Main Menu

Plaintiff’s reply in Kerchner appeal

Kerchner v Obama

Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles Kerchner has filed a reply to the Defendant’s motion to affirm the lower court decision in Kerchner v Obama before the DC Court of Appeals.

I don’t have time right now to analyze this, and I’m not a lawyer anyway. I was struck by the argument’s opening sentence: “The current Supreme Court rule on standing is designed mostly to respect separation of powers between the three branches of government.” I don’t have the two cases cited at hand, but I always thought the rule on standing was there to restrict the federal courts to those cases which the US Constitution gives them jurisdiction. I wonder if the Court of Appeals will scratch their heads over that one like I did?

Apuzzo then says: “The Defendants [do not] address plaintiffs’ alleged facts which they submit sufficiently show they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury.” But of course, the District Court assumes (within reason) that the alleged facts are true when it made its argument on standing. If the court is going to already assume the facts are true, there is no place or value for the defendants to reply to them.

The reply repeats that Obama has the “burden of proof” to show his eligibility, but I fail to see that Apuzzo establishes the legal foundation for this assertion.

I still fail to see how Kerchner’s injury is concrete and particular. More later here or in the comments.

,

173 Responses to Plaintiff’s reply in Kerchner appeal

  1. avatar
    Greg March 23, 2010 at 10:55 am #

    I had to stop reading after that first sentence. Standing, in general, isn’t about protecting the separation of powers. He’s thinking of the “political question” doctrine. Standing is to protect the scarce resources of the court, to ensure that the court is only hearing the issues that really, truly, matter to the people involved. Bush got Ted Olsen, one of the country’s top litigators when he sued in Bush v. Gore. Gore got Boies, another nationally known litigator. When you care about an issue – and not simply because you’re a “concerned citizen” (read: crackpot), but because your kid got killed, or you suffered an injury you can point to – you hire a lawyer who knows that standing isn’t about separation of powers (and that you don’t put facts in your “verified” complaint that your judge’s clerk can disprove if he GOOGLES it!).

    It’s not a test the courts use, but it does say something about the concreteness of their injuries that the lawyers involved are a nearly certifiable lawyer/dentist, a poker-player/dentist with some VERY odd internet postings, a 9/11 truther, and Mario. Even the Eagle Foundation, which argued that Hamdi wasn’t a US citizen because his parents were temporary workers in the US apparently wouldn’t take the case. Perhaps because they know that there is no such animal as a person who is a citizen because they were born here to an American mom but is still ineligible for the Presidency.

  2. avatar
    Black Lion March 23, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    Well along with our friend Mario continuing to beat his dead horse of a lawsuit and the Soetero suit, we have a return from our old buddy William Spencer Connerat….He is recycling his same garbarge….

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/22/citizen-charges-obama-with-treason/

    Mar. 22, 2010) — A Pinellas County, Florida man has filed a court document which states that Barack Hussein Obama II is guilty of treason by virtue of being ineligible for the office he holds.

    The document, date-stamped March 18, 2010, was filed by William Spencer Connerat III and claims that Obama’s failure to answer his requests for confirmation of his natural born Citizenship is an “admission of ineligibility” and “the basis for an act of treason.”

    I guess these guys have no shame in tying up the judical process with this ridiculous lawsuits…

    However more interesting are some of the comments…

    First from our friend Steve C or Steve Craig, who is not satisfied in losing his lawsuit…..

    “slcraig says:
    Monday, March 22, 2010 at 8:14 PM
    I would be the last person to discourage anyone from going after the ‘0′ with whatever claim or action in whatever court they could get into, but, I have come to understand that the ‘0′ and his supporters have covered all the obvious bases and have Alinsky’ responses for MOST of them.

    Until there is a Federal Court Ruling on the Constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen it is not possible to attack him on those grounds.

    It is my intention to return to the court soon with the ’standing’ issue that was deficient in my previous case satisfied.

    It will be possible to be more specific when I receive the responses from the Administrative Appeals Office of the Department of Homeland Security / US Citizenship and Immigration Service and the FOIA response from the same.

    You see, the ‘0′ has been successful in hiding his past and there is enough elitist obfuscation’ over the 14th Amendment, the Wong Kim Ark and several other Supreme Court cases to keep the truth mired in rhetoric and distraction.

    But the ‘0′ and his supporters CAN NOT erase ALL of this great countries history, the writings of the Founders and the Common Sense of the America People.

    Article II Section I Clause V will take the usurper down this year.”

    Or this hilarious and obviously delsional comment…

    “JeanWTPUSA says:
    Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 4:36 AM
    Mario Apuzo has written a Brilliant legal appeal reply in the Kerchner case. http://www.scribd.com/doc/28779811/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Reply-Brief
    His blog can be found here: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    Mario and the words brillant and legal in the same sentence? Are you kidding me? What an oxymoron. Mr. “Pakistan Travel Ban” couldn’t write a legal response to the court even if he was responding to a speeding ticket….

    And of course Bob Campbell….The same birther idiots are everywhere…

    Bob says:
    Monday, March 22, 2010 at 3:14 PM
    The Democrat’s gleeful, lockstep voting for the Government Takeover of America’s Health Care, was a disgusting spectacle beyond any logic, especially when we know that it is filled with corruption, payoffs, RICO activities, fraud, embezzlement, and done with Taxpayer and borrowed trillions of future Taxpayer’s Dollars, against the majority of America’s who clearly demanded otherwise. The truth is that the Democrats don’t care at all about Americas’ Health Care, they only wanted the Power Grab, and in Obama’s case he wants to destroy America ASAP, and convert America to Muslim, and Shariah Law, because al qaeda is within our borders, and winning. We obviously now cannot wait for the 2010 and 2012 elections to correct this, because by then there will not be a Country to correct. WE NEED PATRIOTS to step forward now, and show who this guy really is. I know who he is, but the average American Taxpayer doesn’t know. Where’s our Constitution ?, where’s our Court System ?, where’s our state AG’s and Governors ? Why are we allowing illegal new laws to be written that are totally contrary the constitution, by a usurper, phoney, pretend ,make believe president who really does not have the proper authority to sign anything, but should rather be arrested for high treason. Even if the Courts and others were complicit by their inadvertent laxness when looking at Obama, Barry Soetoro, or whoever, we certainly should now be asking all our Attorney General and Governor in every State, to immediately subpoena all Obama’s sealed records to be presented for public scrutiny. The first ones to do this will be Heroes, and we then will have made a small step towards saving America. To continue to let him hide his birth certificate, school records, law records, passport info, social security, records from the tax paying Americans is unconstitutional and makes anyone continuing to protect him complicit to the downfall of what was once the best nation in the World under God. We should by now be out of our recession, with full recovery to the problem of unemployment, no foreign debt, and with balanced budgets, but of course we are still going max rate in the wrong direction, always at the hands of Democrats. If you don’t get mobilized against this evil, then all will be surely lost. Certainly the guy can talk; and so can the devil !!! what is it about our make believe President telling us 100 lies a day that makes us think that he is trying to do good??? or that he just might eventually follow through with just one of his promises. If we keep letting this happen Obama won’t just have a tree ornament of Mao Zedong on his Christmas tree as in 2009, he will have full 20 foot portraits of Mao hanging in the White House, and he will then appoint Ahmadi-Nejad, Hugo Chavez and Putin as his latest Czars. Then we might as well paint the White House black, because we will only see dark days in hell from now on. This is no joke, it is unbelievably serious. GOVERNORS, ATTORNEY GENERALS; LETS GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD, anything short of your subpoenaing Obama’s sealed records can only lead to Civil War, and Outright Rebellion by America’s Taxpaying Masses. America needs to see who this guy is along with all his fraudulent records, and correct this situation; to do otherwise would be blatantly stupid. IT IS NOW TIME !!!!!.

  3. avatar
    brygenon March 23, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    But Dr. C, did you not read Obama’s statements, cited in Apuzzo’s reply: “In the wake of 9/11 […] I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in and ugly direction.” And, “So let me say this as clearly as I can — the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.”

