Main Menu

94 Responses to Apuzzo strikes back

  1. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

    Watching paint dry would be far more interesting and productive.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2010 at 3:00 pm #

    The first 6 pages don’t look too bad to this layman. [Back from hair cut.]

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    All are base are belong to us.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    I’m not a lawyer. I know enough to see that Apuzzo responded to the order rather than launch into a repeat of his complaint. It’s better than what I’m used to (compared to Taitz, Apuzzo appears a legal genius).

    It seems to me that his success or failure rests on whether the appeals court buys his argument that Kerchner is different from Berg or that Berg was decided wrongly.

  5. avatar
    brygenon July 20, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The first 6 pages don’t look too bad to this layman.

    Only 89 to go. Dr. C., remember a year and half ago, when you first read Mario’s complaint in Kerchner v. Obama and exclaimed, “There are over 300 of these freaking points!”
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/kerchner-v-obama-and-the-whole-country/

    Well, he hasn’t gotten any better about that.

  6. avatar
    DCH July 20, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    Check page 89: Mario request limited discovery of Obama’s birth records! LOL! The zombie never gives up.

    Mario could have avoided all of this by respecting and learning from his and other prior failed birther cases. A long string of conclusive dismissals of all birther cases should serve as an indicator of failure. Mario had his day in court in NJ long ago – and lost.

    With their ruling and comeback to Mario to provide a reason they should not fine him the judges effectively shot the zombie case in the head per the “zombie case handbook” found in the court clerk’s office of the courthouse.

    Prediction: Mario is getting fined. The court’s version of a zombie head shot.

  7. avatar
    Sef July 20, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    DCH: Prediction: Mario is getting fined. The court’s version of a zombie head shot.

    So the next question becomes: will he take his punishment like a man or will he try the Orly guano?

  8. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree July 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m not a lawyer. I know enough to see that Apuzzo responded to the order rather than launch into a repeat of his complaint. It’s better than what I’m used to (compared to Taitz, Apuzzo appears a legal genius).It seems to me that his success or failure rests on whether the appeals court buys his argument that Kerchner is different from Berg or that Berg was decided wrongly.

    I guess you don’t mind the total lack of proofreading and horrible writing then? This thing is a hot mess. OK, so it’s double spaced, and there are some case citations (differing from Taitz right there), but the arguments are, for the most part, fallacious. Tes over at Politjab has an excellent analysis up of the first half of the 95 pages, including why his attempt to distinguish Berg falls flat on its face, so I won’t repeat that here. But it is fairly obvious.

    And, of course, none of this gets him around the problem that he failed to even cite Berg in his Original Brief. Appellate courts are touchy about that kind of, er, dishonesty.

  9. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    Sef:
    So the next question becomes:will he take his punishment like a man or will he try the Orly guano?

    With that much unchecked narcissism, he’ll surely squeal for appeal to the Supremes and I don’t mean Florence, Diana, Mary and Betty.

  10. avatar
    Bovril July 20, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

    I particularly love the random manner Mario went into Capitalization Of Various Sentences For No Readily Apparent Reason as well as the way he kept swinging from 1st to 3rd person when talking about himself

  11. avatar
    AnotherBird July 20, 2010 at 5:27 pm #

    Apuzzo still doesn’t understand the law. It seems that he wants to out do Orly Taitz. They must have a wager, where the loser gets to pay the others fees and other costs.

  12. avatar
    Reality Check July 20, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    As mentioned on Politijab it reads more like a motion for cert at SCOTUS than a reply for the OSC. Of course, Charlie has openly admitted that is where they think it will go all along. It is funny that Mario figured out now was the time to argue how Berg was different. Also, Tes has up part two of her analysis. When the court sees that there are 95 pages I doubt they will need to go much further. My prediction is sanctions lower than Orly got.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    Bovril: I particularly love the random manner Mario went into Capitalization Of Various Sentences For No Readily Apparent Reason as well as the way he kept swinging from 1st to 3rd person when talking about himself

    Perhaps there were multiple authors.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2010 at 6:38 pm #

    Lawyerwitharealdegree: Tes over at Politjab has an excellent analysis up of the first half of the 95 pages, including why his attempt to distinguish Berg falls flat on its face, so I won’t repeat that here.

    That will be, I am sure, a pleasure to read.

  15. avatar
    brygenon July 20, 2010 at 6:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m not a lawyer. I know enough to see that Apuzzo responded to the order rather than launch into a repeat of his complaint. It’s better than what I’m used to (compared to Taitz, Apuzzo appears a legal genius).

    Have you read the whole thing? He works in a lot of the familiar birther crap, including the claims that Obama hasn’t shown the right birth certificate and dual citizens can’t be natural born.

    As Lawyerwitharealdegree noted, there are a bunch of sloppy mistakes in the doc. I love the sentence at the top of page 45: “Give case law on this.” Oops.

    Realist at Politijab notes that the answer was filed 07/19/2010 23:57:48, just two minutes twelve seconds before the (extended) deadline. We recently had a bit of fun needling Mario on this blog:

    http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/07/07/obama-kenyan-born-sunday-standard-in-2004/

    Perhaps that wasn’t the best possible use of his time.

  16. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 20, 2010 at 7:06 pm #

    Since I’m bald by choice, I guess I’ve got to read Mario’s response…

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    brygenon: Have you read the whole thing?

    I skimmed it and sort of skipped the very last part. I did see “all are base”.

  18. avatar
    Greg July 20, 2010 at 9:29 pm #


    The first 6 pages don’t look too bad to this layman. [Back from hair cut.]

    Let me assure you that the next 89 pages only get better… not that I read them myself (I threw in the towel around page 12).

