from the father. (I know some birthers have adopted that argument, but it seems to me the majority are in the two citizen parent camp.)





So while they stake their claim in Vattell's writing, birthers are distorting it to their own agenda. They're not even being true to their hero.

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

Mario Apuzzo

#103

Post by everalm »

Don't forget later in his same treatise he states that his PERSONAL view doesn't count for squat in other countries that are jus soli......like England as a given example.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16254
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Mario Apuzzo

#104

Post by ZekeB »

So it appears that de Vattel is responsible for the chastity belt after all. I mean, how else could they prove the citizenship of a child if they are unsure of its father?
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35015
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#105

Post by realist »

The Putz weighs in on Bond v U.S. (another of Mario's most excellent legal analyses) :P From ORYR[link]Bond v. United States and Standing to Challenge Putative President Obama on His Eligibility to be President,http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot ... s-and.html[/link]By: [highlight]Mario Apuzzo[/highlight], Esq.June 29, 2011The U.S. Supreme Court on June 16, 2011 decided Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ____ (2011). The Bond decision does not say anything that has not been expected regarding filing a case which can establish standing to challenge Putative President Barack Obama on his legitimacy to be President. It has always been my position that a criminal defendant or someone being compelled to pay money challenging an Obama-endorsed Congressional statute which is the basis for the criminal charge against him or her or the money payment requirement will have standing to attack that law and in so doing also to challenge Obama's legitimacy to be President. This is not to say that this is the only way that our courts should recognize someone like the plaintiffs I represented in Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010), who raised legitimate claims of injury to their Fifth Amendment right to life, liberty, safety, security, and tranquility, to have standing to file an action challenging Obama’s eligibility to be President under the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.[snip]Amicus curiae also argued that Bond was raising the rights of third parties (the State), and therefore principles of prudential standing also prevented the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that Bond actually sought to protect her own constitutional rights. Hence, it found that, even if State's rights were involved, she raised her own constitutional rights and so prudential standing was satisfied. The Court said that the key is whether a litigant can show that he or she has suffered an "injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable," regardless of the context in which the challenge is raised (i.e. 10th Amendment federalism or even separation of powers doctrine). [highlight]The Court's discussion of separation of powers as we shall see below becomes very important in the context of challenging a law signed by Obama and thereby Obama himself[/highlight].Applying the Bond decision to a case challenging Obama's eligibility, one would have to be criminally charged or be compelled to pay money under a statute passed by Congress when Obama was President. One would argue that under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, laws passed by Congress need the action or inaction of the President (the veto power) before they are allowed to become laws. This requirement satisfies separation of powers and checks and balances doctrine. One would argue that Congress passed the charging statute, with the President's action or inaction. One would argue that a legitimate President must satisfy the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which contains the "natural born Citizen" clause. [highlight]Then one would argue that the law is not valid because it never was presented to a legitimate President for consideration under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, arguing that Obama is not a legitimate President because he does not meet the requirements of the "natural born Citizen" clause.[/highlight] Hence, one would argue that separation of powers and checks and balances have been violated. Obama's eligibility to be President under the "natural born Citizen" clause would be the basis for the attack against the charging statute. Since the office of the President is a constitutional office, the de facto officer doctrine (that we should treat Obama as the President by fact even though he is not by law) should not be an obstacle to this argument.[snip]The point is that with Obama, one charged with a criminal offense or compelled to pay some money because of a law passed by Congress and allowed to pass into law by the action or inaction of Obama, acting as the President, would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law based on the law lacking the action or inaction of a legitimate President which is needed under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution for laws to be passed. The standing argument would be made in the context of separation of powers and checks and balances.Full article at the link
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#106

Post by verbalobe »

The point is that with Obama, one charged with a criminal offense or compelled to pay some money because of a law passed by Congress and allowed to pass into law by the action or inaction of Obama, acting as the President, would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law based on the law lacking the action or inaction of a legitimate President which is needed under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution for laws to be passed...Typical Apuzzo.





Not sure I've ever read anyone whose fuzzy thinking is so perfectly mirrored in his fuzzy writing. Unlike a lot of the birfoon wannabe constitutional lawyers out there, he doesn't couch his bullshit and wishful thinking in a lot of smoke and mirrors. It's just straight bullshit and wishful thinking.





I read Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution, and it says nothing about "legitimate" President. If it did, he might have a point, as 'legitimate' would have to be defined in that context, and possibly be subject to some kind of avenue of enforcement in that context. Unfortunately, it's just bullshit. All it says is:





...the President of the United States...Sorry, the route to challenging the legitimacy of a sitting President is still only to be found elsewhere (Hint: Article II, Section 4, and Article I, Section 3, Clause 6-7). And just calling Obama "putative" does not make so, you seditious weasel.