    Apuzzo wants the Court to take judicial notice of these statements, because they show injury-in-fact to Charles Kerchner’s personal security. Note that the injury is particular to Apuzzo’s plaintiffs, because most of us do not vilify Muslims in general.

  4. avatar
    Lupin March 23, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    I genuinely feel sorry for your country when I read stuff like that.

    On happier news, we just had regional elections here in France (you might think of them as State assemblies with less power), and the Left swept all the regions except the Alsace.

    (My own region voted for the incumbent, a dissident socialist with the morals of Tony Soprano, but quite effective.)

    Watching the hapless French TF1 news correspondent in Washington trying to explain the HCR vote in Congress on Monday night was also quite funny.

    After stumbling a lot to describe the opposition (which to us sounds like fish protesting water), he ended up saying (loosely translated), “but you see, Americans don’t like helping each other.”

    (The actual French word used was “entraide”)

    The only thing missing was Mario in 17th century clothes running around with a copy of Vattel.

    Back to the regular programming.

  5. avatar
    misha March 23, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

    “but you see, Americans don’t like helping each other.” And that’s the one thing that dismays me about the States. I see it far too often. I have experienced it first hand. And when anti-Semitism was flung in my face, the ones to come to my defense were Arab Muslims.

  6. avatar
    SFJeff March 23, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    Why is it the crazier they are, the less experience they have with paragraphs?

    my favorite line:
    “We should by now be out of our recession, with full recovery to the problem of unemployment, no foreign debt, and with balanced budgets,”

    And that is the typically keen analysis of the birthers and teabaggers the worst recession since the Great Depression.

  7. avatar
    bob March 23, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    Mario: Put on your best lawyer suit and explain to me how the Obama presidency has injured Kerchner but not me.

  8. avatar
    nbc March 23, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    Well, that is simple, in Mario’s world, Kerchner dislikes the President sooooo much that his “injury” is far more “severe”. Of course, dislike of the president of his actions hardly is an “injury”.
    It’s novel approach but it requires one to ignore the precedent on Constitutional Standing.

  9. avatar
    brygenon March 23, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Lupin wrote:

    I genuinely feel sorry for your country when I read stuff like that.

    Let’s not blow this out of proportion. There are cranks everywhere, so a society must either restrict expression or tolerate this kind of garbage. What we’re seeing is the problem we chose to have. Apuzzo and Kerchner get to announce their lies and hate, but they don’t get to win.

    The election of President Obama was a devastating blow to America’s bigots. We did not expect them to accept defeat gracefully and stop being that way.

  10. avatar
    Scientist March 23, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Lupin, I really don’t think Mario is worse than Le Pen, who got 20% of the vote for President of France not that long ago.

  11. avatar
    misha March 23, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    “Let’s not blow this out of proportion.”

    When I was in Anchorage for the Iditarod, I talked with a Dutch woman. She said to me “the way people are treated in this country.” She had a point.

  12. avatar
    Black Lion March 23, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    Jeff, the one common thread with all of the birthers is their lack of grammar and their challenge to read past a 8th grade level. But most of all what they have in common is that they are delusional…

  13. avatar
    Black Lion March 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    There are good an decent Americans of all colors and in all socio-economic classes. People who are willing to help others. However there are the bad. People that want to have someone that is below them so that they can feel better about their lives. Unfortunately the people that squawk the loudest are the ones that the media decides to cover. Meaning that the right are the ones that are trying to control the message. Their intent for the most part is not to work with the left. They have allowed the radio charlatans like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and others to take control of the party and the message. The so called birthers, who are mostly the lower middle class and poor from rural areas, have allowed the millionaires like Limbaugh to use them. Because a long as the GOP can focus their energy on the “evil” Dems, then they forget to recognize that when the GOP was in power, their situation was no better, and in some cases worse.

  14. avatar
    Rickey March 23, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    I couldn’t help but notice that much of Mario’s brief concerns itself with re-arguing the requirements for natural-born citizenship, which aren’t germane to the appeal. He seems to believe that if only he can convince the court that there may be something to his eligibility theories, the judges may be willing to overlook that pesky standing problem.

    Here’s my favorite line from the brief: “Something cannot injure everyone without injuring the individuals who make up that whole population.” If the court were to accept that reasoning, the entire concept of standing goes out the window. Surely Mario is aware of the legal standard that the injury alleged must be concrete and particularized. If the alleged injury is shared by everyone, it’s not particularized.

  15. avatar
    nbc March 23, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    I couldn’t help but notice that much of Mario’s brief concerns itself with re-arguing the requirements for natural-born citizenship, which aren’t germane to the appeal. He seems to believe that if only he can convince the court that there may be something to his eligibility theories, the judges may be willing to overlook that pesky standing problem.

    For the ruling the Court had to accept the allegations as true and factual and they still found that standing was lacking.

    Can’t wait for the Court to rule…

    For the reasons outlined in Berg v Obama we confirm the lower case ruling.

  16. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 23, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Jeff,

    Salutes! The paragraph line is priceless. And probably timeless.

    Benji Franklin

  17. avatar
    JoZeppy March 23, 2010 at 7:13 pm #

    Typically, Mario totally misrepresents the case law, and turns it on its head. Hein is a case regarding tax payer standing specifically. It specifically is discussing the Flast exception that allows tax payer standing when challenging federal spending in violation of the establishment clause, and why it should not be expanded. Hein states that jurisdiction, including standing are an “ingredient of separation and equilibration of powers” and that ““Relaxation of standing requirements is directly related to the expansion of judicial power,” and lowering the taxpayer standing bar to permit challenges of purely executive actions “would significantly alter the allocation of power at the national level, with a shift away from a democratic form of government.”” So Mario, ignoring the vast body of law on standing, takes from a case on the Flast exception, the statement that standing plays a role in separation of powers, to mean that standing was designed mostly to respect separation of powers.

    I suppose one can expect that to fly in Birfistan, but do you really expect the Third Circuit to say, “wow, and all this time I thought it was about case or controversy…well, an attorney wouldn’t lie, or misrepresent the law, so I won’t bother checking the actual case to see what it says.”

  18. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    JoZeppy,

    Do you really believe that you wrote anything that makes any sense.

  19. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    Lupin,

    You said: “The only thing missing was Mario in 17th century clothes running around with a copy of Vattel.”

    I love it. Now I know what I am going to be next Halloween.

  20. avatar
    JoZeppy March 23, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    Interestingly, Mario rejects the English common law for the definition of “natural born” but cites a 1774 English case for the prospect that the burden is on Obama to prove he was qualified for the office.

    More interestingly, the case cited by Mario is over the question of whether an arrest was lawful because it was performed by the son of the sheriff’s office, not the sheriff’s officer himself. The court found that it had to be shown that the office had authority to arrest. It’s pretty bad when the only citation you can come up with to support an argument is a 1774 English case. It’s even worse when that 1774 English case really isn’t remotely on point. It’s downright shady to throw that citation that really isn’t on point to support a proposition, as if it was clearly directly supporting your proposition, and not even require a parenthetical explaining what the court held.

  21. avatar
    PNW law student March 23, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    “The current Supreme Court rule on standing is designed mostly to respect separation of powers between the three branches of government.”

    If he’s *starting* with a policy argument, that’s pretty weak.

  22. avatar
    JoZeppy March 23, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    Far more than the brief you wrote.

  23. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 7:59 pm #

    Rickey,

    Particularized means relating to something which in the law of standing means relating to the plaintiff. It means nothing more.

  24. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 8:01 pm #

    JoZeppy,

    It has been said that great minds think the same. That explains why you and I do not think the same.

  25. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    PNW law student,

    Wow, that was really brilliant.

  26. avatar
    JoZeppy March 23, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    actually it means “the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.”

  27. avatar
    JoZeppy March 23, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    Yes, we all aspire to be the among the great minds of the DWI and Birth bars.

