Main Menu

Third Circuit to Apuzzo: YOU WIN!

Apart from the sensationally misleading but technically accurate title to this article, the rest is straight and not intended to be sarcastic.

Certainly readers here have seen criticism from the bully pulpit of the Obama Conspiracy Theories blog of the filings in the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit, filings submitted under the signature of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. You have also seen criticism of articles on his blog, and of comments he made here.

Readers will also have seen criticism of Mr. Apuzzo personally, although I hope not by me. Comments have been made against his law practice (DWI lawyer) and his career in general (mediocre). I don’t hold with such ad hominem attacks both because they include biased reporting lacking proper citation, and further because they are irrelevant to the conspiracy theories which are the subject matter of this blog.

This brings me to the subject of this article, Mr. Apuzzo’s win. I have no idea how many if any DWI cases Apuzzo has defended, but he has also represented plaintiffs in immigration cases, one of which was the case of Guedes-Munoz v Atty Gen USA that was heard by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I can’t judge the complexity of the case, or the brilliance of Apuzzo’s filings, but it looks like he won.

34 Responses to Third Circuit to Apuzzo: YOU WIN!

  1. avatar
    mljucmj July 27, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    Good for him.

    Which may be testament to a well known theory of legal practice that one should stay in their lane. In other words stick with what you know and are good at.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    mljucmj: Which may be testament to a well known theory of legal practice that one should stay in their lane. In other words stick with what you know and are good at.

    Thanks for your comment. I see your site has a remarkably comprehensive and informative article about Lt. Col. Lakin. Wow!

  3. avatar
    AnotherBird July 27, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo is a professional lawyer, unlike Orly Taitz. However, with all Obama birth conspiracy theorist he was more interested in looking for what wasn’t there than what was there. Let us hope he stick to what he knows best.

  4. avatar
    Majority Will July 27, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

    mljucmj: Good for him. Which may be testament to a well known theory of legal practice that one should stay in their lane. In other words stick with what you know and are good at.

    Excellent point.

    And I too enjoyed your site. I see you got buttered up but not in a good way.

  5. avatar
    bob July 27, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    Apuzzo was a regular lawyer before going birther. (Berg, too, before he went truther and birther.) Some success is to be expected. My personal favorite Apuzzo victory is Monroe Township Council v. Garibaldi, 216 N.J. Super. Ct. 19 (1987), where he successfully litigated to keep his own job.

    OTOH, Kreep and Pidgeon are mainly “advocacy” lawyers; they don’t have a strong track record.

    Taitz and Donofrio: Didn’t really work as lawyers.

  6. avatar
    Lupin July 28, 2010 at 6:52 am #

    I honestly fail to see the relevance.

    Bernie Madoff was once a decent asset management guy, before he decided to take a shortcut through ponziland.

    There are plenty of folks who were or are decent at their job, until they turn to the dark side. Mario’s competence only makes the criticism of his involvement with the birther movement more condemnable, not less.

  7. avatar
    PetJake July 28, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    Readers will also have seen criticism of Mr. Apuzzo personally, although I hope not by me. Comments have been made against his law practice (DWI lawyer) and his career in general (mediocre). I don’t hold with such ad hominem attacks both because they include biased reporting lacking proper citation, and further because they are irrelevant to the conspiracy theories which are the subject matter of this blog

    I certainly appreciate your honesty and integrity in not discussing the comments that have been made about your occupation (pig farmer) and calling yourself, “Dr.” when you don’t have a doctorate (fraud). Such things are irrelevant to the Birther Blather which is the subject of this blog.

  8. avatar
    Hormone Stallone July 28, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    It’s a motion for permission to file an Amicus Curiae brief … “*Motion to file leave of Amicus Curiae is respectfully submitted if applicable in UCMJ.”

    The email is a courtesy copy to be followed by a hard copy.

    Requests to file Amicus Curiae briefs are granted in UCMJ cases frequently. Why would the UCMJ be afraid of truthful information? A man’s freedom and civil liberties are at stake and you want to nail him on a technicality.

    Lakin is asking Obama to publicly produced an exact copy of the document he has published on the internet. If it’s not a forgery, then what is the problem?

  9. avatar
    Majority Will July 28, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    Hormone Stallone: It’s a motion for permission to file an Amicus Curiae brief … “*Motion to file leave of Amicus Curiae is respectfully submitted if applicable in UCMJ.”The email is a courtesy copy to be followed by a hard copy.
    Requests to file Amicus Curiae briefs are granted in UCMJ cases frequently. Why would the UCMJ be afraid of truthful information? A man’s freedom and civil liberties are at stake and you want to nail him on a technicality.
    Lakin is asking Obama to publicly produced an exact copy of the document he has published on the internet. If it’s not a forgery, then what is the problem?

