The title is in the sense of “dog bites man,” a story that’s not “news” because it happens all the time.
In this instance Mario Apuzzo representing Nicholas E. Purpura in a lawsuit against Barack Obama, has seen an Initial Decision from Administrative Law Judge Jeff F. Masin that says he’s lost another case against Barack Obama.
Purpura v. Obama is a challenge to the validity of Barack Obama’s nominating petition in New Jersey. The judge ruled that there is no obligation that Barack Obama prove his birth place, and assuming that the President was born in the USA, that he’s eligible to be President, rejecting Apuzzo’s crackpot two-citizen-parent rule.
Apuzzo has filed a 32-page exception to Judge Masin’s 9–page ruling. I do not know whether Apuzzo misunderstood the judge’s decision or if he is intentionally misrepresenting it. The judge didn’t rule (contrary to Apuzzo’s representation) that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The judge said that Obama didn’t have to prove he was born in Hawaii under New Jersey law, and that the publicly known facts of Obama’s parentage are no barrier to his being elected President (again).
Apuzzo spins around and shouts “Vattel” 11 times, but I don’t think that is the right name of the strange little creature that Apuzzo wishes would appear to spin his Exception into gold. It is straw and will remain so.
Read more:
- Text of Judge Masin’s decision
- Text of Apuzzo Exception
Judge Masin’s written decision is clear, concise and complete.
And totally destroys Mario’s position… Too funny
Why do we insult straw?
It’s pretty simple:
1. The Constitution gives to Congress the ability to certify the election of the President, and the 20th Amendment gives solutions as to what Congress should do if the President-elect fails to qualify for the office (the Vice President-elect becomes President – no magic reset button, no “SARAH PALIN BECAUSE AUTO-PRESIDENT!!!!111!”, sorry birthers).
2. Even if a state did, or could, decide to take it upon itself to qualify candidates for President (and there is no guarantee that such a thing would be considered Constitutional due to the 20th Amendment preempting it, but let’s say), the state of New Jersey specifically hasn’t done so for the office of President.
3. In the Presidential primary, one isn’t even voting for a candidate, but selecting delegates to a convention that will then select a candidate, so any such challenge is premature. Birthers like to point to ALJ Malihi denying the Motion to Dismiss in Georgia, but forget that when the decision was appealed – by birthers – to an actual court, the court ruled that Malihi was wrong to deny the Motion to Dismiss.
This was great news today!
It’s fun to see Mario grab for straws that aren’t there. And he actually thinks he has a shot of having SCOTUS hear his appeal, lol.
Now the Commander has moved the goalposts once again, saying that even if they accepted KWA, O’s father was never “domiciled” in the USA.
It’s amazing that guy managed to function in the military at all.
To me the funniest part of this particular round was the birfers crowing that Obama’s counsel “admitted” that the PDF is irrelevant.
That’s what we’ve been saying all along.
I didn’t know the U of Hawaii was a commuter campus. At least we know traffic from Nairobi is light, even during rush hour.
something something something corrupt judges something something any day now…..
Are you saying that Arpaio’s Posse has been wasting its time investigating a highly compressed document which is a copy of the original? Shocking…
It’s no surprise that Mario is misrepresenting Judge Masin’s decision. Mario has been misrepresenting Minor v. Happersett for years, so he’s had plenty of practice.
Mr. Collette? Paging Mr. Collete…
All groups of significant size suffer the bell curve.
Cool, I missed that bit.
I’ve never seen someone do so many twists and turns TRYING DESPARATELY to trick you into thinking that they must be onto something! I mean, going on 32 pages has got to mean that you got something right…….NOT. I could not read it – I just scanned it because it went on for at least 10 of those pages about the judge in Georgia.
Seriously, it’s REALLY hard for me to believe this Apuzo guy is a lawyer. He’s as ridiculous as Orly!
Why not? Most of his clients are intoxicated. They would never know.
And let’s not forget Vattel. Mario has been knowingly misquoting/misusing Vattel from the start.
Isn’t it every lawyer’s dream to appear before SCOTUS at least once in his life?
Reminds me of an episode of “Boston Legal”, probably the only one I ever watched in full.
Maybe Mario has just desperately searched for a case that would bestow that honour upon him.
And just like in the Boston Legal episod, he’s probably only in it to give the SCOTUS judges a piece of his mind. “I lectured the highest court in the country”, that’s what his ego is telling him.
That’s the only thing that is guaranteed to bore me – that after birfers are through with all 50 states for the primaries, they will jump in for another 50 failures in the general election.