  28. avatar
    Scientist March 23, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    Mario, the simple plain truth is that your client has suffered ZERO harm from Obama. In fact, had he plunked his life savings into the stock market on inauguration day, he would be enjoying the good life today, instead of wasting time with you and your nonsense. If he missed his opportunity that’s his fault, not Obama’s.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 23, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: It has been said that great minds think the same. That explains why [JoZeppy] and I do not think the same.

    I believe the question of which one of you is not a great mind is currently before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

  30. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 23, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    Dear Mario,

    Oh, Dear! On the heels of Vattel we now have 21st Century Philosophy as uttered by Mario!

    Mario thinks the following statement is compelling and laden with forboding for Black heads-of-state.

    “Something cannot injure everyone without injuring the individuals who make up that whole population.”

    Silly, Mario! Small thinker! ‘Fraidy-lawyer!

    You’re provably wrong as usual.

    Here are a few disproving examples:

    EXAMPLE 1) Because you are just a run-of-the-mill U.S. citizen, your violation of Vattel’s prohibition on a few malcontents trying to unseat their head-of-state, by association, injures the entire U.S. population in the World’s eyes, but not as much as it makes every one of those United States Citizens look superior to you. Thanks for making the decency of the U.S. citizenry apparent, by comparison to your loathsomeness.

    EXAMPLE 2) While the spectacle of your disregard for ethics, history, logic, and common decency is a social disease that has depressed and appalled the entire U.S. population, they are in better health than ever because your assertions are so ridiculous, again proving that laughter is the best medicine.

    EXAMPLE 3) When you assert the truth of a proposition that you are not wise enough to see is flawed, you incorrectly imagine that you are injuring the entire population by corrupting the cannon of philosophy which they might consult in pursuing a sensible and productive existence, but the transparency of your typical flawed rule, instead improves the quality of life for each of us by jarringly inserting itself into our consciousness as just another fallacy we should keep an eye out for.

    Have you noticed? Your briefs always need laundering!

    Benji Franklin

  31. avatar
    Bob March 23, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    The injury must also be concrete; there must be a personal stake.

    So, again, I ask: How does Kerchner have standing but I do not?

  32. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett March 23, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    Well, if the whole point of Halloween is to be something you AREN’T…?

  33. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    JoZeppy,

    You reason like your name looks.

  34. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Do you have confirmation that JoZeppy was served?

  35. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    Scientist,

    The English also suffered ZERO harm from General Washington.

  36. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Benji Franlin,

    You were going strong until you uttered “keep an eye out for.” That caused you to go completely out of character.

  37. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    Benji Franklin,

    If you take objection to me laundering my briefs, I would hate to get any were near yours.

  38. avatar
    Scientist March 23, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    The English also suffered ZERO harm from General Washington.

    Really? The best estimates I can find are that somewhere around 20,000 British soldiers were killed in the Revolutionary War.

  39. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 10:17 pm #

    nbc,

    That’s funny. An Obama injured the Framers enough so that they wrote him out of qualifying for the Presidency.

  40. avatar
    JoZeppy March 23, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    Wow Mario…perhaps you should try that winning argument in one of your briefs. And perhaps throw in a “I know you are, but what am I.”

    It’s not like it have to worry about it having a negative impact on your win total.

  41. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    Bob,

    Am I missing something. How do you expect anybody to answer why you do not have standing if we do not have any facts about what injuries you claim.

  42. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 23, 2010 at 10:25 pm #

    Scientist,

    You never cease to amaze me with your brilliance. Don’t you think that the death of those 20,000 dead British soldiers started at some point before they actually died?

  43. avatar
    nbc March 23, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    That’s funny. An Obama injured the Framers enough so that they wrote him out of qualifying for the Presidency.

    You mean Sr? Jr is clearly eligible as we have attempted to show you many times.

    Take your time… The conclusion is inevitable.

    PS: Any comments on the Virginia Supreme Court contradicting your interpretation of the naturalization laws you touted as evidence for your ‘scenario’?

  44. avatar
    nbc March 23, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    Almost as brilliant as insisting on standing because your client dislikes the president…

  45. avatar
    PaulG March 23, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    You’re using “reductio ad absurdum” how again?

  46. avatar
    misha March 23, 2010 at 11:40 pm #

    Mario: have you read my thorough debunking of the Kenya birth scenario?

    Click on the title to go home – there are plenty of articles to raise your hackles.

    Enjoy comrade!

  47. avatar
    misha March 23, 2010 at 11:42 pm #

    Huh?

  48. avatar
    Greg March 23, 2010 at 11:48 pm #

    Is your client dying?

    Is your client dying because Obama is ineligible?

  49. avatar
    Bob March 24, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    “Am I missing something.”

    A clue, for starters. (A truckload of clues, really.)

    WHAT INJURIES HAS KERCHNER SUFFERED THAT I HAVE NOT?

  50. avatar
    Lupin March 24, 2010 at 3:02 am #

    You do have a point. Actually the National Front pulled an impressive 12.something% in my region, so they’re still very much of an issue.

    I would argue (for argument’s sake) that the French National Front — like its British, German, Italian and Spanish equivalents — is purely a xenophobic party catering to folks with strong anti-immigrants feelings.

    That is not a good thing, but it is framed within a real, debatable issue, even though their “solutions” are both hateful and ill-conceived, or simplistic.

    What it is not, is “crazy” in the sense of Sarah Palin, most of what I hear on Fox, or the Birthers’ agenda.

    All societies have xenophobes, granted, and lunatics too. But what causes me to feel sorry is the “crazy”.

  51. avatar
    misha March 24, 2010 at 3:27 am #

    LePen got 20%. If you add up the Denialists, the Tea Partiers, and the rest of the kooks, it’s about 30% of the population.

    And LePen’s followers, as nutty as they may be, don’t advocate violence to Sarkozy. Orly Taitz and Beck are clearly trying to incite a lone wolf.

    Something else: Lieberman cost Gore the election. Sarkozy’s mother was Jewish. You’ll never see that here in the States.

    2,000 people went to Ilan Halimi’s funeral, including Chirac. And the same thing happened here: Leo Frank. Those who lynched Frank were never brought to justice. Some people still regard Franks’s murderers as heros.

    So when Lupin, and others, express dismay at the States, I can’t blame them. I expect better too. And French schools are not putting up with Christian fundamentalists who are out to wreck public education.

    I challenge anyone here to find someone in a policy making position in France to be hostile to science.

    See Texas.

  52. avatar
    Lupin March 24, 2010 at 5:12 am #

    Misha is being very kind (for which I am grateful).

    I of course do not claim that French people are “better” than Americans, or in fact very different. I’m inclined to think that people are the same all over, as Rod Serling once said.

  53. avatar
    Scientist March 24, 2010 at 6:07 am #

    Misha- “Lieberman cost Gore the election”. That’s silly. Gore won the election. 5 people cost him the Presidency and none of them was named Lieberman.

    Lupin-The National Front parties have ties to neo-Nazi elements and Holocaust deniers. As crazy as denying Obama’s birth in Hawaii is, it is surely not crazier than denying a historical event to which there were countless eye-witnesses, mountains of documents, a multitude of court verdicts, etc.

  54. avatar
    NoVA Skeptic March 24, 2010 at 7:04 am #

    It is ironic that people who cannot display elementary grammar are clamoring for the release of Obama’s college and law school records.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 24, 2010 at 7:57 am #

    Have you read And the Dead Shall Rise? [the trial and lynching of Leo Frank] I thought it a very good book.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 24, 2010 at 8:01 am #

    Bob: WHAT INJURIES HAS KERCHNER SUFFERED THAT I HAVE NOT?

    Some kind of brain injury?

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 24, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: How do you expect anybody to answer why you do not have standing if we do not have any facts about what injuries you claim.

    What an ingenuous statement! The answer is simple and you already know it. The court assumes any plausible allegation is true and if there is still no standing, the case is dismissed. You’ve already seen it happen!

    You allege Obama is not eligible. Assuming that, Kerchner still has no standing. End of case. [done] End of appeal [coming].

