Mario Apuzzo

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2126

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:28 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:Now don't go confusing Blovario with facts and real cases, he won't know what to do.
When in doubt, bloviate.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5699
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2127

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:52 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:Now don't go confusing Blovario with facts and real cases, he won't know what to do.
All citizenship cases fall into two classes for Apuzzo: those that he identifies as supporting his theories, and those that were decided in error. Or into both classes for a case that has something juicily fsvorable but an inconvenient decision.

Either way, of course, Mario wins!



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2128

Post by bob » Wed May 04, 2016 4:58 pm

At WFP, Apuzzo takes a victory lap for knocking Cruz out of the race:
Apuzzo wrote:The truth is that we were able to convince so many Americans that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. We were even able to get his wife to tell us that Ted is an immigrant. Hence, with voters concluding that Trump is the better candidate and Cruz is not a natural born citizen, the rest is history.
:yankyank:

(Kerchner's victory lap.)


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
tek
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2129

Post by tek » Wed May 04, 2016 5:27 pm

Apuzzo wrote:The truth is that we were able to convince so many Americans that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen completely irrelevant. We were even able to get his wife to tell us that Ted is an immigrant kind of an asshole. Hence, with voters concluding that Trump is the better candidate better entertainment and Cruz is not a natural born citizen hated by pretty much everyone, the rest is history.


You can't go on
Thinking nothing's wrong
Who's gonna drive you home
Tonight

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2130

Post by bob » Wed May 04, 2016 6:30 pm

At Apuzzo!'s:
Apuzzo wrote:New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin is a Trojan horse working for the House of Hanover.
No doubt a member of the B.A.R.

:crazy:


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14645
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2131

Post by Reality Check » Thu May 05, 2016 9:52 am

Apuzzo is either a liar or an idiot or both. There isn't a single poll that I am aware that shows Cruz lost because of doubts about his status much less any proof a DUI attorney from NJ who has lost 14 times in court on eligibility cases had anything to do with it. I don't know of a serious political prognosticator who ever thought Cruz had a chance to be the nominee. At best he might have gotten enough delegates to cause a brokered convention that might pick someone else other than Cruz or Trump.

Cruz is almost universally despised by the leaders of his own party and appealed only the the far right fringe. He had loser written all over him from the time he declared.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2132

Post by bob » Sat May 14, 2016 8:42 pm

Over at his blog, Apuzzo begins one of his usual multi-part :yankyank: responses to a commenter with:
So, you believe that I have to “convince a judge,” but you don’t.
Why, yes, if you arguing against the status quo, and want a legal, enforceable remedy with real-world results, then convincing a judge will mostly likely be part of that process. Because others have already convinced many judges of a position contrary to Apuzzo's.

But if your goal is to declare yourself victor of the comments section of your own blog, then, no, no judge required.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2133

Post by bob » Sun May 15, 2016 5:49 pm

Apuzzo's!:
STepper wrote:Mario - You don't have to convince a judge to convince yourself that you're right. Although that's how those of us who take our selves seriously do it.

(Incidentally, Vattel's treatise at section 214 seems troublesome to your argument.)
Apuzzo wrote:If you have a legal argument that you would like to make, please make it.
STepper wrote:Not on a website where you have control over what is posted, including editorial and censorship rights. On the other hand, I do believe that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be elected POTUS, although I get there is a much more straightforward way than you do. I start in 1790, not before, and I rely on U.S./ Supreme Court cases as well as the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts. But the two parent theory is nonsense.
Apuzzo wrote:You're a coward.
Well, there you go: you're a coward if don't have faith in Apuzzo's ability to fairly moderate those who would be critical of him or his ideas.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25769
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2134

Post by Foggy » Sun May 15, 2016 7:56 pm

No way. Mario wrote a 3 word post? :shock:


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you are trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43447
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2135

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun May 15, 2016 8:51 pm

Foggy wrote:No way. Mario wrote a 3 word post? :shock:
Without a word resembling "victory" in it, to boot!