    Now, I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you want to explain to a Judge why you should not be sanctioned for having filing a frivolous appeal – the last thing you would probably want to do – is to drop a 95-page, eye-glazing rehash of the same stale arguments on the Court – and thereby tie up – who knows how much more of the Court’s time – on a case that the Court already thinks was a complete waste of its time to begin with.

    I think that a one page response, claiming some combination of ignorance and incompetence in jurisprudence, would have made for a much stronger argument. At least such a filing would have had the advantage of providing an honest excuse.

  19. avatar
    James July 20, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    I read Mario’s brief. He does a masterful job of tearing apart the Berg Precedent and showing how his case is vastly different in virtually every legal aspect. Mario really should have done in it his original brief. Mario’s only flaw is that his argument is little misplaced coming now. Mario is very very complete in his arguments. It will really be interesting to see how the court responds to it.

  20. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 9:37 pm #

    I’m convinced now that James is a parody. Well done.

  21. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 20, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    James: I read Mario’s brief.He does a masterful job of tearing apart the Berg Precedent and showing how his case is vastly different in virtually every legal aspect.Mario really should have done in it his original brief.Mario’s only flaw is that his argument is little misplaced coming now.Mario is very very complete in his arguments.It will really be interesting to see how the court responds to it.

    That’s some really nice asskissing James. I wonder if the courts will agree with you on Mario’s legal skills? I’m betting that they wont. (They’re probably all Obot plants, anyway ;-))

  22. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    Greg: The first 6 pages don’t look too bad to this layman. [Back from hair cut.]
    Let me assure you that the next 89 pages only get better… not that I read them myself (I threw in the towel around page 12).
    Now, I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you want to explain to a Judge why you should not be sanctioned for having filing a frivolous appeal – the last thing you would probably want to do – is to drop a 95-page, eye-glazing rehash of the same stale arguments on the Court – and thereby tie up – who knows how much more of the Court’s time – on a case that the Court already thinks was a complete waste of its time to begin with.
    I think that a one page response, claiming some combination of ignorance and incompetence in jurisprudence, would have made for a much stronger argument. At least such a filing would have had the advantage of providing an honest excuse.

    I hope he gets disbarred. The same with Taitz.

  23. avatar
    SluggoJD July 20, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    James: Blah blah blah, blah blah blah…It will really be interesting to see how the court responds to it.

    I bet you find frog sex interesting as well!

  24. avatar
    Greg July 20, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Perhaps there were multiple authors.

    I have to question whether Mario’s filing had any authors at all.

    After all, Mario’s document looks like the kind you would expect from a room full of chimpanzees banging away at typewriters…

  25. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 9:48 pm #

    Berg is already slipping into obscurity. Postponed rally on Washington? More like only twelve people e-mailed to say maybe but probably no. He destroyed his career first with the truther crap. Another shanda.

  26. avatar
    Dave July 20, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    James: I read Mario’s brief.He does a masterful job of tearing apart the Berg Precedent and showing how his case is vastly different in virtually every legal aspect.Mario really should have done in it his original brief.Mario’s only flaw is that his argument is little misplaced coming now.Mario is very very complete in his arguments.It will really be interesting to see how the court responds to it.

    Didn’t you post this identical comment over at NBC’s blog?

  27. avatar
    squee July 20, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    Lawyerwitharealdegree: Tes over at Politjab has an excellent analysis up of the first half of the 95 pages, including why his attempt to distinguish Berg falls flat on its face, so I won’t repeat that here.

    Not to sound completely inept, but where exactly can I find that?

  28. avatar
    Majority Will July 20, 2010 at 10:34 pm #

    I fully expect Mario and Orly to be exposed as poseurs. Berg was asleep.

  29. avatar
    AnotherBird July 20, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    James: I read Mario’s brief.He does a masterful job of tearing apart the Berg Precedent and showing how his case is vastly different in virtually every legal aspect.Mario really should have done in it his original brief.Mario’s only flaw is that his argument is little misplaced coming now.Mario is very very complete in his arguments.It will really be interesting to see how the court responds to it.

    “The Berg Precedent”??? “Masterful job”??? “Tearing apart”??? Let us just call it cut and paste. Legal principles don’t exist in a vacuum. Just like the “Taitz Precedent” his appeal will be rejected. Just like the “Taitz Precedent” he was given ample time to convince the courts that he should not be sanctioned. Just like the “The Berg Precedent” the same questions were asked and rejected.

    There are some many ways that you can paint a fence with white paint, no matter how it is done it will still be white in the end. The courts response will be a quick rejection of the appeal.

  30. avatar
    James July 20, 2010 at 11:04 pm #

    I do think it was interesting about Mario asking for discovery. Mario I guess is attempting to have court proffer to him the actual facts in way of documentation that would support the defense on having to defend a frivilous case. Mario is slick in trying to ask discovery for Obama’s BC by stating the if the defense had produced such a document in such cases it would have mitigated the cost of defense. Mario is attempting to use discovery in defense documentation that would support a $ figure amount imposed by the court in having to defend a frivilous case. Certainly in the Berg case, had the defense produced the Obama’s BC it would have mitigated much of the defense cost of case because it would been dismissed with BC having shown Obama was born in Hawaii. In other words, Mario is attempting to establish that production of Obama’s BC would eliminated many of the lawsuits and mitigated the cost of defense.

  31. avatar
    obsolete July 20, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

    By Mario and James’s logic- I get caught robbing a bank. I plead that if the bank had only opened its vault for me, it would have mitigated the costs I incurred attempting to rob it and then by having to pay for my legal defense.
    So they owe me money.

  32. avatar
    obsolete July 20, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    Oh, plus I accuse them of having only counterfeit money anyway.