  58. avatar
    misha March 24, 2010 at 8:57 am #

    “5 people cost him the Presidency”

    Make that six: Nader.

    There was someone here in Old Town, on First Friday, collecting signatures for Nader. I’m 5-5 and had a stroke, and I went off on him.

  59. avatar
    misha March 24, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    “And the Dead Shall Rise”

    Yes. I got the book from the library, and now I’m looking for my own copy on eBay.

    Public libraries are actually a communist institution. Collective ownership of books, magazines, newspapers and CDs. These are available free to the public (aieeeee), and are available to those who do not pay taxes like homeless and illegal immigrants.

    This is truly a subversive idea, and it proves how dangerous Obama and his fellow travellers are.

  60. avatar
    thisoldhippie March 24, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    A conservative told me the other day during a discussion regarding healthcare, was that the difference between liberals and conservative was that conservatives encourage people to help others while liberals MAKE people help others. Hmmm, haven’t seen much encouragement lately.

  61. avatar
    misha March 24, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    “conservatives encourage people to help others”

    All I’ve ever seen from conservatives is callousness, and class snobbery.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 24, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    While there is a brand of conservatism that is best defined as “me first” (and this is the Tea Party faction pretty much), I have found any number of deeply compassionate conservatives. If you look at the folks who volunteer down at the local soup kitchen, you’ll find more conservatives than liberals (not that liberals are less compassionate, just that there are fewer of them around here).

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 24, 2010 at 2:07 pm #

    I am always interested in things that happen, about which years later folks say “how could that have happened?” Reminds me of the new French movie, Le Rafle.

  64. avatar
    DickWhitman March 24, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: It has been said that great minds think the same. That explains why [JoZeppy] and I do not think the same.I believe the question of which one of you is not a great mind is currently before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Strunk has appealed before USCA DC. He has also requested his cases be consolidated, considered an Original Proceeding and to have Chief Judge Lamberth and Judge Leon be recused, etc.

    I think Orly’s case is ready for takeoff (right after Holder resigns).

  65. avatar
    Greg March 24, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    Is Strunk’s the one about Obama’s white papal masters?

    Tell us, Dick, what of the complaint you linked to do you believe? I think that will give us a gauge of just how crazy you are.

  66. avatar
    DickWhitman March 24, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    Is Strunk’s the one about Obama’s white papal masters?
    Tell us, Dick, what of the complaint you linked to do you believe? I think that will give us a gauge of just how crazy you are.

    It’s a complaint with allegations. I won’t draw any conclusions until there is a hearing with sworn testimony and examined evidence.

    But, after reading paragraph 49, I feel like Strunk has been reading my diary and taking notes.

  67. avatar
    Greg March 24, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    I would have thought paragraph 52 would have been ripped from your diary. But, your answer does tell volumes about your character, Sven (or Dick, or whatever your name is).

    You can’t even subject the most ludicrous tall tales to critical scrutiny because they are about Obama. Sure, it could really be true that the Catholic Church created Islam, if that means Obama isn’t really President.

    Speaks volumes.

  68. avatar
    Rickey March 24, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    By all means, Sven, hitch your wagon to Christopher Strunk. He has, after all, a perfect record in court. Over the years he has filed dozens of lawsuits in state and Federal court, and he has lost every one of them.

  69. avatar
    nbc March 24, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

    Complaints need not be heard. Silly Sven

  70. avatar
    nbc March 24, 2010 at 7:05 pm #

    Man what a rambling complaint. Strunk is almost as amusing to read as Orly…

  71. avatar
    Ragout March 24, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    Mario,

    Loved your brief. You’ve really nailed the historical issues.

    But how can you expect to win your case if you don’t even mention Obama’s 39 Social Security numbers? It’s almost as if you’re covering up for the usurper.

    The other thing that makes me wonder is that while Obama has gone after others in the eligibility movement with judicial sanctions, car sabotage, and constant death threats, he doesn’t seem to have come after you. Can we infer that Obama isn’t afraid of you? Why is that?

  72. avatar
    Texlaw March 25, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    Of course Mario wouldn’t be able to make sense of what you wrote! Which is precisely why this mess he filed is so embarrassing! *sigh*

  73. avatar
    Texlaw March 25, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    Um, it’s “anywhere” not “any were”. Also, are you unable to make both of your brilliant and witty retorts in one post? You need two? Really?

  74. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 25, 2010 at 1:19 am #

    Texlaw,

    I would hate to be your wife.

  75. avatar
    Texlaw March 25, 2010 at 1:21 am #

    Yeah, and to quote common adages properly, such as “Great Minds Think Alike”.

  76. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 25, 2010 at 1:22 am #

    misha,

    You did a good job on analyzing the process. But your argument has a hidden assumption which is its weakest link.

  77. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 25, 2010 at 1:24 am #

    Texlaw,

    You must have a lot of time to spare.

  78. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 25, 2010 at 1:26 am #

    JoZeppy,

    I keep a meticulous log of all my wins and losses. I started it when I was in kindergarten. It is fully annotated. It is really beautiful to see.

  79. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 25, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    Bob,

    “WHAT INJURIES HAS KERCHNER SUFFERED THAT I HAVE NOT?”

    A stubbed toe.

  80. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 25, 2010 at 1:32 am #

    Texlaw,

    Of course Mario wouldn’t be able to make sense of what you wrote! Which is precisely why this mess he filed is so embarrassing! *sigh*

    Not only are you boring but you are also corny.

  81. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 25, 2010 at 2:02 am #

    JoZeppy,
    I keep a meticulous log of all my wins and losses.I started it when I was in kindergarten.It is fully annotated.It is really beautiful to see.

    Dear Mario,
    We would expect nothing less from your crayons. Enjoin!
    Benji Franklin

  82. avatar
    misha March 25, 2010 at 6:42 am #

    “a hidden assumption which is its weakest link.”

    Which is?

  83. avatar
    Scientist March 25, 2010 at 7:06 am #

    misha-You have to ask? You are assuming that Stanley Ann Dunham and her son were incapable of instant molecular teleportation.

  84. avatar
    misha March 25, 2010 at 7:27 am #

    Ah, that’s right. Even as a newborn, Obama had supernatural powers. And as a baby prodigy, he invented instant molecular teleportation in Kenya, without electricity.

    Now he’s grown up to be a commiefascistnazimuslimanti-christ…

    Sorry, had to pause for my inhaler.

  85. avatar
    Bob Ross March 25, 2010 at 9:15 am #

    Well in that case Mario should dress up as Johnny Cochran

  86. avatar
    Lupin March 25, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    La Rafle (minor correction).

    The entire US history 2001-2008 falls under the category you so aptly describe.

  87. avatar
    Lupin March 25, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    @ TexLaw

    Isn’t “brilliant and witty” Mario an oxymoron?

  88. avatar
    Texlaw March 25, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    Not as much as you do, obviously.

    But really, Mario, is proper use of common English phrases really such a struggle for you?

  89. avatar
    Rickey March 26, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo says:

    Particularized means relating to something which in the law of standing means relating to the plaintiff. It means nothing more.

    Have you actually studied Constitutional law?

    ‘We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy.’ Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, decided June 12, 1992

  90. avatar
    DCH March 26, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Aside from this soon-to-be-denied Kerchner case are there any other Birther case still on life support out there?

    The Hollister case died a quiet death this week – Phil Berg did not even mention the event on his various blogs (bad for business). So he is done – the judges will sanction him if he shows up with a warmed over Hollister anywhere else.

    Orly is facing fines and worse.

    To date the birthers have amassed the worst losing streak in US history with 65+ losses in a row.

  91. avatar
    Mike March 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    JoZeppy,
    I keep a meticulous log of all my wins and losses.I started it when I was in kindergarten.It is fully annotated.It is really beautiful to see.

    And short, no doubt.

  92. avatar
    Black Lion March 26, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    Kind of like Sven and coherent plausable theory….

  93. avatar
    Black Lion March 26, 2010 at 3:49 pm #

    I think Mario is pulling a Sven on us with that wins and losses comment…We would need to determine what Mario considers a win…Getting his client 5 years instead of 7? Or more likely instead of probation 3 years.

