Mario Apuzzo

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2276

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:30 pm

Giggling that Blovario is gleefully turning the scales of justice into a toddler's teeter totter with "white nationalism, racism, and lunacy" stacked on one end and "laziness, dishonesty, [and] incompetency" stacked on the other.

:rotflmao:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27050
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2277

Post by bob » Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:39 pm

It is especially ironic since Apuzzo believes McCain is eligible; Apuzzo has attempted to justify his myopia.

So what has propelled Apuzzo's decade-long obsession with Obama: white nationalism, racism, or lunacy?
Sekrit Stuffs!
D. All of the above.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12696
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2278

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:23 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:39 pm
It is especially ironic since Apuzzo believes McCain is eligible; Apuzzo has attempted to justify his myopia.

So what has propelled Apuzzo's decade-long obsession with Obama: white nationalism, racism, or lunacy?
Sekrit Stuffs!
D. All of the above.
You forgot jealousy and gross inadequacy.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27050
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2279

Post by bob » Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:55 pm

P&E comment:
Apuzzo wrote:Ms. Hall is correct. Indeed, a natural born citizen is, generally, a child born in the United States to parents both of whom are U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
I have no idea why Apuzzo added the weasely "generally."

And here I was afraid that Apuzzo might have joined the dead-birthers list. (NADT.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2280

Post by Sam the Centipede » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:46 pm

bob wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:55 pm
P&E comment:
Apuzzo wrote:Ms. Hall is correct. Indeed, a natural born citizen is, generally, a child born in the United States to parents both of whom are U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
I have no idea why Apuzzo added the weasely "generally."

And here I was afraid that Apuzzo might have joined the dead-birthers list. (NADT.)
Well, I guess it actually makes it an accurate statement if one interprets "generally" as "most commonly".

It's a dishonest way of appearing to say something while saying nothing. Better than Apuzzo's usual dishonesty.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27050
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2281

Post by bob » Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:10 pm

Not Apuzzo, per se, but Kerchner's still butthurt (over, of course, at the P&E):
Kerchner wrote:The lower, district court turned away [Kerchner's] case on technical grounds such as standing and political question and at the 3rd court of appeal level did so on the stated term that it was frivolous to appeal the district court decision on the argument that it was the same argument as Berg vs Obama filed in the same district, which is was not. The 3rd circuit court of appeals even threatened to sanction our attorney, Mario Apuzzo, by threatening him with sanctions to intimidate him. But he fought back and the 3rd circuit backed off on the threatened sanction action. They knew they were wrong and did not want further publicity to the case as a sanctions hearing would have had to be held in public per the regs. The Kerchner case was very different in the charge counts and the timing/ripeness than the Berg case. The district court in Berg vs Obama said the argument in the summer of 2008 wasn’t ripe yet because Obama was as of the filing date of that case, either not even nominated by the convention yet, and/or was not elected yet. The Kerchner et al case was filed after Obama had won the national election, had won the electoral college vote, and was ratified/confirmed by Congress … but before he was sworn in. So Kerchner et al v Obama et al was ripe and thus not the same case as Berg v Obama. But the court system at the lower levels pulled a Catch 22 type of defense to not hear any cases, or technical standing type arguments. And the U.S. Supreme Court simply decided to duck/avoid the issue … as Justice Thomas so stated in a public hearing before a committee of Congress. The founders and framers and Chief Justice Marshall’s court are likely rolling over in their graves by the lack of courage in taking on a case to address the question of the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause, a national security clause, in our U.S. Constitution, in a case directly addressing Presidential Eligibility and that term. They should have taken the case and instead they avoided it and several others. The court did not do its job when asked to interpret an important national security term in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. History will record their cowardice and how they disgraced their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.
Unsurprisingly, after all these years, Kerchner still gets the case of his own history wrong: Berg's dismissal was affirmed due to lack of standing; the 3d Cir. had no problem concluding that, if Berg didn't have standing, neither did Kerchner (and the other plaintiffs). Ripeness simply didn't figure into the 3d's rulings.

So the 3d concluded Apuzzo should have known better when he submitted his briefing in Kerchner's case; Apuzzo certainly should have at least acknowledged Berg in his opening brief. :fingerwag:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27050
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2282

Post by bob » Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:19 pm

Apuzzo's!:
Carlyle wrote:Perhaps it is time to start discussing the Presidential Eligibility of Kamela Harris?
Apuzzo wrote:I agree.
That's it; that's all he can muster.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27050
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2283

Post by bob » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:29 pm

Conservative Daily News: FACT CHECK: Is Kamala Harris Not Eligible To Be President?:
Jacob Wohl, a 21-year-old conservative activist, said in a tweet Jan. 22 that Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris is not eligible to run for president. . . .