  33. avatar
    AnotherBird July 20, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

    James: I do think it was interesting about Mario asking for discovery. … Mario is slick in trying to ask discovery for Obama’s BC by stating the if the defense had produced such a document in such cases it would have mitigated the cost of defense… Mario is attempting to establish that production of Obama’s BC would eliminated many of the lawsuits and mitigated the cost of defense.

    This is the same actions made by all cases that have been dismissed during hearing, and the reason that Apuzzo was sanctioned by the courts. Apuzzo is just tilling his wheels and continuing showing the ineptness.

  34. avatar
    AnotherBird July 20, 2010 at 11:48 pm #

    obsolete: Oh, plus I accuse them of having only counterfeit money anyway.

    Made from using colored pencils.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    James: Certainly in the Berg case, had the defense produced the Obama’s BC it would have mitigated much of the defense cost of case because it would been dismissed with BC having shown Obama was born in Hawaii.

    No, the minimal defense cost is the case being dismissed with nothing else.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    squee: where exactly can I find [Politijab]?

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2728&start=625#p157386 and following.

    You will have to register with the site to see this content.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    Majority Will: I hope he gets disbarred. The same with Taitz.

    It seems counterintuitive to me that an attorney would be disbarred just for filing one frivolous appeal. Taitz, on the other hand, is a menace, soliciting clients and exposing them to harm.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    Greg: Now, I’m no lawyer,

    Not to be confused with the other Greg who posts here and is a lawyer.

  39. avatar
    Greg July 21, 2010 at 12:30 am #

    James: Mario is slick in trying to ask discovery for Obama’s BC by stating the if the defense had produced such a document in such cases it would have mitigated the cost of defense.

    Mario’s argument is completely asinine. The plaintiff (not the defendant) has an obligation to mitigate damages. Clearly, it is in the defendant’s own interests to mitigate any damages suffered by the plaintiff – but the defendant has no obligation to do so.

    Of course, in this case the plaintiff is not seeking any damages, so Mario’s entire argument about the defense producing the birth certificate is – to put it charitably – moot. Furthermore, it is clear that there is nothing that the defendant could have done that would have prevented this lawsuit – because the defendant never provided Mario with any reasonable grounds for filing a lawsuit in the first place.

  40. avatar
    NbC July 21, 2010 at 12:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    No, the minimal defense cost is the case being dismissed with nothing else.

    And since the issue was lack of subject matter standing, the court could not even allow the case to proceed to discovery.
    It’s that simple…
    Mario’s ‘arguments’ are remarkable and I wonder if the Courts are going to award him properly.

  41. avatar
    NbC July 21, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Majority Will: I hope he gets disbarred. The same with Taitz.

    It seems counterintuitive to me that an attorney would be disbarred just for filing one frivolous appeal. Taitz, on the other hand, is a menace, soliciting clients and exposing them to harm.

    Exactly, Mario is in my opinion just caught between a rock and a hard place. Walk away and lose face, continue to argue and lose money and reputation.

    Orly will never admit to defeat. I am sure you have read her recent filings to SCOTUS asking the Court to allow Orly to verify that the rulings were actually made…
    Hilarious…
    She is joining the ranks of Joseph Zernik and Richard Fine. Zernik recently filed a criminal complaint against Danny Bickell, the clerk of the Supreme Court…

    Zernik appears upset by the Court’s docketing system and Fine, well Fine appears to want to have almost every CA judge recuse itself because he believes they have been involved in fraud and “bribes”.
    Two fascinating cases. Orly is still an amateur here.

  42. avatar
    Rickey July 21, 2010 at 12:45 am #

    James:I do think it was interesting about Mario asking for discovery.

    James, you have proven time and again that you don’t know squat about the law, and here we have yet another example of that.

    Whatever the costs were of defending the Berg lawsuit, they are irrelevant to the Kerchner case. Mario has argued time and again that it doesn’t matter where Obama was born. Now he wants it both ways, claiming that the defense costs would have been mitigated if only Obama had proven to Mario’s satisfaction where he was born.

    I find it interesting that right-wingers love to go on and on about how people should take individual responsibility for their actions, but every time they get slapped down they whine about unfairly they are being treated.

  43. avatar
    Keith July 21, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    AnotherBird: Apuzzo still doesn’t understand the law. It seems that he wants to out do Orly Taitz. They must have a wager, where the loser gets to pay the others fees and other costs.

    Yeah but they’re both losers.

  44. avatar
    misha July 21, 2010 at 12:57 am #

    AnotherBird: Apuzzo still doesn’t understand the law.

    Oh, no? He most certainly does:

    1 – follow ambulance
    2 – walk into ER
    3 – get retainer signed
    4 – see you in court

  45. avatar
    Rickey July 21, 2010 at 1:02 am #

    Greg:
    Mario’s argument is completely asinine. The plaintiff (not the defendant) has an obligation to mitigate damages.

    Agreed – I have no idea how Mario dreamed up the theory that defendants in a lawsuit have an obligation to mitigate their costs.

  46. avatar
    misha July 21, 2010 at 1:04 am #

    Greg: After all, Mario’s document looks like the kind you would expect from a room full of chimpanzees banging away at typewriters…

    That is just plain vindictive. A room full of chimps would produce something much better.

    Please. Keep this up, and I will report you to the SPCA.

  47. avatar
    misha July 21, 2010 at 1:07 am #

    Majority Will: Berg is already slipping into obscurity. Postponed rally on Washington? More like only twelve people e-mailed to say maybe but probably no. He destroyed his career first with the truther crap. Another shanda.

    Berg thought he sent an invitation to the National Flag Association. He got a reply from the National Slag Association.