    Sven, quite simply the charges filed on LTC Lakin are unrelated to the President’s eligibility for holding office. The President’s birth information is also irrelevant to the proceedings.

    If you don’t believe this, you’re about to find out.

    You still won’t believe it , of course. How silly is the truth?

    “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”

    – U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land

  10. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 28, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    PetJake: I certainly appreciate your honesty and integrity in not discussing the comments that have been made about your occupation (pig farmer) and calling yourself, “Dr.” when you don’t have a doctorate (fraud). Such things are irrelevant to the Birther Blather which is the subject of this blog.

    Doc clearly states he doesn’t have a doctorate. If you bothered to read the introduction to the site you would know that. As for frauds people like Pollarik and techdude claim to have credentials they do not have. This would be a fraud. Keep trying Petjake

  11. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 28, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    Hormone Stallone: It’s a motion for permission to file an Amicus Curiae brief … “*Motion to file leave of Amicus Curiae is respectfully submitted if applicable in UCMJ.”The email is a courtesy copy to be followed by a hard copy. Requests to file Amicus Curiae briefs are granted in UCMJ cases frequently. Why would the UCMJ be afraid of truthful information? A man’s freedom and civil liberties are at stake and you want to nail him on a technicality. Lakin is asking Obama to publicly produced an exact copy of the document he has published on the internet. If it’s not a forgery, then what is the problem?

    Yeah some technicality, the guy has already admitted he failed to follow orders. That is an admission of guilt and he deserves to have the full force of the law in regards to the charge be carried out. Obama’s birth certificate has nothing to do with Lakin’s failure to follow the orders of his direct superior.

  12. avatar
    Majority Will July 28, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Doc clearly states he doesn’t have a doctorate.If you bothered to read the introduction to the site you would know that.As for frauds people like Pollarik and techdude claim to have credentials they do not have.This would be a fraud.Keep trying Petjake

    I demand to see the medical licenses or PhDs for Drs. Dre, J and Pepper.

  13. avatar
    AnotherBird July 28, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    Hormone Stallone:
    Requests to file Amicus Curiae briefs are granted in UCMJ cases frequently. Why would the UCMJ be afraid of truthful information? A man’s freedom and civil liberties are at stake and you want to nail him on a technicality.

    Honestly Hormone Stallone, it is time for you to do some honest research.

    “As a matter of procedure amicus filings are not accepted at the pretrial or trial level. Amicus pleadings are permissible at the appellate level with consent.”

    No Obama’s freedom and civil liberties are okay.

    Oh, sorry you are talking about Lakin who seems to have knowingly disobeyed his orders. He has the freedom to disobey orders, and he will get a fair court martial. Well as fair as getting fired from your job for blatant violating the rules.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 28, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    Majority Will: I demand to see the medical licenses or PhDs for Drs. Dre, J and Pepper.

    What about Dr. Slice? Can’t leave him out.

  15. avatar
    Hormone Stallone July 28, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    AnotherBird:
    Honestly Hormone Stallone, it is time for you to do some honest research.“As a matter of procedure amicus filings are not accepted at the pretrial or trial level.Amicus pleadings are permissible at the appellate level with consent.”No Obama’s freedom and civil liberties are okay.Oh, sorry you are talking about Lakin who seems to have knowingly disobeyed his orders. He has the freedom to disobey orders, and he will geta fair court martial. Well as fair as getting fired from your job for blatant violating the rules.

    Lakin is entitled to an affirmative defense and it is up to a jury of his peers to decide whether or not the affirmative defense exonerates the defendant, not a judge.

    So, for the chattering class parroting others … it means Lakin can state he’s not guilty because the President won’t show his birth certificate and it is up to the jury to decide if Lakin’s defense is valid.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 28, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    Hormone Stallone: Lakin is entitled to an affirmative defense and it is up to a jury of his peers to decide whether or not the affirmative defense exonerates the defendant, not a judge.So, for the chattering class parroting others … it means Lakin can state he’s not guilty because the President won’t show his birth certificate and it is up to the jury to decide if Lakin’s defense is valid.

    Incorrect. He can make up any delusional bit he wants, sure, including the dog ate his deployment orders. The fact remains Obama being president has nothing to do with his failure to follow orders coming from his direct superior.

  17. avatar
    Majority Will July 28, 2010 at 1:43 pm #

    Hormone Stallone:
    Lakin is entitled to an affirmative defense and it is up to a jury of his peers to decide whether or not the affirmative defense exonerates the defendant, not a judge.So, for the chattering class parroting others … it means Lakin can state he’s not guilty because the President won’t show his birth certificate and it is up to the jury to decide if Lakin’s defense is valid.