Verdict: False
Harris, a natural-born U.S. citizen, meets the presidential requirements laid out in the Constitution.
Apuzzo wrote:The historical and legal record demonstrates that there is a critical constitutional distinction between a “natural born citizen” of the United States and a “citizen” of the United States. If Sen. Kamala Harris was born in California to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, she would be a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. She would not be a common law “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Comments appear to be open ... :-
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Atticus Finch
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Occupation: Professional cat wrangler

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2284

Post by Atticus Finch » Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:44 pm

bob wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:29 pm
Conservative Daily News: FACT CHECK: Is Kamala Harris Not Eligible To Be President?:
Jacob Wohl, a 21-year-old conservative activist, said in a tweet Jan. 22 that Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris is not eligible to run for president. . . .

Verdict: False
Harris, a natural-born U.S. citizen, meets the presidential requirements laid out in the Constitution.
Apuzzo wrote:The historical and legal record demonstrates that there is a critical constitutional distinction between a “natural born citizen” of the United States and a “citizen” of the United States. If Sen. Kamala Harris was born in California to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, she would be a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. She would not be a common law “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Comments appear to be open ... :-
I reviewed the comments at the conservativedailynews.com website and made several comments on my own under the name "atticus finch"

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12696
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2285

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:34 pm

Atticus Finch wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:44 pm
bob wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:29 pm
Conservative Daily News: FACT CHECK: Is Kamala Harris Not Eligible To Be President?:
Jacob Wohl, a 21-year-old conservative activist, said in a tweet Jan. 22 that Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris is not eligible to run for president. . . .

Verdict: False
Harris, a natural-born U.S. citizen, meets the presidential requirements laid out in the Constitution.
Comments appear to be open ... :-
I reviewed the comments at the conservativedailynews.com website and made several comments on my own under the name "atticus finch"
One can only wonder how the comments will be received. :sarcasm:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2286

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:42 pm

Do we know Charles Hughes, the guy who reminds Apuzzo that he was stomped on in New Jersey? :clap:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27050
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2287

Post by bob » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:05 pm

Apuzzo's back in the game!; CDN comment:
Apuzzo wrote:Under the law of nations and common law that defined a natural born citizen and as confirmed by all of Congress’s naturalization Acts since 1790, only persons born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents were “natural born citizens” of the United States. This common law rule prevented anyone born in the United States to non-U.S. citizen parents from even just being a “citizen” of the United States, the nomenclature that Congress used in its naturalization Acts. Congress’s first statute to address this problem was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The “not subject to a foreign power” was still too limiting, as children born to aliens, unlike children born to slaves who had long lost any allegiance to a foreign power, were clearly born subject to a foreign power. So, Congress introduced the Fourteenth Amendment with its much easier test of “subject to the jurisdiction,” which allowed even children born in the United States to qualifying alien parents to be citizens of the United States.

Hence, the Fourteenth Amendment naturalizes from the moment of birth persons born in the United States to one or two qualifying alien parents to be “citizens” of the United States “at birth” just like a naturalization Act of Congress naturalizes from the moment of birth persons born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents to be “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” The Fourteenth Amendment does nothing more than naturalize at birth a person born in the United States to parents who are not both U.S. citizens. That is why its framers said that persons who acquire U.S. citizenship either under the Amendment or by naturalization in the United States are “citizens” of the United States. With Congress being aware of the natural born citizen clause serving as one requirement of presidential eligibility, if the former were natural born citizens, Congress would have said so and then said that naturalized persons were “citizens” of the United States. But Congress did not draw any distinction in the nomenclature between persons who acquire citizenship under the Amendment and those who acquire it through a naturalization Act of Congress. It said that they are both “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” This is why courts that have addressed the issue have held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not amend Article II, Clause 1, Section 5 and its natural born citizen clause.

This means that all natural born citizens of the United States are also citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, but not all citizens of the United States under the Amendment are also natural born citizens of the United States. If a person needs and satisfies the Fourteenth Amendment to be a “citizen” of the United States, meaning that he or she is not able to satisfy the requirements of the common law that defines a “natural born citizen” of the United States (like Virginia Minor was), but can satisfy the requirements of the Amendment (like Wong Kim Ark did), then that person is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” but not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

* * *

The English common law definition of a “natural born subject” of the King simply does not square with the Founders’ and Framers’ desire to keep foreign and monarchical influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. On the contrary, the law of nation’s definition of a “natural born citizen” served their purpose just nicely.