    Where do these schmucks come from?

  48. avatar
    Lupin July 21, 2010 at 1:49 am #

    Page 8: “that he [Obama] has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawai…”

    In the real world that is a ludicrous statement that in and of itself justifies the charge of frivolous lawsuit.

    Page 26: “Their controlling status was not of mere voters… but rather that of citizens…”

    Here, I confess my utter bafflement. Can one if our legal eyes tell me if that’s pure unadulterated rubbish or if there’s a legal theory somewhere in there?

  49. avatar
    Lupin July 21, 2010 at 1:51 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I skimmed it and sort of skipped the very last part. I did see “all are base”.

    The exact quote I believe is “All our bases are belong to us” πŸ™‚

  50. avatar
    Lupin July 21, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, the minimal defense cost is the case being dismissed with nothing else.

    Also, technically, Obama did produce his BC, authenticated by the issuing State. Good enough to obtain a passport, etc.

    It’s not Obama’s fault if b*tsh*t crazy racists like James refuse to accept it because as they all know n*** are shifty.

  51. avatar
    brygenon July 21, 2010 at 5:58 am #

    Greg: Now, I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that if you want to explain to a Judge why you should not be sanctioned for having filing a frivolous appeal – the last thing you would probably want to do – is to drop a 95-page, eye-glazing rehash of the same stale arguments on the Court – […]

    A 95-page rehash is only the second-to-last thing. The very last thing you want to do is respond with a frivolous and contumacious motion to rescue the judge.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/20550230/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-24-MOTION-for-Recusal-by-Connie-Rhodes-filed-by-Orly-Taitz-Taitz-Orly-Entered-10-02-2009-Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-24-0

    Mario Apuzzo: 50% less bat-sh** than the leading brand.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2010 at 7:54 am #

    Lupin: The exact quote I believe is “All our bases are belong to us” πŸ™‚

    The exact quote is: “All your base are belong to us.”

  53. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 21, 2010 at 9:40 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The exact quote is: “All your base are belong to us.”

    For Great Justice!!!

  54. avatar
    HORUS July 21, 2010 at 10:14 am #

    I only read the first 8 pages and feel like I have lost 20 IQ points in the process!

    What an idiot!

  55. avatar
    Greg July 21, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Not to be confused with the other Greg who posts here and is a lawyer.

    Thank you. I didn’t think I’d posted on this thread yet.

    Greg Esq.

  56. avatar
    Lupin July 21, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The exact quote is: “All your base are belong to us.”

    O wise and learned doc! πŸ™‚

  57. avatar
    Daniel July 21, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    James: had the defense produced the Obama’s BC it would have mitigated much of the defense cost of case because it would been dismissed with BC having shown Obama was born in Hawaii.In other words, Mario is attempting to establish that production of Obama’s BC would eliminated many of the lawsuits and mitigated the cost of defense.

    Well James, I’m glad you feel that way since I’m about to serve you with court papers that show you haven’t paid your taxis in years, and your Drivers License and Social Security Number are faked. This is common knowledge, and many here even on this forum would agree they have never seen any proof from you to counter these charges.

    Since you agree that the Apuzzo can’t be held liable for a frivolous lawsuit because Obama could have avoided it simply by aquiescing to birther demands, I’m sure you’ll be co-operating fully with my demands.

    Please post copies of your original BC, Driver’s license, banking information, and tax returns for the last 7 years, online at a public location so that I may view them. That way we can avoid the cost of litigation, which you would be responsible for, if you refuse my demands.

    Thank you for letting us know how you feel about this sort of thing in advance of the lawsuit.

  58. avatar
    Greg July 21, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    James: In other words, Mario is attempting to establish that production of Obama’s BC would eliminated many of the lawsuits and mitigated the cost of defense.

    I’d imagine that this argument is so completely ungrounded in legal reality that it risks further sanction. Mitigating damages is one thing, but, as the other Greg pointed out, it’s the plaintiff that has to take steps to ensure that further damage doesn’t occur. Mario could argue that this or that photocopy are not properly attributed to this case, or that it was excessive to have 4 attorneys at the hearing, but to argue that Obama’s team should have taken a particular legal strategy (and one that Mario doesn’t even suggest would short-circuit his lawsuit) is laughable!

    Greg Esq.

  59. avatar
    Rickey July 21, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    Greg:
    I’d imagine that this argument is so completely ungrounded in legal reality that it risks further sanction.

    I’ve been trying to come up with an analogous situation, so here goes. I’m stopped at a red light and James fails to stop and rear-ends me. James doesn’t believe in seat belts (unwarranted government intrusion), so he whacks his head against his windshield, thereby sustaining brain damage. James hires Mario to sue me. My lawyer hires a neurologist to examine James in order to establish the extent of his injuries.

    Depositions are held and no evidence of negligence on my part is established. My lawyer files for Summary Judgment on liability, and the judge dismisses the case and orders the plaintiff to pay my costs. Mario then objects, saying that if only my lawyer had filed for Summary Judgment sooner, I wouldn’t have incurred the cost of the neurological exam. Good luck with that, Mario.

  60. avatar
    Majority Will July 21, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    Rickey:
    . . . so he whacks his head against his windshield, thereby sustaining brain damage.

    Would anyone be able to tell? You can’t get sap from a hollow tree.

  61. avatar
    AnotherBird July 21, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    Rickey:
    I’ve been trying to come up with an analogous situation, so here goes. I’m stopped at a red light and James fails to stop and rear-ends me. James doesn’t believe in seat belts (unwarranted government intrusion), so he whacks his head against his windshield, thereby sustaining brain damage. James hires Mario to sue me. My lawyer hires a neurologist to examine James in order to establish the extent of his injuries.Depositions are held and no evidence of negligence on my part is established. My lawyer files for Summary Judgment on liability, and the judge dismisses the case and orders the plaintiff to pay my costs. Mario then objects, saying that if only my lawyer had filed for Summary Judgment sooner, I wouldn’t have incurred the cost of the neurological exam. Good luck with that, Mario.