  94. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 26, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    TexLaw,

    I’m interested in legal arguments, not your trivialities that add absolutely nothing to any intelligent discussion. So go and peddle your psudo intellectualism some where else and not to those who want to disuss the real issues.

  95. avatar
    Scientist March 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm #

    I’ll happily “disuss the real issues”. You to your great discredit prefer to disuss trivialities like what paaport someone’s father held. Is that how you judge someone’s character? Shame on you, sir, shame on you.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 26, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    There is the Barnett v Obama appeal before the 9th circuit, Taitz v Obama in DC circuit court. I believe Taitz still has an appeal before a California state court. I need to do some checking, as I heard some previous losers have filed new stuff.

  97. avatar
    Gordon March 27, 2010 at 12:16 am #

    ZING! Remind me not to catch a DUI in NJ and start with the A’s in the Attorney phone book.

  98. avatar
    Bob Ross March 27, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    Why wouldn’t they be? Obviously constitutional caselaw is a struggle for him as well.

    Not as much as you do, obviously.But really, Mario, is proper use of common English phrases really such a struggle for you?

  99. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 27, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    JoZeppy,

    I have a very good suggestion for you. Why don’t you take some English lessons from Professor Texlaw. He will have so many important ideas for you that he will completely change your life. I cannot stress enough to you now transformative Dr. Texlaw is.

  100. avatar
    Reality Check March 27, 2010 at 6:32 am #

    This is the most concise listing of the status of current and defunct birther cases.

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf

  101. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 27, 2010 at 10:30 am #

    Dear Mario,

    When you get your response from the court, your reply will be commented upon in the most personally publicly mortifying way that a lawyer can be dismissively slapped by a court.

    In doing so, the court will make it obvious that you have made it obvious IN WRITING SUBMITTED TO THE COURT that you don’t even believe your own core assertions.

    Jot down this word. YSATCAPTNBWCIWNB!

    After your case is dismissed again, come crawling back here and I’ll prove that had you consulted some honest folks before submitting your recent reply (in the Kerchner appeal), like those disagree with you here, you would have kindly only been sent away by the court, being told your case was frivolous.

    Of course, if Kerchner actually wrote this turkey, then at least HE won’t call you out
    afterwards.

    Of course you could still try to amend your reply before the court slaps you down, but there it is, already on the record! You know how that looks – you told us when Obama’s Grandmother “amended her response” on that audio tape! Everybody will know that your first reply to the motion was what you subconsciously really believe is true!

    You know, it would be like Rush Limbaugh going on the radio and saying, “Listeners? You know all the things I’ve said on the show for over 15 years? Well, honestly, I take them all back! ..and to the extent that I seemed to really believe them all and wove them into a misleading tapestry of misinformation, I assure you it was through inadvertence.”

    This will be funny.

    Benji Franklin

  102. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 27, 2010 at 5:31 pm #

    Bob Ross,

    What happened to the travel ban? Now its English phrases. Why don’t you give it, pal.

  103. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 27, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    Mike,

    If anything is short it is your attention span.

  104. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 27, 2010 at 5:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Sounds more like the Third Reich.

  105. avatar
    misha March 27, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    “Sounds more like the Third Reich.”

    Sounds more like the Spanish Inquisition.

  106. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 27, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    Not as much as you do, obviously. But really, Mario, is proper use of common English phrases really such a struggle for you?

    Texlaw,

    How could I forget to tell you that you can find my English phrases in my briefs which you can view on line.

  107. avatar
    misha March 27, 2010 at 6:12 pm #

    Mario: what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?

  108. avatar
    nbC March 27, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

    If anything is short it is your attention span.

    Now that’s funny Mario… Pot Kettle Black I guess…

    Have you nothing more respectable to do than insult people?

  109. avatar
    Mike March 27, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

    Mike,
    If anything is short it is your attention span.

    Perhaps, but not nearly as short as your list of accomplishments.

  110. avatar
    Mike March 27, 2010 at 9:01 pm #

    Now that’s funny Mario… Pot Kettle Black I guess…

    Have you nothing more respectable to do than insult people?

    Context, NBC – you’re asking that of a guy whose living consists of conning wingnuts with fake constitutional crises when the ambulances aren’t running often enough for him to chase them.

    What I mean is that you kind of answered your own question before you even asked it.

  111. avatar
    Mike March 27, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    Mario: what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?

    What do you mean? An African or a European swallow?

  112. avatar
    misha March 27, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    I don’t know…aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  113. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 28, 2010 at 2:34 am #

    nbc,

    You and your gang here started this war. You don’t think that I’m just going to sit back and let children take shots at me. You must be dreaming.

  114. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 28, 2010 at 2:38 am #

    Mike,

    From the content of your response, I have much to doubt about your accomplishments. And my comment is extended to all your buddies on here who just spend so much time just peddling propoganda.

  115. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 28, 2010 at 2:40 am #

    Mike,

    The constitutional crisis is fake to you because you don’t have sense enough to know when its raining.

  116. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 28, 2010 at 2:53 am #

    Misha,

    Mario: “Sounds more like the Third Reich.”

    Misha: “Sounds more like the Spanish Inquisition.”

    So I guess you liked the Third Reich?

  117. avatar
    G March 28, 2010 at 3:01 am #

    Pouting Mario says:

    nbc,
    You and your gang here started this war. You don’t think that I’m just going to sit back and let children take shots at me. You must be dreaming.

    Settle down, Mario. Why don’t you try defending yourself by providing honest discussion instead of trying to peddle BS, misinformation and weak insults.

    You have brought all the flak you’ve gotten onto yourself, based on your own statements and actions here. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one.

    You’ve done very little to establish credibility and you often duck away from answering direct questions that you know undermine your “thesis”. I guess all you have left is your false bravado and overblown hyperbole like “war”.

    Sorry that you feel ganged upon, just because we don’t buy into your arguments and what comes across as nothing but con-job propaganda.

    When you feel mature enough to carry on an adult discussion, come on back. Otherwise, if you can’t handle the heat here, I suggest you stick to your own “safe” little blog.

  118. avatar
    chufho March 28, 2010 at 10:27 am #

    wouldnt there be more liberals at the soup kitchen if you count the ones being served

  119. avatar
    misha March 28, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    “more liberals at the soup kitchen if you count the ones being served”

    The only thing that kept my mother and her family from needing to go to a soup kitchen during the Depression, was her father’s bootlegging.

    Bootlegging was far more lucrative than being a rabbi.

    Liberals? I come from a long line of Russian social rebels.

  120. avatar
    nbC March 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    And the ones serving?

  121. avatar
    nbC March 28, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    Yes, it makes perfect sense Mario. The problem is that you ignore inconvenient facts at your own peril.
    Tough choice…. Either way, you will fail.

  122. avatar
    G March 28, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    wouldnt there be more liberals at the soup kitchen if you count the ones being served

    Why would there be? Hate to break it to you chufho, but poor people are found amongst all sides of the political spectrum.

    The only indicator that might give a clue is where the soup kitchen was located – if it takes place in an extremely “red” district, the people in line are likely conservative. If it took place in a very “blue” district, I could probably surmise that most of them were liberal. Etc, etc.

    It seems that poor conservatives as a whole tend to vote against their self-betterment and trash talk others who have the same life situation that they do. I’ve always found that odd and sad. Maybe its some sort of self-loathing denialism or something?

    I also find it funny, telling and sadly ironic that many of these Tea Party folks who are rallying against “government” turn out to be on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Disability, and/or unemployment! What a bunch of hypocritical jokes! LOL!

  123. avatar
    Mike March 28, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    Mike,
    From the content of your response, I have much to doubt about your accomplishments. And my comment is extended to all your buddies on here who just spend so much time just peddling propoganda.

    Shorter Mario: I know you are but what am I?

  124. avatar
    Mike March 28, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    Mike,
    The constitutional crisis is fake to you because you don’t have sense enough to know when its raining.