Plus trying to sue world+dog after the elections, like trying to enjoin the Chief Justice from administering the oath of office, or Congress from certifying the elections, or whoever from even counting the votes, …
Then again, it’s possible that when that time comes, courts have already switched to massive sanctions for bringing the same oft-refuted bogus claims again and again. And then we will see who can cough up the money for a continuation of this crap. And then someone is going to follow that money. Might get interesting. 🙂
Mario before the SCOTUS. Now that is an amusing thought. Have they ever had someone come before them and misrepresents every case they cite? Not sure they would know how to react. They might just sit there in stunned silence the way the ninth circuit did while Orly rambled on and on.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Sorry, you lost me when you linked an article from the ironicly named “American Thinker”. About as respected as WND and the Center For Western Journalism.
The
CenterAsylum For Western Journalism.And Apputzo is done:
http://www.nj.gov/state/elections/2012-results/2012-official-primary-challenges-to-petitions-0412-134.pdf
Woot! Not that we didn’t know this would be the result, heh.
B-b-b-b-but Apuzzo did all the right things:
He made blog posts and has links to nutty websites.
He includes Esq. at the end of his name.
He made statements of “fact” not supported by previous court rulings.
He wrote a 32-page document, for goodness sake! That’s nearly 4 times longer than the judge’s document. That should count for something. 32 pages!!!
Apuzzo even went to the trouble of using the president’s “scary” middle name 9 times on the front page of his website (as of this moment). He used the president’s step-father’s name 4 times, too. Using foreign names = foreign president.
Sigh.
Too much Sturm und Drang.
Too little substance.
Too many people who believe volume of output (regardless of quality) = right side of the issue.
Depressing.
What I thought was quite telling about El Putzo’s intelligence was his inability to separate our new country operating under English Commion Law and the WKA statement that terms left undefined in the Constitution must be understood in the context of ECL. Or was he just trying to pull the wool over the judge’s eyes? Why would a competent “officer of the court” even try to do this? The mind boggles.
?????????
Soetoro.
Birthers often choose to highlight the president’s foreign sounding name. It is an additional way (they think) to cast doubt on his citizenship. So, he’s often not referred to as President Barack Obama, which is how he’s introduced in public. We can assume that “Barack Obama” is the name he likes to be called since that is how those around him refer to him.
Instead, he’s Barack Hussein Obama.
Or Barry Soetoro.
Or Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah.
Anything to make him sound foreign and scary. I’m not an Obama fan, but call this what it is: a direct appeal to xenophobia, racism and bigotry when nothing else will stick.
Calling people names which either don’t belong to them or which they prefer not to be called is rude and dehumanizing.
AKA, another day in BirtherLand.
LETTER TO ATTORNEY MARIO APUZZO RE RECENT NEW JERSEY COURT RULING
Attorney Mario Apuzzo
185 Gatzmer Ave, Jamesburg NJ 08831
Phone 732-521-1900
Mr. Apuzzo,
I’ve read your brief challenging Judge Masin’s decision that Barrack Obama is allowed to appear on New Jersey’s ballot. I’ve also watched some video of the court proceedings.
I understand that the court decided that New Jersey is not obligated by state law to verify the eligibility of presidential candidates. It appears that through legal maneuvering, the court has attempted to nullify the presidential eligibly provision of our Constitution. The decision implies that though this Constitutional provision exists, the state has no obligation to comply with or to uphold it!
I would point out that the Constitution is as much a part of New Jersey law as those laws enacted by state legislation. Furthermore, it is misguided to think that all Constitutional provisions must be null and without effect, unless it is specified who shall enforce them. The Constitution recognizes that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or to the people, this includes the power of enforcement.
Since the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the obligation of verifying the integrity of State ballots, this responsibility falls directly upon the States. If it is argued that a state government does not have this obligation, then this power and obligation falls to the people. This would mean that any citizen of the state of New Jersey has the legal right to verify the integrity of a state ballot by challenging it in court, and to subpoena all necessary documentation and evidence.
It is so often a fallacy to suppose that by construing a law in a specific manner, one may nullify or avoid the consequence of that law. Certain provisions of our Constitution specify that Congress shall have the power to enforce those provisions. For example, it was expected that the States themselves ought to uphold the several Amendments protecting the rights of the newly-freed slaves. However, because it was observed that the Southern states were actively trying to nullify the rights of freed slaves, a provision was included in the “Reconstruction” amendments granting to Congress the power to enforce those amendments if necessary.
Also, the 18th amendment, (concerning Prohibition) provided that Congress and the several States together would have the power to enforce the amendment. As to the rest of the Constitution, (and as to the provision concerning presidential eligibility) our Founders did not think that they were signing a document which was only of introspective value. As already mentioned, the Bill of Rights recognizes that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or to the people. The power of enforcement is a responsibility which cannot legally be set aside.
Regards,
Matthew Shockey
Absolutely FABULOUS letter Matthew. How could anyone fault your legal reasoning? Clearly, Mario should be frogmarched for not raising these points in his briefs and arguments.
Mr. Shockey: I read your letter, and want to help you. I found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that may be exactly what you are looking for. Keep up the support for Mr. Apuzzo.