    Correction to the introduction: I notice a car stopped at the red light and make a right turn into the gas station as I want to fill-up my gas tank. James see my car turning into the gas station forgetting he is driving. Suddenly he notices the stopped car and slams on his breaks. James doesn’t believe in seat belts (unwarranted government intrusion), so he whacks his head against windshield and cause the air bag to inflate. Thinking he might have sustaining brain damage, or other injuries. I rush over to provide assistance to James …

  62. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo July 22, 2010 at 2:34 am #

    Greg: I’d imagine that this argument is so completely ungrounded in legal reality that it risks further sanction. Mitigating damages is one thing, but, as the other Greg pointed out, it’s the plaintiff that has to take steps to ensure that further damage doesn’t occur. Mario could argue that this or that photocopy are not properly attributed to this case, or that it was excessive to have 4 attorneys at the hearing, but to argue that Obama’s team should have taken a particular legal strategy (and one that Mario doesn’t even suggest would short-circuit his lawsuit) is laughable! Greg Esq.

    Greg, Esq.

    Why do you not try reading what I wrote? If you do, you might sound a bit more intelligent.

  63. avatar
    sfjeff July 22, 2010 at 2:53 am #

    Mario is back! But, but, didn’t you say you had left us forever?

  64. avatar
    AnotherBird July 22, 2010 at 3:16 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Greg, Esq.Why do you not try reading what I wrote?If you do, you might sound a bit more intelligent.

    Mario Apuzzo (if it is really you), it would have been better if you had taken time to read Orly Taitz arguments and understand where she failed. There isn’t nothing original to what you wrote, and is the same arguments used that cause you to get sanctioned. An important point Ms. Taitz appealed her fine to the Supreme Court and was denied. You would be better office dropping your appeal and paying the monetary amount for your frivolous lawsuit. So, before you suggest some “might sound a bit more intelligent” take the time and understand the law.

  65. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 22, 2010 at 4:02 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Why do you not try reading what I wrote?

    Because it is 95 pages of incomprehensible garbage.

    I can’t think of anything that would tick off a judge more than to be confronted with that interminable, rambling digression.

    Except maybe the obvious fact that you didn’t even bother to proofread the thing.

  66. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 22, 2010 at 4:10 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: Why do you not try reading what I wrote? If you do, you might sound a bit more intelligent.

    Mario,

    Reading the 95 page pile of dung you dropped on the court is not going to make anyone any smarter (quite the contrary, I think). I’m just wondering if you are going to pay if the court sanctions you or if you intend to appeal all the way to the SCOTUS in search of your magic discovery (which will never yield more than President Obama’s COLB even if you do manage to get it). Or do you just make more off of your pay-pal button by getting sanctioned than you could possibly be fined? Why don’t you just scurry on back to your own little hole of a blog where you can block everyone who doesn’t agree with your spin and don’t have to deal with the whole pesky free speech thing. I guess the only Constitutional values you adhere to are the fake ones you made up (or rather took from Berg) in order to get the darkie out of the oval office.

  67. avatar
    misha July 22, 2010 at 4:29 am #

    Hey everyone: I found a legal scholar that agrees with Mario!

  68. avatar
    ellid July 22, 2010 at 7:20 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Greg, Esq.Why do you not try reading what I wrote?If you do, you might sound a bit more intelligent.

    Your arguments are ridiculous. Stick to insurance before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

  69. avatar
    misha July 22, 2010 at 8:38 am #

    Just thought I would post an oldie but goodie:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo.html

  70. avatar
    Sef July 22, 2010 at 8:59 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Greg, Esq.Why do you not try reading what I wrote?If you do, you might sound a bit more intelligent.

    Mario, there was a time, way back in the 80’s when word processing systems & digital page printers had just become available, when form over substance was possible & a beautifully formatted core dump would earn at least a B, possible an A, independent of content. Those days are long past. The judge who has to wade through this drivel will not be impressed. Since you included an editorial comment it appears that even you couldn’t be bothered to read it. You had best get your checkbook ready.

  71. avatar
    Jules July 22, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    AnotherBird:
    Ms. Taitz appealed her fine to the Supreme Court and was denied.

    Actually, Taitz has not yet filed for a full review of the decision on the sanctions. She filed an application for an emergency stay of the sanctions order, which was denied.

    Applications for emergency stays can be used to prevent serious harm before a decision is made on a petition for certiorari and the merits. The most obvious type of case necessitating an application for an emergency stay would be in a death penalty appeal, where an applicant will be executed if the stay is not issued. However, even if irreparable harm would arise without a stay, the applicant must show, inter alia, likelihood of success on the merits.

    Taitz’s application for an emergency stay of the sanctions was clearly going to be denied. Not only would any appeal have no likelihood of success on the merits, but there also would be no irreparable harm if the stay were not issued. She remains free to file a petition for certiorari on a point of law relating to the reasoning of the District Court and Court of Appeals with regard to the sanctions order. In the rather unlikely event that the Supreme Court granted certiorari and then ruled in Taitz’s favour, then the harm from the $20,000 judgment against her would be fully repaired by having that judgment quashed.

    Of course, rather than file an ordinary petition for certiorari, Taitz has chosen to make her most ridiculous filing yet.

  72. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree July 22, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That will be, I am sure, a pleasure to read.