    No, Mario. It’s fake because you made it up. Because you’re an ambulance-chasing hack of a shyster who wants to con money from wingnuts while indulging his secret White power fantasies. You should be disbarred as a disgrace to your profession.

  125. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- March 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    wouldnt there be more liberals at the soup kitchen if you count the ones being served

    But chuffy’s not a racist!

  126. avatar
    misha March 28, 2010 at 1:25 pm #

    Being an eclectic rebel, I belong to the Philadelphia Witches Circle. I’m the only Jewish one there; everyone else is Wiccan. Actually, if you want to get technical, I’m a Jubu.

    One fellow started squawking about his property taxes went up because of people on welfare. When I asked him what he did for a living, he said he was on SSD!

  127. avatar
    misha March 28, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    “hack of a shyster”

    Isn’t that redundant?

  128. avatar
    Mike March 28, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    Isn’t that redundant?

    I wish Mario was…

  129. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    chufho: wouldnt [sic] there be more liberals at the soup kitchen if you count the ones being served [?]

    If you mean a “higher percentage” then I have no reason to think so. As I said, there aren’t many liberals around here.

  130. avatar
    misha March 28, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    “So I guess you liked the Third Reich?”

    Mario: No – I much prefer the Spanish Inquisition.
    .

  131. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 28, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    G,

    With that comment, I guess I will say good bye to you all. You will not hear from me again on this blog.

  132. avatar
    Arthur March 28, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    “The rest is silence.”

  133. avatar
    Mike March 28, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

    G,With that comment, I guess I will say good bye to you all.You will not hear from me again on this blog.

    Hooray!

  134. avatar
    DCH March 28, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    The case recap link was excellent! Thanks for the link The score is 68 to 0. Both of those pending cases sre retreads of already failed cases from the 68. Orly’s case(whatever that is?) will self-destruct on contact with a federal judge. Thus, it would appear that once Mario’s case gets denied on appeal this legal channel will dry up until primary season 2012.

  135. avatar
    nbC March 28, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    With that comment, I guess I will say good bye to you all. You will not hear from me again on this blog.

    The blog will not be the same without you Mario 😉

    You will be back. Mark my word…

  136. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 28, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: You will not hear from me again on this blog.

    So where are you going to get all that free legal advice from?

    But seriously, I can’t see how being here has been a positive experience for Mr. Apuzzo, and I rather think the give and take here brought out the worst in him and perhaps in some others. When the forced civility of the courtroom was lifted, Apuzzo turned out not to be very civil and he didn’t win any legal points. (In all fairness, he didn’t have much chance.)

    Of course, I have never understood why Apuzzo spent any time here at all (much in the wee hours of the morning). I saw that I was going to get nowhere on Apuzzo’s blog (primarily due to censorship) after a few visits and left. If Apuzzo was speaking truthfully when he said he didn’t believe anything on this blog, what’s the value of reading it? I don’t trust anything on his blog, and I don’t read it (except for the occasional news item). Why read sites you don’t trust or make arguments you can’t win? Don Quixote keeps coming to mind as the only referent.

  137. avatar
    nbC March 28, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    So where are you going to get all that free legal advice from?

    With the Appeals Court to be likely to rule against Kerchner, there is but one more step and since SCOTUS will deny cert, it soon will be over.

  138. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- March 28, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    You will not hear from me again on this blog.

    I’ve set the timer, 4:54pm on 3/28. Now what’s the over/under on when Mario shows up again?

  139. avatar
    chufho March 28, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    nothing about race its only about host and parasite

  140. avatar
    misha March 28, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    So you have been diagnosed with a tapeworm? Let us know when you have completed treatment.

    And thanks for playing.

  141. avatar
    chufho March 28, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

    America has been diagnosed with tapeworms(plural)
    we will be voting out all the tapeworm party thank you very much

  142. avatar
    nbC March 28, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    America has been diagnosed with tapeworms(plural)
    we will be voting out all the tapeworm party thank you very much

    Is that what they are calling the Republicans right now? I thought the party of No We Can’t was far more appropriate.

  143. avatar
    Gordon March 28, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    What a drama queen.

  144. avatar
    chufho March 28, 2010 at 11:57 pm #

    dont move your stuck in quick sand

  145. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett March 29, 2010 at 12:12 am #

    “With that comment, I guess I will say good bye to you all. You will not hear from me again on this blog.”

    Your Oscar’s in the Mail, Ms. Streep!

  146. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett March 29, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    Yeah, figures Cthulhu would know all about parasites.

  147. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- March 29, 2010 at 1:07 am #

    nothing about race its only about host and parasite

    But chuffy’s not a racist!

  148. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- March 29, 2010 at 1:08 am #

    America has been diagnosed with tapeworms(plural)
    we will be voting out all the tapeworm party thank you very much

    But chuffy’s not a racist!

  149. avatar
    Arthur March 29, 2010 at 7:30 am #

    Chufho,

    I think that’s a great idea . . . getting rid of those socialist tapeworms that suck our federal budget and fan our people cold! Let’s start with cutting off the worst offender: the red-diaper state of Alaska. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, in 2003 Alaskan’s took in more per-capita federal spending than any other state, at $12,200 per person (Stateline.org 10/7/2004). And don’t forget the evil queen of parasites, Sarah Palin. According to a 2008 investigation by The Washington Post, when Palin was mayor of Wassila she “helped secure almost $27 million in projects” for a town of only 7,000 people. As governor, prior to being chosen as John McCain’s running mate, The Post reported that Palin “requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million in [the 2009] federal budget” (“Palin’s Embrace of Earmarks” 9/2/2008). Now those lazy tapeworms in Alaska will say, “Hey, we’ve only been a state for about 50 years–we deserve that federal aid.” But that kind of talk is nothing but the whine of a socialist parasite!

    The truth is chufho, we are all hosts and we are all parasites. Sometimes we give more than we get, and sometimes we receive more than we’ve given. And as this karmic balancing act plays out, roads and bridges are maintained, schools are put up, people get loans to go to college or buy a house, research is funded to cure disease, explore the universe, and develop new ways to feed the planet. And on top of all that, somewhere you and I are paying for a kid get a vaccination that will save his life. And I’m ok with that. No, scratch that, I’m proud of it. In spite of the occasional fraud, the examples of pork-barrel spending, and the immense amount of money spent on war, I’m proud of what we do as fellow taxpayers to make our country a little better place to live.

  150. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2010 at 7:53 am #

    And you think after all this Kerchner/Apuzzo will just say “well, it was a good try” and fade into the background?

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    chufho: nothing about race its only about host and parasite

    Well the rich parasites (mostly of one race) have been thriving off the backs of an underpaid underclass mostly of another race. I suppose you identified the parasites differently, but those government benefits just keep the host on life support while the parasites continue to suck them dry.

  152. avatar
    Lupin March 29, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    Is “tapeworm” a new codename for folks with a pronounced tan?

  153. avatar
    Black Lion March 29, 2010 at 9:34 am #

    You mean like Republican Congressman John Boehner?

  154. avatar
    Greg March 29, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    America has been diagnosed with tapeworms(plural)
    we will be voting out all the tapeworm party thank you very much

    Federal Taxes paid v. Federal Spending Received

    Of the states that received less money back from the government than they put in, all but one voted for Obama this past election.

    Seems to me that if anyone is a parasite, it’s not the good liberals of Massachusetts, for example, who got back only 82 cents for every dollar they spent in taxes, but the nice conservative folks in Mississippi who got $2.02 back for every dollar in taxes.

    I assume, then, that after this next election, we’ll have a near unanimous Democratic majority in Congress, right?