Apuzzo is evidently floating the story in birther circles that Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the internet image of the birth certificate was a “forgery”. Reading his own pleading it is obvious he didn’t dare make this claim to the very judge who had listened to her argument – at most she said what was obvious, the internet image of the b/c is not a legal sufficient substitute for the paper document with impression seal.
Apuzzo, having been beaten back on the authenticity of the Hawaiian birth certificate, fell back on a Taitz argument which runs contrary to actual American law; namely that it’s not enough that the Prez was born in the US – his father must also have been a US citizen. This argument has been rejected by both legal authority (such as the Lynch v. Clarke and the Perkins v. Elg decisions) and American history (such as the Presidency of Chester A. Arthur and the candidacy of Charles Evans Hughes).
Having lost on all points it would seem that Apuzzo deliberately cooked up a highly misleading account of the case for the birther propaganda machine which completely overlooks that he lost and makes it sound instead like he scored a goal against Obama.
That much?
You should think about this some more, Matthew.
The court held that New Jersey law does not require eligibility validation of a primary election candidate. That does not imply that “the state has no obligation to comply with or to uphold” the Constitutional provision, only that a State primary election is not the place to do so.
You are correct as far as that statement goes. However, you are incorrect in attempting to further assert that the Constitution does not indicate who is responsible for validating the eligibility of the President. In fact, that responsibility is directly assigned to the United States Congress. Not the Courts, federal or state. Not the State governments or election bureaus. Congress.
Most states have laws to handle just this situation, and Mr. Apuzzo’s challenge was an example of taking advantage of it. People challenge the right of candidates to appear on ballots all the time in all the states. Having the right to challenge, and having a justifiable challenge are two different things. Furthermore, once the candidate has satisfied the legal requirements to gain access to the ballot (petitions, sworn candidate statement, etc), it is not the place of the candidate to ‘prove’ the right to ballot access, it is up to the challenger to prove that the candidate has failed that process (not enough signatures, lied on the statement, etc). Remember this is America, not Kampuchea, “innocent until proven guilty”.
By the way, the New Jersey Democratic Party primary election is NOT electing a President. It is electing delegates to the Democratic Party Convention. There is no State or Federal law or Constitutional provision that says anything about whether or not Political Party Convention delegates can pledge their vote to a candidate who may or may not be eligible for an office. It is entirely a matter for the Democratic Party who it wants to nominate.
Amazing, it has been 3 or 4 years later Mario has found something. I don’t know how many cases have been lost or thrown out by people like Mario, but the odds of this latest attempt going to the SCOTUS is zero to none.
Moving goalpost. It has always been accept that Obama is an American citizen, and that Hawaii claims that he was born in that state. That is all that was needed.
I had already mentioned some authority to denies that a “natural-born citizen” required a citizen father.
In the case of Obama himself, this becomes a little complicated because his father, BHO the First, was already married to a wife left behind in Africa when he went through the marriage ceremony with S. Anne Dunham, which would make his marriage to Dunham void (not merely voidable) ab initio. In other words, he would be the Prez’s biological father but not the lawful spouse of the Prez’s mother. In such instances, establishing any inherited citizenship would be more difficult.
But, in any event, American law has repeatedly established that: birth in the US makes one a “natural-born citizen” without regard to the nationality or citizenship of either or both parents, and without regard to any sort of legal claim or concurrent nationality offered by a foreign country.
It was also funny to see that El Putzo did not come up with any new novel theories in his NJ arguments. Ms. Hill and the Judge had heard it all many times before and knew exactly how to respond to shut him down cold.
I wonder which of our FABULOUS birther attorneys will file a suit against the DNC after the convention attempting to prevent them from certifying Obama’s candidacy. I would think it would need to be a Federal suit and the issue ot ripeness/mootness must be carefully evaluated. Whoever does it will get a hammer on their head from which they will never recover. (When are we going to get an attorney for Obama named Maxwell?)
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 6
“This Constitution… shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”
“judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”
Which is better, Visa or MasterCard?
Well…. that’s why they’ve thrown out every Birfer lawsuit so far, and will continue to: because they’re upholding the Constitution against those who would attack it.
Or haven’t you figured that out yet?
Yeah, but what about Seamus?
I love it how every crackpot with a keyboard deems themselves an expert in the law. So now, not only is every judge and lawyer that disagrees with the birthers less knowledgeable in the law than they are, but now even birther lawyers that they agree with should be taking their advice on what legal arguments to make. So our buddy Matt is pretty much saying he knows the law better than absolutely every judge and lawyer in the United States. Perhaps you should forward your resume to President Obama so he can nominate you to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy appears. Oh, wouldn’t that be a conundrum for ya.
Funny thing isArizona Superior Court Judge Richard Gordon agrees with you:
“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett ,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Sideways (2004): “Besides, Conundrum, it’s just a small specialty press.”