    It is indeed! It is now complete, i think in 5 or 6 different parts. She read and analyzed every case Mario cited, as well as those in the Third Circuit’s Opinion, in 48 hours. As usual, she deftly carves up this ridiculous filing into very thin slices, throws them on a hot grill, and serves them, slightly charred. Mario is a member over there but has chosen not to respond to any cogent legal arguments, just like he refused to acknowledge what real lawyers here were telling him for months. Perhaps if he had spent less time trying to spar on the internet, he might have written something a tad better. But I doubt it.

  73. avatar
    Rickey July 22, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    Mario Apuzzo:
    Greg, Esq.Why do you not try reading what I wrote?If you do, you might sound a bit more intelligent.

    That’s rich – loser attorney Mario accusing Greg of not sounding intelligent! Mario, you were told over and over by Greg and other attorneys here that your case had no chance of succeeding, and who was proven correct?

  74. avatar
    Rickey July 22, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    Jules:
    She filed an application for an emergency stay of the sanctions order, which was denied.

    I found her application to Justice Thomas to be so offernsive that I decided to bring it to the attention of the California Bar. This is the test of the letter I sent:

    Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
    The State Bar of California
    1149 South Hill Street
    Los Angeles, California 90015-2299

    Re: Orly Taitz, Esq.
    Bar Number: 223433

    Dear Counselor:

    As a concerned citizen of the United States, I would like to file a formal complaint about the egregious misconduct of Orly Taitz, Esq., California Bar Number 223433.

    Attorney Taitz recently filed an Application For Emergency Stay and/or Injuction with the United States Supreme Court in which she repeatedly violates Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(b), which provides: “It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: (b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.”

    The Supreme Court Docket No. is 10A56, entitled Orly Taitz, Applicant v. Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al. The underlying case was heard in the United State Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 09-15418. The application to SCOTUS was filed on July 8, 2010 and was denied by Justice Clarence Thomas on July 15, 2010.

    A copy of attorney Taitz’ Application is enclosed. In her application, Taitz repeatedly disparages Federal Court Judge Clay D. Land of the Middle District of Georgia. I call your attention to just some of the slanderous comments she has made about Judge Land in particular and about the judiciary in general:

    1. On page 3 she accuses Judge Land of attempting to “silence and intimidate Taitz.”

    2. On page 4 she refers to “the utter corruption in the Judiciary.”

    3. On page 6 she accuses the judiciary of “pandering to an illegitimate dictator, who sits in the White House.”

    4. On page 7 she claims that Judge Land “intentionally misrepresented” her case.

    5. On page 11 she says that “Judge Land’s actions were antics.”

    6. On page 12 she claims that the “whole world” is questioning “what mental disorder has afflicted U.S. judges and U.S. attorneys.”

    7. On page 14 she accuses Judge Land of “verbal assault.”

    8. On page 16 she claims that “Actions by Judge Land constituted violation of judicial ethics.”

    9. On page 17 she accuses Judge Land of “attacking and harassing such members of the military and their attorney,” “endanger[ing] national security,” and that “Actions by Judge Land were akin to aiding and abetting felony and misprision of felony.” She also accuses Judge Land of “persecution.”

    10. On page 21 she characterizes Judge Land’s decision to sanction her as “nothing more but a hit job on a Civil Rights defender by a member of the judiciary, who was pandering to the administration.”

    Taitz also makes numerous erroneous assertions about the Federal doctrines of Article III standing and justiciability which call into question her competence to practice law. What makes her actions even more disturbing is that she posts her filings on her website, which gives her followers the impression that such diatribes are acceptable behavior by an attorney.

    Taitz’ insulting and denigrating comments about Judge Land (and the judiciary in general) reflect poorly upon her and her profession. I believe that the State Bar of California should investigate her behavior and take appropriate action to prevent her from espousing disrespect of the courts in the future.

    Sincerely,

    I don’t know if it will do any good, but it makes me feel better.

  75. avatar
    obsolete July 22, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    Nice letter, Rickey. I also don’t know if it will do any good, but at least the California Bar can’t claim ignorance of Orly’s Antics.

  76. avatar
    AnotherBird July 22, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    Jules:
    Actually, Taitz has not yet filed for a full review of the decision on the sanctions. She filed an application for an emergency stay of the sanctions order, which was denied.

    Applications for emergency stays can be used to prevent serious harm before a decision is made on a petition for certiorari and the merits. The most obvious type of case necessitating an application for an emergency stay would be in a death penalty appeal, where an applicant will be executed if the stay is not issued. However, even if irreparable harm would arise without a stay, the applicant must show, inter alia, likelihood of success on the merits.

    Taitz’s application for an emergency stay of the sanctions was clearly going to be denied. Not only would any appeal have no likelihood of success on the merits, but there also would be no irreparable harm if the stay were not issued. She remains free to file a petition for certiorari on a point of law relating to the reasoning of the District Court and Court of Appeals with regard to the sanctions order. In the rather unlikely event that the Supreme Court granted certiorari and then ruled in Taitz’s favour, then the harm from the $20,000 judgment against her would be fully repaired by having that judgment quashed.Of course, rather than file an ordinary petition for certiorari, Taitz has chosen to make her most ridiculous filing yet.

    Sorry, James but Olry Taitz appeal was denied. She has even gone to the point of wanting a verify Clarence Thomas’s signature.

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taitz-wants-to-verify-cla/

    “the harm from the $20,000 judgment” It was a self inflicted wound. Just like Apuzzo she had a chance to not be sanctioned by the court.

    It is over.