  155. avatar
    chufho March 29, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    without capitalism (the rich parasites)what would all of us do ? I will tell you I have no love for Wall Street but without business owners both small and big what would the vast majority of people do for a living. Shouldnt the store owner be the one who after taking the risk be the one who recieves the profit when profit exists he is the one who will go without just to keep his payroll and employees paid when times get lean. I myself have done just this. I expect no handouts. I have before being a small bussiness owner worked as many as 3 jobs at a time just to pay bills and get by. The oldest of 4 children and a single mother is how I grew up. In school we would recieve free school lunches but had to stand in a different line than the paying students.That didn last long. From small jobs I could find yard work paper routes or anything else I could find I would use the money I earned to pay for my own school lunches.I became a host
    at a very young age that is why a parasite irks me so. Self reliance and to compete only with ones self will make for a happy life. I am proud of those who have earned what they have and am happy to help with a hand up but to many take this hand up and use it as hand out.All in all we will be in a phase of having less than some but more than others. Phases are stages and when someone chooses to not advance themselves why should it be anyone else’s responsibilty.
    And believe me when I say that everyone if they choose to have being in America the most fertile bd of soil to plant and grow thier future than any other place in the world.You should be saying Yes I Can instead of Yes We Can.

  156. avatar
    Arthur March 29, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    chufo,

    You’re right to point out the contributions that small business owners make to our country, and I admire the fact that you’re willing to sacrifice when times are lean to keep your employees on your payroll. It seems to me that your self-sacrifice is the embodiment of “yes we can.” Obviously you have not simply taken, but have given back as well.

    And so I understand why you would be angry at the thought of someone taking without giving back. I just don’t think the situation is as clear-cut as it is to you.

  157. avatar
    Scientist March 29, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    chufho-It might surprize you to learn that President Obama and most Democrats would very likely agree with almost everything you say. So what is your objection exactly? If it’s to health care reform, let’s look at the facts. You are have been paying all your life for the uninsured to receive the most advanced, sophisticated care in the world. Why? Because they can’t go to a doctor’s office and get a simple problem taken care of, so they wait until it’s a big problem and then go to the emergency room and rack up a fortune in charges which they can’t possibly pay. Who pays for that? You and me my friend, in higher insurance premiums and taxes. How will HCR help? Everyone will have access to insurance so they will be able to get simple problems taken care of simply. Many of them will even kick in a bit for their premiums, as opposed to paying nothing as they do now.

    Don’t believe me? Here’s what a doc who faces this every day at an ER in Baltimore has to say. I recommend this to everyone:

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2010/03/healthcare_reform.php

  158. avatar
    Greg March 29, 2010 at 2:29 pm #

    without capitalism (the rich parasites)what would all of us do ?

    And capitalism, according to the numbers, appears to do better in the blue states. The heart of capitalism, New York, is also one of the bluest states. Gathering up the states that voted for Obama in the last election and looking at their GDP, it’s almost $2 trillion greater than those that voted for McCain.

  159. avatar
    Black Lion March 29, 2010 at 4:14 pm #

    The birthers don’t really learn. Here is our buddy Steve Craig, or Steve C, trying to come up with a new idea to be declared a “natural born citizen” by the courts. What is most interesting is that Mario seems to be giving the delusional Steve some “advice”….You really can’t make this stuff up…

    United Natural Born Citizens said…
    I am contacting you in hopes of finding you at a place and time that would allow you to consider the current status of my efforts and offer a bit of direction as I advance the cause.

    I had applied with the USCIS on an N-600 form; Certification of Citizenship specifying my desire to be acknowledged as an NBC based on my birth circumstances including appropriate documentation. I based my believe that they had/have the authority to do so on the USCIS publication, The Citizens Almanac’, M-76 and specifically the following paragraph found on page 4 of the almanac’;

    * Right to run for elected office.

    U.S. citizenship is required for many elected offices in this country.
    Naturalized U.S. citizens can run for any elected office they choose with the exception of President and Vice President of the United States, which require candidates to be native-born citizens.

    The application was denied with the decision’ stating that it having been determined by my BC that I was born a citizen’ that they NEED DO NO MORE’.

    At this writing I am awaiting response from the AAO,(Administrative Appeals Office) and I am also awaiting response on a FOIA Request as to all information surrounding the publication of the identified paragraph in the almanac’.

    The appeal’ was short and brief with the following providing as reasoning for my assertion that the Certification of Citizenship as requested should be granted;

    “…Although an idiom used in M-76, The Citizens Almanac’, is not found anywhere in the Constitution and may or may not be consistent with the circumstances intended by the Constitution it remains clear in reading and intent of the statement that the USCIS, under authority of the DHS, has assumed the ability and authority to determine, insofar as citizenship eligibility is concerned, who may and/or may not be a ‘qualified/eligible citizen’ for the purpose of obtaining to the offices of President and/or Vice President of the United States of America.

    Therefore I renew my request for certification as a citizen Constitutionally eligible for the offices of President and or Vice President insofar as the subject of citizenship is concerned, that of being a (American) Natural Born Citizen.”

    I fully expect the AAO to punt’ my appeal down the road and this is where I am looking for a ‘‘hint, direction and/or guidance’’.

    You may recall I am on remand’ to the USDC Okla. from the USCA 10th.

    I am having trouble determining if it is allowable to go directly to the USCA to appeal a Guv’mnt agencies decision or is it back to the USDC as Court of original Jurisdiction?

    Any thoughts you may find time to offer will be greatly appreciated.

    In all cases, my best wishes to and for you remain true.

    Respectfully,

    Slcraigre@aol.com

    And Mario’s response….

    Puzo1 said…
    United Natural Born Citizens,

    “Should a petition or application be denied or revoked by the USCIS, in most cases you may appeal that decision to a higher authority. The USCIS’s Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) has jurisdiction over 40 petitions and applications. If you receive a denial notice, it will advise you of your right to appeal, the correct appellate jurisdiction (AAO or Board of Immigration Appeals, or “BIA”), and provide you with the appropriate appeal form and time limit. There are strict deadlines that must be met to properly file an appeal. The appeal must be filed with the correct fee at the office that made the original decision. You may file a “brief” (a written explanation) in support of the appeal. After review, the appellate authority may 1) agree with you and change the original decision, 2) disagree with you and affirm the original decision, or 3) send the matter back to the original office for further action.

    “In addition to the right to appeal (in which you ask a higher authority to review a denial), you may file a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider with the office that made the unfavorable decision. By filing these motions, you may ask the office to reexamine or reconsider its decision. A motion to reopen must state the new facts that are to be provided in the reopened proceeding and must be accompanied by affidavits or other documentary evidence. A motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, and further establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the file at the time the decision was made. Any motion to reopen or reconsider must be filed with the correct fee within 30 days of the decision.”

    “You should review the Form I-292 or notice of denial that accompanied the adverse decision to determine whether you may appeal the denial of your petition or application. The decision will inform you of the proper appellate jurisdiction and provide you with the correct form.

    “If you desire to appeal the denial of a petition or application, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of the decision. If you receive the decision by mail, you must file the appeal within 33 days of the date of the decision. If you wish to appeal the revocation of an approved immigrant petition, you must file the appeal within 15 days of the date of the decision, or within 18 days of the date of the decision if the decision is received by mail.”

    ***

    “If the Administrative Appeals Office has jurisdiction over the decision, the notice of appeal must be filed on Form I-290B (Notice of Appeal to the Administrative Appeal Office). The appeal must be filed with the office that made the original decision. A brief (explanation) may be filed in support of your appeal. The fee must be included, but you may request a fee waiver from the USCIS.”

    You can challenge an AAO denial of an I-290B appeal in federal district court. An AAO denial decision is considered to have exhausted all administrative remedies, a requirement for a federal district court challenge. The challenge in a federal district court of an AAO denial is significantly more costly and involved than an AAO appeal.

    An appeal of the Federal District Court decision would then go to a Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Good luck!

    United Natural Born Citizens said…
    Puzo1 said… Re: United Natural Born Citizens

    “…You can challenge an AAO denial of an I-290B appeal in federal district court. An AAO denial decision is considered to have exhausted all administrative remedies, a requirement for a federal district court challenge. The challenge in a federal district court of an AAO denial is significantly more costly and involved than an AAO appeal.”

    Thanks for clarifying for me where I need look once the determination is made by the AAO on my 290b Appeal that they are now considering.