User avatar
wavey davey
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2136

Post by wavey davey » Mon May 16, 2016 1:34 am

Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo is either a liar or an idiot or both. There isn't a single poll that I am aware that shows Cruz lost because of doubts about his status much less any proof a DUI attorney from NJ who has lost 14 timesin court on eligibility cases had anything to do with it. I don't know of a serious political prognosticator who ever thought Cruz had a chance to be the nominee. At best he might have gotten enough delegates to cause a brokered convention that might pick someone else other than Cruz or Trump.

Cruz is almost universally despised by the leaders of his own party and appealed only the the far right fringe. He had loser written all over him from the time he declared.
Whoa, did he really lose 14 times? Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14645
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2137

Post by Reality Check » Mon May 16, 2016 4:14 pm

wavey davey wrote:
Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo is either a liar or an idiot or both. There isn't a single poll that I am aware that shows Cruz lost because of doubts about his status much less any proof a DUI attorney from NJ who has lost 14 timesin court on eligibility cases had anything to do with it. I don't know of a serious political prognosticator who ever thought Cruz had a chance to be the nominee. At best he might have gotten enough delegates to cause a brokered convention that might pick someone else other than Cruz or Trump.

Cruz is almost universally despised by the leaders of his own party and appealed only the the far right fringe. He had loser written all over him from the time he declared.
Whoa, did he really lose 14 times? Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.
I believe that is correct. I need to update my scorecard on Apuzzo. He had lost 11 times after his writ for cert in Paige v Vermont was denied by SCOTUS in 2014. He worked with Paige again in Vermont in 2016 to file a challenge against Cruz, Jindal and Rubio. He lost in state court and I believe lost on appeal. Recently, Apuzzo and Williams lost a challenge in New Jersey before Judge Masin again.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2138

Post by bob » Mon May 16, 2016 4:22 pm

Reality Check wrote:He worked with Paige again in Vermont in 2016 to file a challenge against Cruz, Jindal and Rubio. He lost in state court and I believe lost on appeal.
Apuzzo ghostwrote prepared Paige's 2016 pleadings in Vermont. I assume at this point that suit is D - E - D, but I haven't seen the dismissal order. I don't know if Apuzzo Paige appealed, but I don't think there was an appeal.
Recently, Apuzzo and Williams lost a challenge in New Jersey before Judge Masin again.
Apuzzo (and Williams) lost before the ALJ, and then N.J.'s Lt. Gov. qua SoS overruled Apuzzo's and Williams' whinings objections, and adopted the ALJ's recommendation.

Apuzzo has given hints about motions filed in the N.J. appellate court (and SCoNJ), but I assume by Apuzzo's vagueness that he has achieved total victory, i.e., had his ass handed to him yet again. But no evidence presently of anything dispositive.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6503
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2139

Post by Northland10 » Mon May 16, 2016 8:39 pm

Apuzzo's two parent theory seems odd since that would mean that:

1. The Elector of Saxony that he worked for would not have been a citizen as his mother was from Brandenburg-Bayreuth (not to mention Augustus III was married to an Austrian from the Hapsburg house).

2. Vattel's own son probably did not have 2 parents since his wife was from Saxony.

Mario would probably use some excuse as the mothers gave up their previous condition, but would Maria Josepha had given up being a Hapsburg?


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2140

Post by bob » Sun May 22, 2016 8:06 pm

I ran across this: SCoNJ denied cert. (in 1988) in a case curiously titled Mario Apuzzo v. The Princeton Packet.

Princeton is, of course, a small town in New Jersey not known for much. The Packet was a very old newspaper.

I'm a bit curious why Apuzzo was suing a newspaper.... :think:

And did we know this about Apuzzo?:
Mr. Apuzzo, an attorney who was elected to the Borough Council in 1992 but lost his seat after an unsuccessful bid for mayor in 1995


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

chancery
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2141

Post by chancery » Sun May 22, 2016 8:33 pm

And did we know that Apuzzo was the director of law for the Monroe Township in the mid-1980s?

I discovered that nugget while looking for more information about the Princeton Packet case discovered by bob, in a packet of papers related to an uninteresting land use dispute.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2142

Post by bob » Sun May 22, 2016 8:36 pm

chancery wrote:And did we know that Apuzzo was the director of law for the Monroe Township in the mid-1980s?
Yeah; his biggest legal victory in his career was when he got to keep his job.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

chancery
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2143

Post by chancery » Sun May 22, 2016 8:40 pm

Thanks. Should have searched the thread before posting.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2144

Post by bob » Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:15 pm

Northland10 :thumbs: has a nice little find:

In November 2010, Apuzzo was "administratively ineligible to practice law" because he failed to comply with the mandatory IOLTA program. Apuzzo was formally reinstated in August 2011. Apuzzo was not on the April 2011 reinstatement list, so I infer he complied sometime between April and August of 2011.