  77. avatar
    Jules July 22, 2010 at 11:12 am #

    AnotherBird:
    Sorry, James but Olry Taitz appeal was denied. She has even gone to the point of wanting a verify Clarence Thomas’s signature.http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taitz-wants-to-verify-cla/“the harm from the $20,000 judgment” It was a self inflicted wound. Just like Apuzzo she had a chance to not be sanctioned by the court.
    It is over.

    This seems to be a “friendly fire” incident. I am not James. I was not stating anything that is remotely supportive of Taitz or any other birther.

    My point was that Taitz did not file a proper appeal, but rather used the process of filing for an emergency stay when that was clearly not the appropriate filing if she wished to file an appeal. She can still file a petition for certiorari, which she has not yet done. She will probably end up petitioning for certiorari. When she does, she will, of course, be denied.

    I agree that Taitz is entirely to blame for the $20,000 penalty. My point about harm was that even if her appeal had any merit, then there would be no irreparable harm from expecting her to use the normal certiorari process rather than seeking a stay.

  78. avatar
    brygenon July 22, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    Jules: Actually, Taitz has not yet filed for a full review of the decision on the sanctions. She filed an application for an emergency stay of the sanctions order, which was denied.

    Applications for emergency stays can be used to prevent serious harm before a decision is made on a petition for certiorari and the merits

    Ah, you’re thinking about correct procedure, not Taitz’s application. Tatiz asked for review of the decision on sanctions directly in the application for stay/injunction. She began the filing with the appellate “Questions posed”. The stay stay/injunction she requested was not “pending” anything.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34041283/ORLY-TAITZ-APPLICATION-FOR-EMERGENCY-STAY-AND-OR-INJUNCTION-RE-SANCTIONS

  79. avatar
    Gregory July 22, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Not to be confused with the other Greg who posts here and is a lawyer.

    An Important Public Statement

    Thank you all for coming here on such short notice. I have called you here so that I can apologize for being “Greg”, the Usurper on this thread. I admit that I posted under the name of another (and unlike me, a well-known, frequent and respected) contributor to this site. So I apologize for any confusion that I caused and for any damage (excluding pain and suffering) to the real Greg and his reputation.

    Having said that, I continue to maintain – as I have since this scandal erupted – that my usurpation was inadvertent, and was not – repeat – not a deliberate attempt to impersonate someone else.

    Now, in light of the swirling controversy that now surrounds my first name (and in face of mounting doubts in the public, in the press, and in the World Net Daily, over whether my name is even “Greg” at all, I have decided to finally come clean with the American people.

    First, I must acknowledge that those few, brave individuals who were roundly scorned for pursuing the truth about my first name – were in fact right all along. “Greg” is not the same name that appears on my (long form) birth certificate the one that I have had sealed from public view (and not to be confused with the fake short form COLB that I posted on the Internet and which fooled nobody).

    My true first name is not the rumored “Barry” or “Mohammed” (though those are great names) but “Gregory”. Now let me make one thing very clear: if you refuse to take my word, you will have to sue me in Federal court. But yours will be a fruitless endeavor. You have no inkling of the vastness of the conspiracy arrayed against you – nor any idea of the millions that I am prepared to spend to cover up the truth about my first name.

    Thank you all for your time – (note that I will not be fielding any questions at this time).

  80. avatar
    G July 22, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    obsolete: Nice letter, Rickey. I also don’t know if it will do any good, but at least the California Bar can’t claim ignorance of Orly’s Antics.

    Agreed! Nicely done, Rickey!

  81. avatar
    G July 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    AnotherBird: Mario Apuzzo (if it is really you), it would have been better if you had taken time to read Orly Taitz arguments and understand where she failed. There isn’t nothing original to what you wrote, and is the same arguments used that cause you to get sanctioned. An important point Ms. Taitz appealed her fine to the Supreme Court and was denied. You would be better office dropping your appeal and paying the monetary amount for your frivolous lawsuit. So, before you suggest some “might sound a bit more intelligent” take the time and understand the law.

    Agreed.

    All Mario has accomplished with his rushed 95-page steaming pile of nonsense (which he barely got in before the extended filing deadline) is too present himself as even more incompetent than he already has.

    So congrats, Mario. If your goal was to increase the likelihood of monetary sanctions on yourself, then you have probably finally accomplished something! If your goal was something else, then…er…not so much.

    I think now it is time for us to place bets on how much we think the initial sanctions on Mario will be. I was originally thinking $5000, but I think Mario’s Orlyesque response might make $10,000 more likely to start.

  82. avatar
    Rickey July 22, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    G:
    Agreed!Nicely done, Rickey!

    Thanks. What started to really bug me was the realization that the fact that Judge Land doesn’t need me or anyone else to defend him is beside the point. The real damage is that Orly posts this stuff on her website, and it encourages her minions to loathe the judiciary. And so we have people such as yguy coming out of the bushes and claiming that we really don’t have to obey Supreme Court rulings.

    The real strength of this country is that we respect legal decisions with which we disagree, and we accept the transfer of power after elections even when we are diametrically opposed to the winner – at least, that is how it used to work. Now we have a right wing which does everything in its power to undermine Presidents with whom they disagree. They did it with Clinton, and now they are trying to do it with Obama. Forged documents, edited videos, the willful and deliberate spreading of falsehoods, all designed to de-legitimize anyone with whom they disagree.

  83. avatar
    Rickey July 22, 2010 at 3:06 pm #

    G:
    All Mario has accomplished with his rushed 95-page steaming pile of nonsense (which he barely got in before the extended filing deadline) is too present himself as even more incompetent than he already has.So congrats, Mario. If your goal was to increase the likelihood of monetary sanctions on yourself, then you have probably finally accomplished something!

