Main Menu

Archive | Mario Apuzzo

Has Zullo shown the Reed Hayes report to anyone in Congress?

One of the many hidden mysteries surrounding Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse is the Reed Hayes report. Hayes, a handwriting expert, reportedly produced a report (sometimes labeled an “affidavit”) for Mike Zullo (not for the Cold Case Posse) that concludes that Obama’s birth certificate is a “100% forgery.”

The question of why the Hayes report remains a secret looms. To my way of thinking, the most likely reason is that Zullo, who seems to claim ownership of the report, is planning to include it in a book for sale. Zullo, however, is not saying that, so let’s assume for the sake of discussion that he has some motive other than financial gain, some motive that goes towards his goal of discrediting Obama’s personal story.

Given that the whole Cold Case Posse case against Obama stands or falls on the basic premise that the President’s birth certificate (White House PDF image) is a computer-generated forgery, and that premise is all but gone now that it has been found that what they call marks of forgery are artifacts of a common Xerox office machine that the White House owns, it would seem a matter of the utmost urgency that they get some new evidence out there. It hasn’t happened.

One of the big embarrassments for Mike Zullo was his presentation to Congressman Woodall. Woodall was unimpressed by the lengthy argument. The recording of that conversation, now scrubbed, did not mention anything about the Hayes Report, nor of any of the secret evidence that is supposed to be so convincing. So my question is: has Zullo shown the Reed Hayes Report to any member of Congress, and if not, why not?

Foggy answers Apuzzo

A week later,  Bill Bryan aka Foggy appeared on the Charles Kuck Immigration program to respond to Mario Apuzzo. Thanks for the shout out to Obama Conspiracy Theories.

Here it is:

I’ve listened to the first segment and have these comments:

  1. John McCain was  born in 1936, not 1937.
  2. John McCain was  born on the Coco Solo Submarine Base, not in the Republic of Panama. The idea that McCain was born in hospital in Panama was a crude forgery. The newspaper announcements said on the base, and the reporter who actually saw McCain’s certificate said it was on the base. This is not controversial.
  3. The law in effect in 1936 did not make children born in the Canal Zone citizens. There was a “donut hole.” A later law was passed that retroactively made such persons citizens at birth. (The statute is cited in Robinson v. Bowen).

Suing Congress

I am reminded of Leo Donofrio’s memorable comment: “you can’t save the Constitution by destroying it,” when reading Orly Taitz’ latest lawsuit in California that attempts to get a court to meddle with Congress certifying the 2012 election, something that the Constitution mandates that they do. Taitz calls Congress a “government agency” and names it as a defendant in her Grinols et al. v. Electoral College et al. lawsuit.

As I said in a comment on another thread: “I suppose in the history of whack-job lawsuits, someone has tried to sue Congress before” and it turns out that I was correct that Taitz is not the only lawyer that thinks outside the box, way outside the box. Another is Mario Apuzzo who filed a lawsuit against Congress on behalf of Charles Kerchner in 2009, Kerchner v. Obama. Indeed, not only did Kerchner sue the House, the Senate and the Vice President (then Dick Cheney) he even sued The United States itself! That lawsuit was ultimately dismissed but I wondered if anything in that process would shed light on the instant case suing Congress.

In the Kerchner case, the United States Attorney replied on behalf of Defendants. In its motion to dismiss, the Government argued that the Congressional Defendants had immunity. The government argued sovereign immunity (you can read the Wikipedia article for more on that). In addition, the Government argued “absolute immunity” for the Vice President under U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, cl. 1, noting that the courts have broadly interpreted the debate immunity to preclude the courts from interfering with the function of Congress. In dismissing Kerchner, Judge Simandle did not reach the immunity argument, dismissing rather for lack of standing; however, he did cite one other reason that the suit could not be brought—the “political question doctrine”—writing:

…it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.

So this brief nostalgic look back at another lawsuit from 2009 informs us that the Grinols case is:

Doomed image

Read more:

Tag team: Taitz + Apuzzo

imageA most curious article title [Link to Taitz site] appeared on the Orly Taitz blog a few days back. It said: “Update: I talked to attorney Mario Apuzzo, he stated, he will assist as much as he can.” I could hardly let that pass without comment.

I must admit that the first thought that came to mind was “poor Mario.” Partnerships with Taitz tend to go badly because she exhibits no respect for the other party and has no concept of confidentiality (like posting on the Internet that she had talked to Apuzzo). Taitz and Berg are involved in a messy lawsuit, former client Connie Rhodes said she was going to file a bar complaint against Taitz because Taitz filed actions on behalf of Rhodes without authorization, a major feud erupted between her and her co-counsel Gary Kreep, and now Taitz is petitioning the court to issue sanctions against her co-plaintiff Leah Lax in Mississippi. Apuzzo, on the other hand, seems arrogant and dismissive of others. There would seem to me to be a distinct personality conflict.

Apuzzo, for his part, has largely ignored Taitz on his blog except to note once that an article on her site is something that he actually wrote. On the other hand Taitz did mention Apuzzo in a substantive way, criticizing him [Link to Taitz web site] for that silly article saying that Obama was really Bari Shabazz and the son of Malcolm X.

Usually in a collaboration, one plays upon the strengths of the other. In this case we have one attorney whose evidence (copied from the Internet) has been rejected by multiple courts and another whose legal theories have been labeled as “without merit”  by others. I don’t see that as a combination for success. Any bets as to how long it will take Taitz to add Apuzzo to her RICO complaint?

I told you so

It was over three years ago. Mario Apuzzo had commented on several threads on this blog and on one of them, he left this message:

It is not my intent to overturn Wong Kim Ark and I do not know from where you got that notion. Your comment leads me to believe that you do not understand my “natural born Citizen” argument.

On another thread, I commented on my ongoing discussion with Mr. Apuzzo:

I keep telling Apuzzo that he has to overturn Wong.

And I did say that quite a bit back in those days. Now Vermont Superior Court Judge Robert R. Bent says the same:

Mr. Paige has tendered a scholarly article authored by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey…. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wing Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.

What the judge is saying is that the Wong decision does apply as binding precedent on his court and whatever Apuzzo thinks about the founders’ intent is academic. To prevail in court Apuzzo has to overturn Wong.

I told you so.