    I will be relying on the previous grant of ‘In Forma Pauperis’ status at the USDC where the case resides on REMAND from the USCA 10th.

    Assuming the Appeal to the AAO affirms the Decision of the ‘USCIS Field Office’ and I am denied a Certification of Citizenship with the requested designation of an natural born citizen’ I believe that will constitute a specific and individualized harm’ providing satisfaction to the standing’ concern of the Courts and will file a Motion for ‘Leave of the Court’ to file a Companion Case’ under the Rules of the Court on Remand that will renew my demand that a determination be made as to the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen’ in light of the fact that Article II Section I Clause V has not been Amended by any words or words that require it.

    The FOIA request regarding the subject paragraph in the Citizens Almanac is now at 109 having started on Track Two at 6 thousand plus in October.

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=5898426558353117936

  160. avatar
    SFJeff March 29, 2010 at 6:32 pm #

    “without capitalism (the rich parasites)what would all of us do ?”

    Who here is against Capitalism? Capitalism is the most efficient economic system in the world but that is unrelated to taxation or regulation.

    Lets look at our neighbors to the north- they have a capitalist economy with a bigger safety net and they have hardly had a bump in their economy.

    I am all for capitalism- and social security- and universal health care.

    I thought about going into your whole ‘parasite’ thing, but nah. I am gainfully employed, my wife is a small business owner, and I have no problems with the idea of paying taxes that will assist others. I understand that you pretty much assume that anyone who gets government help is a ‘parasite'(glass half empty), but I would prefer to assume that they are honest people who through circumstances beyond their control have problems they need help with. I also like to assume that helping out those who need help benefits the greater society, much like paying for fire services does.

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 29, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    I think the lesson we should learn here is that there are responsible people on both sides of the political spectrum, and there are greedy parasites on both sides.

    I was a partner in a small business once, and went without pay for 3 months to keep it going. But I have also learned that as you move up in larger companies, the top folks are “taken care of” and bottom folks are not — and it is not always something related to merit. I think the iconic parasite is the corporate raider who takes over a business, destroys it, bankrupts the pension plan, and leaves with a billion and change.

    However, what I was mainly thinking of is me who bought a shirt for a good price that was likely manufactured by someone who makes 1/40 of what I do, while working 80 hours a week.

  162. avatar
    G March 30, 2010 at 1:39 am #

    Chufo said:

    without capitalism …

    I’m only putting the … there to imply that I’m responding to your entire post, without having to repeat the entire thing for the sake of saving space.

    I too agree with most of what you said. I wish you would spend less time demonizing and being suspicious of others and realize that on the core points of what you said, most people pretty much agree.

    I’m all for capitalism. I just want it to be ethical and play by the rules. I’m against abuse at either end of the spectrum. I’m all for someone achieving the American dream and accumulating as much wealth as possible, as long as they are doing it in a responsible manner and not at deliberate expense of shafting folks in order to do so.

    The problem is that everything requires checks & balances to work. Capitalism without these measures, unfortunately often tends to morph into pure exploitative and selfish greed.

    At the other end of the spectrum, I too hate people who are abusing the system and not earning it. But I’m against the obstacles that are placed to prevent people who want to work from being able to do so fairly or to have a fair chance to pursue the American dream. That happens too.

    In summary, at all ends of the spectrum, there are lots of abuses -we can call those the parasites on both ends of the system. I believe that most of us are against that.

    However, there are also lots of people at both ends of the spectrum that are ethical and hard working who do not deserve to be categorically maligned. We should all be for fair access for everyone who wants it to pursue the American dream.

    “Yes I Can” may be a personal statement, but I would hope that you are not taking it to a selfish extreme that I sometimes see in others – the old “I’ve got mine, screw you” attitude.

    “Yes We Can” is a positive statement in support of working together as a nation for all of our benefit and betterment.

  163. avatar
    Mike March 30, 2010 at 2:06 am #

    Capitalism is the most efficient economic system in the world but that is unrelated to taxation or regulation.

    It’s debatable whether you can have an efficient economic system per se, and of course it also depends upon your meaning of “efficient” – capitalism as it stands is pretty good at creating income and power disparities.

  164. avatar
    Rickey March 30, 2010 at 10:09 am #

    Another fool’s errand. It is clear that the application form N-600 is intended to be used for people who were born outside the U.S. or who otherwise do not have a birth certificate which on its face establishes U.S citizenship. Presumably Steve Craig was born in the U.S., so the USCIS rightfully decided that there was no need to issue him a certificate.

    It never fails to amuse me that so many birthers who complain about people sponging off of the government neverthless have no compunction about requesting In Forma Pauperis so they don’t have to pay the filing fees for their frivolous lawsuits.

  165. avatar
    Black Lion March 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    Rickey, agreed. Steve Craig is crazy. He lost is original case to be “declared” a natural born citizen and appealed it. I have debated him back over at the tROSL when that site was actually functional. Craig is way out there. What is most telling is Mario’s lack of legal skills. You in 5 seconds noticed the so called “fatal flaw” in Craig’s argument. However Mario either did not notice it or overlooked it and gave him advice on how to be “successful” in filing. No wonder why Mario has decided to not post over here anymore. he was probably tired of being embarassed.

  166. avatar
    misha March 31, 2010 at 12:46 am #

    See Michael Harrington.
    .

  167. avatar
    Northland10 April 2, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    Mario has supplemented his appeal brief with a dissertation on citizenship by David Ramsay.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29320498/KERCHNER-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-Letter-Dated-4-2-10-Transport-Room

    I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the paper was discussing citizenship issues as they apply to before and after the Declaration of Independence. The author is attempting to argue the specific “grandfather clause” and not overall citizenship issues after the initial creation of the United States.

    Of course, the whole supplement is moot since the appeal is only on standing.

  168. avatar
    nbc April 2, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    Hilarious, Mario still appears to be fully ignorant that the appeal’s court will only hear the issue of standing.

    Someone please help out the man.. This is embarrassing…

  169. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 2, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    The author is arguing that his Congressional opponent was not a citizen for the requisite 7 years. This is a political pamphlet intended for distribution to Congress members berore they took up a challenge to seating William Smith of SC.

  170. avatar
    Greg April 3, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    I think it is also only narrowly applicable to those born between 1776 and the signing of the Constitution or those whose parents died in that period.

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Not only narrowly applicable, but wrong according to the near-unanimous vote of the US House of Representatives.

  172. avatar
    Black Lion June 16, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    More Mario spin….mario was notified that there will be no oral arguments in his soon to be dismissed case….Of course he spins it, courtsey of our buddy ORYR…

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/3-judge-panel-in-kerchner-v.html

    If the court thinks they will keep this issue under wraps by not allowing Oral Arguments they are dead wrong! WE THE PEOPLE WILL FIGHT THIS USURPER UNTIL JUSTICE IS SERVED!

    Via Commander Kerchner; A Letter of Notification from the three Judge panel which will decide the Appeal case has been electronically received by Attorney Mario Apuzzo in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress appeal case. The three Judges have ruled that the Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al Appeal to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals located in Philadelphia PA will be decided on the written briefs already submitted to court with no Oral Arguments being allowed. Thus the tentatively scheduled Oral Arguments for 29 June 2010 in Newark NJ have been canceled. See below link and comments by Attorney Mario Apuzzo for more details.

    And then we have Mario’s view….

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    “The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.

    Of course, it is our hope that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.”

    Mario seems as delusional as he always has….NBC has a good wrap up on this over at his site….

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/educating-mario/#comments

  173. avatar
    Black Lion June 16, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    And of course the natives get excited over at FR…

    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2535092/posts

    And they push the usual bunch of nonsense….They are focused on an irrelevant statute from HI when it was a territory….

    “Furthermore: Hawaii’s Territorial Law, Chapter 57 – “VITAL STATISTICS, I”, shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby’s born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).

    Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father’s foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England’s law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.”

    Then comes the fantasy….

    “SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
    “Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760” U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

    The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen” has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country). “