He is so full of it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27546
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#107

Post by bob »

A [/break1]blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=1901196992025942345]two-fer from Apuzzo:


So if the Healthcare law was enacted, and I refused to pay, and was fined, I should have standing, Correct?[highlight]I would surely make that argument[/highlight]. One would be compelled to make any payments based on the health care law. Being compelled to make any such payment is what gives the person standing. Given that it is one's personal rights that are at stake and an injury is shown, both Article III and prudential standing should be satisfied.





That health care law has to be passed pursuant to a constitutional process. If that process was not followed, then the law is not valid. That process calls for review by a President (the veto process) who without doubt must be legitimate. [highlight]One could argue that since the President is not legitimate, neither is the law. Therefore, a collateral attack on Obama's legitimacy to hold his office becomes a defense to having to pay any fine under that law[/highlight]. #-o





Dr. Conspiracy wrote an article on his blog that WND will lose its suit against Esquire magazine because of the 1st Amendment.





[...]





What is so hypocritical is that just earlier in the day on his same web site, Dr. Conspiracy threatened Dr. Corsi with a law suit for defamation should Dr. Corsi write an article about Dr. Conspiracy that is not factually correct.





This is the caliber of character of the people defending Obama.Genius Apuzzo doesn't quite fathom that publishing something "that is not factually correct" is defamation, and thus a defamation suit is not a SLAPP.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6161
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Mario Apuzzo

#108

Post by June bug »

Honest to doG, can anyone figure out how any of the birther lawyers ever got a license to practice? None of them, not one, knows his/her way out of a paper bag when it comes to the law! ](*,) ](*,)

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#109

Post by BFB »

Honest to doG, can anyone figure out how any of the birther lawyers ever got a license to practice? None of them, not one, knows his/her way out of a paper bag when it comes to the law! ](*,) ](*,)Which probably explains why they're the only ones to take on these dogs of lawsuits.





Somebody has to finish last in the graduating class.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17216
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Mario Apuzzo

#110

Post by Suranis »

Its like the old joke;What do you call the guy who came last in his class in Medical School?Doctor.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

editorkorir
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:51 am

Mario Apuzzo

#111

Post by editorkorir »

I thought the old joke was what do you call the guy who came in last in class in law schoolMr Vice President

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#112

Post by BFB »

Oh ohh. Apuzzo's got the DNC [/break1]blogspot.com/2011/07/democratic-national-committee-uses.html]right where he wants them (and he credits Doc C) ...According to Dr. Conspiracy, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has recently mailed to voters a solicitation for political contributions for Obama’s re-election in 2012.(snippy)A red-letter alert reads on the front of the envelope reads, “ENCLOSED: President Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate.”(snippy)what Dr. Conspiracy and the DNC fail to understand is that the DNC has committed a monumental mistake. They are soliciting from the public political contributions based on a forged government document. This is clearly fraud of great proportions. We have seen countless expert reports (including from world-renowned computer and software expert, Mara Zebest, and according to retired Major General Paul E. Valleley, even from former CIA officers) that the April 27, 2011 birth certificate image is a forgery. We have not seen one credible response to this plethora of experts who have convincingly shown that Obama on-line Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.And what should we do, Mario??Private citizens should immediately report this great fraud (snippy) to their local FBI offices and to the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election Commission, the FBI, and Attorney Generals across the nation should immediately step in to protect voters and consumers of the United States and of their respective states. Since the birth certificate document is being used as a motivation for voters and consumers to give their money for this political cause, these law enforcement officials should honor their oaths to enforce the law and verify that the birth certificate document is in fact genuine. So now that the DNC has let the cat out of the bag, let them provide the proof that the document that they are using to extract money out of the public is in fact genuine or at least show that even if it is a forgery, that the information it represents to be true is in fact true.You just keep making NJ proud, Mario.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#113

Post by verbalobe »

Private citizens should immediately report this great fraud (snippy) to their local FBI offices and to the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election Commission, the FBI, and Attorney Generals across the nation should immediately step in to protect voters and consumers of the United States and of their respective states. Since the birth certificate document is being used as a motivation for voters and consumers to give their money for this political cause, these law enforcement officials should honor their oaths to enforce the law and verify that the birth certificate document is in fact genuine. So now that the DNC has let the cat out of the bag, let them provide the proof that the document that they are using to extract money out of the public is in fact genuine or at least show that even if it is a forgery, that the information it represents to be true is in fact true.And they should be sure to let the authorities know that Mario Apuzzo Esq BAR # xyz provided this information and instructed them to call.....