    Bzzzzzzzt.

    Not relevant, Sven Thanks for playing. Next stop for Lakin is a DD and possible fine and/or imprisonment. The best thing Lakin could probably do is keep his mouth shut and hire a qualified attorney.

    “So, for the chattering class parroting others . . .”

    Too ironic coming from a hardcore birther.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    PetJake: I certainly appreciate your honesty and integrity in not discussing the comments that have been made about your occupation (pig farmer) and calling yourself, “Dr.” when you don’t have a doctorate (fraud).

    I don’t follow your logic.

    You claim to know whether I have a doctorate or not. Since you’re not a personal contact of mine, nor have any special knowledge, then the fact that I do not have a doctorate must be generally known. If it is generally known, that must be because I chose to disclose that fact. And if I disclosed it, then I am not misrepresenting myself and therefore not a fraud. “Dr. Conspiracy” is a character whose name is in the genre of the “Dr. Science” character.

    Also the guy at the pizza place calls me “Dr.” too, for a reason that I have not been able to determine.

    I do, however, have a real masters degree in statistics, unlike some folks I know.

    As for my occupation, didn’t you know? I make COLB’s for a living. 🙄

  19. avatar
    Majority Will July 28, 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    What about Dr. Slice?Can’t leave him out.

    And House, Who, Strangelove, Lecter, Evil, Nick Riviera, Zoidberg and Moreau.

  20. avatar
    Sef July 28, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Incorrect.He can make up any delusional bit he wants, sure, including the dog ate his deployment orders.The fact remains Obama being president has nothing to do with his failure to follow orders coming from his direct superior.

    Question for the people for whom IANAL does not apply: It seems to me that if the prosecution shows the video wherein Lakin says he is going to disobey orders then that would be a tactical error because it would open up the defense to bring in the reasons for the disobedience. Is that correct? If that is so it may be the reason for making the videos in hopes that the prosecution would blunder.

  21. avatar
    Hormone Stallone July 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Incorrect.He can make up any delusional bit he wants, sure, including the dog ate his deployment orders.The fact remains Obama being president has nothing to do with his failure to follow orders coming from his direct superior.

    And Driscoll wouldn’t let the dog testify … no way Lakin can get a fair trial.

    It’s a fast track to an appeal.

  22. avatar
    BatGuano July 28, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    Hormone Stallone:
    ….. and it is up to the jury to decide if Lakin’s defense is valid.

    not exactly. lakin will be in front of a panel of officers, not a jury as we are used to in a civilian court.

  23. avatar
    Majority Will July 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm #

    Hormone Stallone:
    And Driscoll wouldn’t let the dog testify … no way Lakin can get a fair trial.It’s a fast track to an appeal.

    Moving the goalposts. Classic birther stupidity.

    “no way Lakin can get a fair trial”

    Are you a lawyer?

  24. avatar
    bob July 28, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    Guedes-Munoz v Atty Gen USA

    Doc: I can’t find any info about this case. Can you link to your source? Thanks.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 28, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    Hormone Stallone: And Driscoll wouldn’t let the dog testify … no way Lakin can get a fair trial.It’s a fast track to an appeal.

    Maybe in your world Dogs would be able to testify in court and can talk, but in the real world they do not. Lakin is being tried by other officers. He already admitted he’s guilty, there is no defense Lakin can posit that says he can ignore facially valid orders from a direct superior.

  26. avatar
    JoZeppy July 28, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): What about Dr. Slice? Can’t leave him out.

    And he forgot Gene Simmons…because they call him Doctor Love.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    bob: Guedes-Munoz v Atty Gen USA

    Doc: I can’t find any info about this case. Can you link to your source? Thanks.

    I had to go directly to the Third Circuit ECF Filing system to get this. PACER account required. Then I searched for Attorney: Apuzzo. The case is number 05-3881. The initial order of the court was:

    ORDER (Weis, Circuit Judge) Petitioner is a native of Cuba who arrived at the Texas border on March 23, 2002, and was paroled into the United States four days later. At his initial hearing on May 30, 2002, counsel Eralides Cabrera advised that petitioner sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In response to the IJ’s inquiry as to the applications of relief sought by petitioner, counsel also stated petitioner sought “political asylum, and should he become (indiscernible as a result of a one year stay, then adjustment of status.” After a testimonial hearing on January 27, 2003, the IJ rejected the petitioner’s asylum claim and was highly critical of the petitioner’s counsel’s presentaton. The IJ noted that counsel had failed to present “one iota of supporting documentation….The only background evidence was submitted by me…”Our review of the transcript discloses no testimony pertaining to the adjustment of status claim, nor did the IJ mention that matter in his decision. The petitioner’s counsel then filed a Notice of Appeal with the BIA that did not mention adjustment of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (1966) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. Seciton 1255). The BIA rejected counsel’s brief because it was four days late and affirmed the IJ’s ruling without an opinion on December 23, 2003. In the interim, on March 29, 2003 at the direction of his counsel, petitioner filed for adjustment of status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). At that time, the USCIS did not have authority to decide adjustment of status requests. Such matters were required to be filed in the removal proceedings. Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398, 401 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2005)(quoting 8 C.F.R. Section 245.2(a)(1)(1965) (amended 2002 (prior to 2006 amendment)). That procedure was not followed in this case, However, newly enacted regulations have change practice. Under interim regulation effective May 12, 2006, titled, “Eligibility of Arriving Aliens in Removal Proceedings to Apply for Adjustment of Status and Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Application for Adjustment of Status, “71 Fed. Red. 27585-01, USCIS not has authority to decide adjustment applications by certain aliens in removal or deportation proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. Section 245.2(a)(1) (effective May 12, 2006). Counsel for respondent Attorney General has advised this Court that the petitioner’s application for adjustment of status “has been identified by CIS for consideration in light of the interim regulation.” Thus the petitioner’s original claim, filed in 2003 for relief under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act, may now be adjudicated by the USCIS. It appears at this point that petitioner has a potentially meritorious claim for adjustment of status. If he is successful before the USCIS, his claims in the appeal before us would become moot. In view of the unique developments in this case, we choose to stay all proceedings in this Court unti the USCUS enters its ruling. We urge that the petitioner’s case be expedited. Counsel for the respondent shall report to this Court the status of the proceedings before the United States CIS within sixty (60) days. The panel retains jurisdiction of this petition, filed. (CMD)

    And then about 4 months later, this came out:

    ORDER filed (Sloviter, Authoring Judge, Weis and Garth, Circuit Judges) On October 3, 2006, this court entered an order staying all proceedings relating to this petition pending the decision of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on petitioner’s application for adjustment of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (1966) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. Section 1255). This panel retained jurisdiction. The court has now been advised that, on January 26, 2007, petitioner’s application for adjustment of status was granted to that of lawful permanent resident. We therefore remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals with the direction that the petition be granted and the order of deportation of the Immigration Judge be dismissed as moot, filed. (CMD)

  28. avatar
    bob July 28, 2010 at 8:23 pm #

    Well, that case wasn’t heard at the 3d Circuit. A petition was originally filed in the 3d Circuit, but the court realized petitioner had a potentially meritorious claim, stayed proceedings to allow the agency to do its thing, and then remanded the case back down (with instructions to dismiss as moot) once the petitioner convinced the agency to adjust his status to that of lawful permanent resident.

    As for the merits, not terribly difficult. The petitioner is a Cuban refugee, and as such, can lawfully immigrate to the United States in a manner that citizens from other countries can’t. Counsel (Apuzzo?) messed up and didn’t plea the case properly when it was originally filed in the immigration court. If Apuzzo did recognize this oversight, while certainly beneficial to his client, doing so was not particularly difficult. Without reading the briefs, it is unclear if Apuzzo even recognized the problem, or if the court did on its own accord.

  29. avatar
    AnotherBird July 28, 2010 at 8:37 pm #

    PetJake:
    I certainly appreciate your honesty and integrity in not discussing the comments that have been made about your occupation (pig farmer) and calling yourself,“Dr.” when you don’t have a doctorate (fraud). Such things are irrelevant to the Birther Blather which is the subject of this blog.

    They use to just throw water on a fire. Like a typical conspiracy theorist can think outside your narrow view point. Nor, take the time to research and read the material.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2010 at 9:35 pm #

    bob: As for the merits, not terribly difficult.

    Hey, I’m trying to throw Mario a bone here.

  31. avatar
    bob July 29, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Now that’s Apuzzo’s back, perhaps he can answer when he entered this case. Did he file anything with the IJ? The BIA?

  32. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett July 30, 2010 at 5:52 pm #

    Majority Will: And House, Who, Strangelove, Lecter, Evil, Nick Riviera, Zoidberg and Moreau.

    You forgot Weird. How could you forget Dr. Weird?

  33. avatar
    Majority Will July 30, 2010 at 6:19 pm #

    J. Edward Tremlett:
    You forgot Weird. How could you forget Dr. Weird?

    Killer corn!

    And Zaius, Demento, Seuss, Zhivago, Jekyll, Dolittle, and No.

  34. avatar
    mljucmj July 31, 2010 at 12:01 am #

    It just occurred to me. We often rather jokingly refer to the client’s sentencing case at court-martial as the dog and pony show. There’s got be a really good pun in there somewhere but my British humor is about to crash for the night.
    Cheers.