If you go back through all the articles on this blog, you will see a quite a few under the category of Mario Apuzzo, 45 of them at last count. Generally my writing doesn’t treat Mr. Apuzzo very kindly: some articles are critical, some are insulting and some downright taunting. While I try to be accurate in my criticism, I needn’t bother out of fear that he will show up and call me on it. He’s not going to undertake any substantive argument here because if he did, he would be exposed as a hack by me and other commenters, some of whom are attorneys, apparently much better ones than he is.
The last time Apuzzo showed up here in comments (798 comments here between February of 2009 and December of 2010) he lost badly and lost his temper too. Birther attorneys only look good in closed friendly environments where they control the context and the discussion. Birther attorneys have to show up in one neutral battleground eventually, the courts, and there they invariably lose. Still, Birthers in the main don’t read court rulings, allowing the Birther attorneys to explain “what really happened” and why “the court was wrong” and still control the context and dismiss the loss.
On the other hand, Apuzzo has said some unkind things about me on his blog. I went over there once and tried to argue a point. I made what I considered a winning comment, but it never saw the light of day.
If Apuzzo ever showed up again here, I’m pretty sure that he will be maligned and insulted – but he won’t be muzzled and he won’t win the argument.
If it’s not obvious from recent articles, I’m pretty hacked off by arrogant claims of winning on birther blogs that censor opposing comments. The practice disgusts me.
The picture above is an Italian landmark, La Bocca della Verità (the “Mouth of Truth” in English). Apuzzo uses the image of this landmark on his blog for some reason which I have been unable to figure out.
This blog’s tag line, Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud, comes from a motion to dismiss in Kerchner v Obama, by Acting United States Attorney Ralph J. Marra, Jr. Marra, referring to Apuzzo’s Second Amended Complaint in Kerchner, said:
“Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.” United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003), quoted in Parker v. Learn The Skills Corp., No. 03-6936, 2004 WL 2384993, *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2004) (dismissing complaint without prejudice because it was lengthy in its factual allegations of wrongful conduct and lacked clarity).
In this case, Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint utterly fails to conform to the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). The second amended complaint is 87 pages long, consisting of 387 paragraphs of allegations, a 30-paragraph prayer for relief, and 43 single-spaced endnotes, some of which are quite lengthy. See Dkt. Entry 3. Plaintiffs plead a host of needless detail, the relevancy of which is not clear, and to which Defendants cannot respond because it is drawn from various internet webpages and sundry outside sources.
Kerchner v. Obama was dismissed, albeit for other defects.