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35015
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#114

Post by realist »

You just keep making NJ proud, Mario.Temple University called... they want their law degree back.Gawd, what a lying, worthless POS. :evil:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 37325
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Mario Apuzzo

#115

Post by Addie »

This is a good one :lol:
Democracy is a garden that has to be tended. -Barack Obama

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35015
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#116

Post by realist »

[highlight]So now that the DNC has let the cat out of the bag, let them provide the proof that the document that they are using to extract money out of the public is in fact genuine or at least show that even if it is a forgery, that the information it represents to be true is in fact true.[/highlight]Hey, Mario, the State of Hawaii provided the proof, to both the long and short form BCs of Obama, just exactly like the issuing authority wherever your stupid ass was born does yours.Exactly just what part of that do you not get, you f'g lying moron.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#117

Post by gentrfam »

Since the birth certificate document is being used as a motivation for voters and consumers to give their money for this political cause, these law enforcement officials should honor their oaths to enforce the law and verify that the birth certificate document is in fact genuine. So now that the DNC has let the cat out of the bag, let them provide the proof that the document that they are using to extract money out of the public is in fact genuine or at least show that even if it is a forgery, that the information it represents to be true is in fact true.So, instead of soliciting a representative claimant and filing a class action on behalf of all the folks defrauded by this obvious fraudulent solicitation, Mario suggests we should just report it and hope that the authorities do something about it? Have you no guts, Mario? Okay, to be honest, if I'd been admonished for filing frivolous papers with a court, I might also be a little gunshy about litigating similar issues. I might get a sneaking suspicion that I didn't really understand the law on the issue as well as I'd thought.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27546
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#118

Post by bob »

Apuzzo posts another article [/break1]blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html]about Minor. Blah blah blah; the good stuff:


I am posting to my blog an article on Minor v. Happersett that I wrote [highlight]on January 2, 2009, before putative President Barack H. Obama was sworn into office[/highlight] on January 20, 2009, and which Robert Stevens posted at the web site of Attorney Orly Taitz on the same day. The article as originally written by me may be read at Ms. Taitz’s web site at [xxx-]http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obam ... zen.htmlIn other words, Apuzzo is taking credit for the latest birther meme (that Minor is dispositive).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35015
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#119

Post by realist »

Apuzzo posts another article [/break1]blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html]about Minor. Blah blah blah; the good stuff:


I am posting to my blog an article on Minor v. Happersett that I wrote [highlight]on January 2, 2009, before putative President Barack H. Obama was sworn into office[/highlight] on January 20, 2009, and which Robert Stevens posted at the web site of Attorney Orly Taitz on the same day. The article as originally written by me may be read at Ms. Taitz’s web site at [xxx-]http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obam ... zen.htmlIn other words, Apuzzo is taking credit for the latest birther meme (that Minor is dispositive).I wonder if he included that in his "utterly frivolous" lawsuit Kerchner v Obama.





I haz a forget. 8>
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 29462
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Dick Tater

Mario Apuzzo

#120

Post by Foggy »

Pukative attorney Mario Apuzzo makes me queasy.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.

(opens a Fogbow contribution page on PayPal)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27546
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#121

Post by bob »

I wonder if he included that in his "utterly frivolous" lawsuit Kerchner v Obama.[/break1]scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19]Apuzzo's opening brief did repeatedly cite Minor.





To notable effect.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#122

Post by Plutodog »

I wonder if he included that in his "utterly frivolous" lawsuit Kerchner v Obama.[/break1]scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19]Apuzzo's opening brief did repeatedly cite Minor.





To notable effect. =)) =)) =))
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27546
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Mario Apuzzo

#123

Post by bob »

In other words, Apuzzo is taking credit for the latest birther meme (that Minor is dispositive).Apuzzo may be correct on this front: the first mention of Minor on Donofrio's blog was on [/break1]wordpress.com/2009/06/16/obama-presidential-eligibility-an-introductory-primer/]June 16, 2009. (And the context implies that Donofrio didn't even figure out the "significance" of Minor by himself.)





So, there you go: Apuzzo was first ... at being wrong.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45642
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Mario Apuzzo

#124

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Does Apuzzo know what a "holding" is? Or when a court rules on or expresses dicta about an issue?

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”