    When being threatened with sanctions, the best way to go is to show a little humility and contriteness. Mario could have said to the court, “I filed the appeal because I believed it was in the best interests of my client and I was trying to represent him to the best of my ability. I understand that you disagree with me, but I truly feel that there are important distinctions between my case and the Berg case, distinctions which led me to conclude that my client does have Article III standing to bring this action. I would never have filed the appeal had I not been convinced that the appeal had merit and a reasonable chance of succeeding.”

    But Mario, remember, is a person who cannot even bring himself to man up when he is caught in a bald-faced lie. He has yet to acknowledge that his claim about a 1981 travel ban to Pakistan is false, despite incontrovertible evidence that there was no such ban.

  84. avatar
    G July 22, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

    Rickey: But Mario, remember, is a person who cannot even bring himself to man up when he is caught in a bald-faced lie. He has yet to acknowledge that his claim about a 1981 travel ban to Pakistan is false, despite incontrovertible evidence that there was no such ban.

    Exactly. Which is why Mario will only succeed in digging himself deeper and deeper in the hole and will only have himself to blame. He’s practically begging for as much fines & sanctions that they can throw at him, with his behavior and attitude.

  85. avatar
    Greg July 22, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Why do you not try reading what I wrote? If you do, you might sound a bit more intelligent.

    Congratulations on not being sanctioned, Mario.

    [quote]07/22/2010 Open Document ORDER (SLOVITER, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges) On July 2, 2010, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause directing Apepllant’s counsel to show cause in writing why he should not be subject to an Order pursuant to F.R.A.P. 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal. In response, Mario Apuzzo filed a 95-page statement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing. However, based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause, filed. Sloviter, Authoring Judge. (PDB)[/quote]

  86. avatar
    Rickey July 22, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    Greg:
    Congratulations on not being sanctioned, Mario.

    They gave him a break.

  87. avatar
    G July 22, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    Rickey:
    They gave him a break.

    Well, I’m surprised by how gently they let him off the hook. Of course, the terse and expedient response they provided makes their message fairly clear – they just want him gone and out of their court system as quick as possible and want no more to do with him.

  88. avatar
    JoZeppy July 22, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    Rickey: They gave him a break.

    Of course now we’re going to have to hear all the birthers claim it was because he requested discovery, and somehow Mario would be entitled to discovery if the sanctioned him….all the while ignoring the fact that Orly also requested discovery, still was fined, and never got any disovery.

  89. avatar
    Majority Will July 22, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    G:
    Well, I’m surprised by how gently they let him off the hook.Of course, the terse and expedient response they provided makes their message fairly clear – they just want him gone and out of their court system as quick as possible and want no more to do with him.

    Like an infected wart.

  90. avatar
    AnotherBird July 22, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    Jules:
    This seems to be a “friendly fire” incident. I am not James. I was not stating anything that is remotely supportive of Taitz or any other birther.My point was that Taitz did not file a proper appeal, but rather used the process of filing for an emergency stay when that was clearly not the appropriate filing if she wished to file an appeal. She can still file a petition for certiorari, which she has not yet done. She will probably end up petitioning for certiorari. When she does, she will, of course, be denied.I agree that Taitz is entirely to blame for the $20,000 penalty. My point about harm was that even if her appeal had any merit, then there would be no irreparable harm from expecting her to use the normal certiorari process rather than seeking a stay.

    So Jules, I am happy that my mistake was a misinterpretation of your comment and calling you James. I have absolutely no confidence in Taitz using correct legal procedures. She is to focus and trying to get the courts to rule that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen. If she was smart enough and stuck to the core of her concern, the $20,000, then she might have been bright enough to use ” the normal certiorari process.”

  91. avatar
    AnotherBird July 22, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    Greg:
    Congratulations on not being sanctioned, Mario.

    So he his appeal has been denied. What seems interesting is that he has been blocked from using the “appropriate procedure.” The 3 Circuit Judges were quite harsh on him.

  92. avatar
    Jules July 23, 2010 at 4:46 am #

    AnotherBird:
    So Jules, I am happy that my mistake was a misinterpretation of your comment and calling you James. I have absolutely no confidence in Taitz using correct legal procedures. She is to focus and trying to get the courts to rule that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen. If she was smart enough and stuck to the core of her concern, the $20,000, then she might have been bright enough to use ” the normal certiorari process.”

    Thank you for acknowledging the misunderstanding.

    Taitz is a bad lawyer who would probably lose her cases even if they had some merit. Her knowledge of procedure is pretty bad. Her drafting is dreadul. Her advocacy is appalling.

    Further to brygenon’s comment, I have checked Taitz’s stay application and it turns out that she does request reversal of the sanctions in addition to a stay of it, even though the application is listed as a stay application. I don’t know if the incorrect inclusion of a request for a reversal in the stay application prevents her from now seeking reversal by petitioning for certiorari.

    As I had explained, a stay application was clearly not an appropriate filing in the first place.

    One of the many other flaws in Taitz’s stay application was that she presented argument about the dismissal of Rhodes’ claim, which was not in dispute before the Supreme Court because Rhodes did not wish to appeal. The only remaining issues on appeal were about the sanctions order.

  93. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny July 23, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    Rickey: 6. On page 12 she claims that the “whole world” is questioning “what mental disorder has afflicted U.S. judges and U.S. attorneys.”

    I am afraid that is the only time La Taitz got something right.The whole world is indeed wondering what has afflicted US attorneys Berg, Apuzzo and Taitz and why US judges continue to give them a free ride.

  94. avatar
    G July 23, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: I am afraid that is the only time La Taitz got something right.The whole world is indeed wondering what has afflicted US attorneys Berg, Apuzzo and Taitz and why US judges continue to give them a free ride.

    Agreed.