To deny the central role that Emer de Vattel played in the American Revolution and in the drafting of the Constitution is simply to deny our history. The Federalist Papers and the historical record are filled with references to the law of nations and the important role that body of law played for the Founders and Framers in rejecting Coke’s perpetual natural allegiance and thereby justifying the American Revolution, writing the Constitution, and resolving the many problems with which they were faced both before and after the adoption of the Constitution. Emer de Vattel was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite writer on the law of nations and specifically consulted his treatise, The Law of Nations, as the source to go to on the law of nations. Indeed, our courts have recognized Vattel as an important source of law and political philosophy for the founders and framers.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12696
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2288

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:24 pm

So Blovario starts out with a lie and misreading of Vattel. How normal.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Atticus Finch
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Occupation: Professional cat wrangler

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2289

Post by Atticus Finch » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:47 am

Apuzzo has taken the bait and responded to my comments about natural born citizenship. If you all want to join in the fun, post your comments at the web site.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12696
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2290

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:26 am

He's an attention whore addict, on top of being and idiot crappy lawyer, and can't help himself. Dead ducks in a barrel.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2291

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:15 am

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:42 pm
Do we know Charles Hughes, the guy who reminds Apuzzo that he was stomped on in New Jersey? :clap:
I know him. He posts a lot on Twitter. He takes a lot of birthers to task and also has been in a lot of the mike volin tweets.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2292

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:41 am

Atticus Finch wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:47 am
Apuzzo has taken the bait and responded to my comments about natural born citizenship. If you all want to join in the fun, post your comments at the web site.
I like this comment:
PogueMoran
February 12, 2019 at 8:11 am
Surely Mario you can find some instances of the founders referencing Vattel when it came to the requirements for President. You have to have some proof in the debates of the constitution or the federalist papers or something to prove they looked to him on citizenship. You wouldn’t just make this up right?

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2293

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:27 am

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:41 am
Atticus Finch wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:47 am
Apuzzo has taken the bait and responded to my comments about natural born citizenship. If you all want to join in the fun, post your comments at the web site.
I like this comment:
PogueMoran
February 12, 2019 at 8:11 am
Surely Mario you can find some instances of the founders referencing Vattel when it came to the requirements for President. You have to have some proof in the debates of the constitution or the federalist papers or something to prove they looked to him on citizenship. You wouldn’t just make this up right?
Hmmm I wonder who wrote that :daydream:

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2294

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:39 am

Was the Vattel two citizen parents idea ever discussed in courts or in scholarly literature in the many years between the adoption of the Constitution and President Obama's entry into the 2008 primaries?

Mr Brolin
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:03 am

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2295

Post by Mr Brolin » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:07 am

Not directly but particularly during the various "panics" throughout the 19th century (Irish, Italian, German, Chinese) as well as the "one drop of xxxxx blood" period, there was much allusion to the ideas of how only WASP's born of 'Murikan WAP's could possibly be real honest to God 'Murikans.

The WKA dissent from the government being a case in point about how dare uppity foreigners of non milky white hue be considered President material.

The Slaughterhouse Cases and Dred Scott are probably the most on point ones, one would opine.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15756
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2296

Post by Reality Check » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:24 am

Apuzzo has quoted from Dred Scott many times. He tries to cloak it as the Scott v Sandford case.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2297

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:43 am

Mario asked a simple question and he avoids answering it and then claims victory again.
PogueMoran
February 13, 2019 at 8:13 pm
Mario obviously wants everyone else to make legal arguments since so many of his have failed in court. Maybe Mario needs help with being an actual lawyer from someone else not named Mario Apuzzo?



Mario Apuzzo
February 13, 2019 at 10:04 pm
What a pounding your gang has received here. It’s time for you to pack it up and hit the road.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27050
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2298

Post by bob » Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:29 pm

With just over 100 comments (in toto), I think Apuzzo has given up the ghost on the CDN comments section.

Back in the day, Apuzzo would haunt comments sections for years, leaving thousands of comments.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2299

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:33 pm

bob wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:29 pm
With just over 100 comments (in toto), I think Apuzzo has given up the ghost on the CDN comments section.

Back in the day, Apuzzo would haunt comments sections for years, leaving thousands of comments.
Apuzzo went away, only to be replaced by someone using the name Chilly Dog. Same old same old!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27050
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Mario Apuzzo

#2300

Post by bob » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:02 pm

FWIW, Apuzzo is back in CDN comments section.

I have a rule to not engage Apuzzo on the law, but I know others enjoy that.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”