I see no indication that Apuzzo practiced law from November 2010 through August 2011. Apuzzo was counsel of record for one appeal (In re Estate of Robinson*) that was argued before his administrative ineligibility but decided after. Purpura and Moran's objection was filed in April 2012.


* Apuzzo lost (naturally); the appellate court affirmed as time-barred the dismissal of a probate challenge.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2145

Post by bob » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:51 pm

It looks as if the weight of Apuzzo's bullwhip has fatally weighted down the mega-thread at WFP, so Apuzzo appears to have decamped to haunting this comments section.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5699
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2146

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:56 pm

bob wrote:It looks as if the weight of Apuzzo's bullwhip has fatally weighted down the mega-thread at WFP, so Apuzzo appears to have decamped to haunting this comments section.
By skimmily scrolling down the logorrheic lollygagging, I can see that it's the same old same old Apuzzo/Farrar/Telles hyperkakistocoprography.

Thanks for letting us know bob (our wonderful wader into Apuzzoid cesspools), but I think this new Apuzzoid outpouring of nonsense doesn't merit very much attention from us!



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2147

Post by bob » Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:17 pm

WFP's megathread:
Comments are closed.
:happyfamily: :dance: :banana: :thumbs: :bar:
Edit: :lol: :oops: Fixed.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2148

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:13 pm

When I click on your link bob, instead of going to WFP I get this thread with every occurrence of "Apuzzo" highlighted in magenta!

Neat trick.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2149

Post by bob » Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:32 pm

Apuzzo!'s:
Bryan Gene Olson ("Unknown"),

I have rejected your latest comment to this article. If you want your comments to be accepted here, they must be of your opinion on the meaning of a natural born citizen and whether Ted Cruz meets that definition or any other related matter. I will not simply post here your comments which you have repeated on this blog and others for over 7 years which are nothing more than your attacks against me personally. If you want to continue along those lines, you will have to find yourself another place to do that.
:fingerwag: :nope:


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23784
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2150

Post by bob » Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:46 pm

Apuzzo!'s:
Apuzzo wrote:sj,

I rejected your comment because you just can't help yourself in attacking me personally. If you have an argument to make, make it without the added baggage which only show how much of an ass you are.
s[color=#FF0000]f[/color][*] wrote:I assume you meant sf, not sj. I did not make a personal attack on you, I simply asked a series of questions, which you did not answer, I assume that you did not answer them because you have no answer for them.

There is no argument to make. Your stated definition of NBC has been rejected by every single court that has heard it. And no, Minor v. Happersett did not provide an exclusion definition of NBC, In fact, it did not provide a definition of NBC at all. It provided a non-exclusive definition of citizens at birth. It then went on to say that these (citizens at birth) are native or natural born citizens. It then expressly stated that it was not going to provide an opinion as to the citizen status of people born to non citizens. Further, the definition of citizens at birth is dicta.

The dissenting opinion in WKA lamented the fact that the decision would allow WKA to run for president. Accordingly, the dissenting opinion understood that the majority opinion meant that WKA was a NBC.

Please explain to me how that analysis is incorrect.
Apuzzo wrote:You really do demonstrate how astute you are by recognizing the difference between sf and sj.
sf wrote:Well you blocked my first post. But I noticed that you didn't answer my question, again. It is a simple question. How is my analysis wrong?
Apuzzo wrote: You bring up that I blocked your first post. I explained to you that your first post contained personal attacks against me. You did leave out the offending language in your second post, but without an apology. Now you complain that I blocked your first post. Do you want to continue to debate me about your conduct or about the definition of a natural born citizen?
sf wrote:I did not attack you. There is no need to apologize. Are you going to answer my question or admit that I am right?
Apuzzo wrote:I will do neither.
sf wrote:And we all know why.
* Sekrit Stuffs!
:sterngard:


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”