Mario Apuzzo’s Amazing Birther Legal Adventures

Mario Apuzzo – Shown after another dazzling courtroom appearance

I stirred up quite a hornets nest at Mario Apuzzo’s blog by posting an item that the Democratic Party in Tennessee had cited the infamous Kerchner v Obama case in a motion for sanctions against attorney Van Irion and the Liberty Legal Foundation that was filed in a case in the Eastern District of Tennessee. I mentioned that the defendants had cited the Kerchner case as an example of a case where  sanctions had been imposed against the plaintiffs for filing a frivolous case challenging President Obama’s eligibility. Here is what I posted:

Mario got a shout out (along with C. Kerchner) in the Defendant’s motion for sanctions against John Dummett and the Liberty Legal Foundation in Tennessee. The motion for the TN Democratic Party cited Kerchner as an example of a frivolous case where sanctions were imposed:

“As the Court is well aware, this is obviously not the first time that President Obama’s political foes have pursued these frivolous claims. No less than eighteen different cases in various federal and state tribunals have been filed challenging President Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States,1 and, as should be abundantly obvious, none of these cases have succeeded. All that have reached a decision have been dismissed on the pleadings or on the merits, and some have resulted in sanctions against those bringing these types of claims. See e.g., Kerchner, 612 F.3d 204 (sanctioning attempts to challenge President Obama’s eligibility to hold the Office of the President); Rhodes v. Macdonald, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85485 (M.D. Ga. 2009) (same); see also Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (finding that President Obama is a natural born citizen qualified to hold the office of President of the United States); Farrar, et. al. v. Obama, Dkt. No. 1215136-60 (Ga. Secretary of State, 2012) (same)”

This will be your legacy: forever branded as an example of frivolous and vexatious litigant.

Mario then proceeded into a vehement attack upon me and called me a liar. He took offense because he claims he was not sanctioned in Kerchner. (The Third Circuit found his appeal to be frivolous and issued an Order to Show Cause why Apuzzo should not be made to pay damages to the defendants. After Apuzzo filed a long brief claiming he had researched standing diligently they discharged the OSC).  If you will notice I essentially repeated what the defendants had said. I was only pointing out to Apuzzo that Kerchner had once again been cited as an example of a completely frivolous case questioning President Obama’s eligibility.  Apuzzo’s partner in frivolity Charles Kerchner  and other posters jumped in the fray and repeated the lie that I am a professor at the University of Connecticut and that is somehow supposed to make me an evil person.

I have chosen not to post at Mario’s blog any further. It is pointless. Despite the fact that I called him out for defaming Professor Rockwell, who I am not, he continues to push the blatant lie.

Let’s get back to the sanction issue in Kerchner. In a published opinion on behalf of the Third Circuit panel Judge Delores K. Slovitar had this to say:

Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed.

She continued:

An important purpose [of a damages award] is to discourage litigants from unnecessarily wasting their opponents’ time and resources…Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions.

The court found the appeal was frivolous, without merit, and that Apuzzo should have known from Berg v Obama that the appeal and the case had no merit. So much for Apuzzo’s diligent research. He failed to even cite Berg in his appellant opening brief.  This is weighty stuff. Any reputable attorney would be mortified to have the US Court of Appeals say those things about your case. But not Apuzzo. He zeroes in on the fact that after filing his usual less than concise answer to the Order to Show cause that the court chose to discharge the order for monetary sanctions against him.

What does discharge mean? In legal terms it means that the debt is satisfied. It is not the same as vacating the order. It meant that the main finding that the appeal was frivolous under FRAP Rule 38 stands and remains published but Apuzzo/Kerchner did not have to pay for costs.

This entire exchange got me thinking about Mario Apuzzo’s overall record as a Birther attorney. I put together this list with a small bit of research. The reader is encouraged to send me any additions or corrections. My source for most of the data is the excellent “Birther Scorecard” that was created by Tesibra.

2012Purpura et al v. Obama Nicholas E. Purpura Theodore T.Moran – New Jersey Ballot Challenge – Appeal to New Jersey Superior CourtApuzzo argued before three judge panel. Appeal dismissed “case without merit”

Date Case Outcome
2009 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al  Charles F. KerchnerD.N.J. (Federal) Dismissed
2010 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al  Charles F. Kerchner  3rd Circuit Court of Appeals DISMISSAL AFFIRMED Published Opinion – Appeal ruled frivolous under FRAP 38. Show Cause (Sanctions) Order Issued
2010 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al       Charles F. Kerchner Supreme  Court of the US Writ for Certiorari Denied
2012 Kerchner et al v. Obama et al Charles F. Kerchner Dale A. Laudenslager – Pennsylvania State Commonwealth Court Apuzzo application for admission pro vice denied. Amended application for admission denied. Apuzzo filed a 199 page amicus brief. Case dismissed.
2012 Tisdale v Obama4th Circuit Court of Appeals (District court in VA dismissed sua sponte) Apuzzo unable to find sponsor for pro hac vice application. Filed 52 page amicus brief. Dismissal affirmed.
2012 Strunk v NY State Board of Elections et al
NY State Supreme Court Kings County, NY
Apuzzo filed Amicus brief. (It was actually a blog post by Appuzo that Strunk sent to the court and Judge Schack chose to treat is an amicus brief). Case dismissed. Sanctions and fees imposed on plaintiff Strunk
2012 Purpura et al v. Obama Nicholas E. Purpura Theodore T.Moran – New Jersey Ballot Challenge Apuzzo argued before ALJ Jeff Masin Challenge dismissed – “case without merit.”SoS Affirmed dismissal
2012 Purpura et al v. Obama Nicholas E. Purpura Theodore T.Moran – New Jersey Ballot Challenge – Appeal to New Jersey Superior Court Apuzzo argued before three judge panel. Appeal dismissed “case without merit”
2012 Purpura et al v. Obama Nicholas E. Purpura Theodore T.Moran – New Jersey Ballot Challenge – Appeal to New Jersey Supreme Court “Petition for certification denied with costs.”
2013 Paige v State of Vermont, SoS Condos, and Barack Obama – Vermont Ballot Challenge – Appeal to Vermont Supreme Court “Appeal dismissed as moot”
2014 Paige v State of Vermont, SoS Condos, and Barack Obama – Vermont Ballot Challenge -Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States “Petition DENIED”

So there in all its glory is Mario Apuzzo’s perfect record in Birther cases. He is 0 for 6 7* with one appeal pending in which he filed an amicus brief. That would be the Tisdale case in Virgina that was dismissed sua sponte by a judge in the Virginia district federal court in just days after it was filed. I predict without reservation that 0 for 7 is in his future. This is an attorney who holds himself up as a Constitutional expert on the definition of a natural born citizen. He named his blog “Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers“.  Are you kidding me? The record would say that the way to get the right answer is to ask Mario and assume the opposite is correct.

*[Updated 6/4/2012: A RC Radio tip of the cap to Intrepid Reporter/Observer who reminded me that Mario filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of Christopher Earl Strunk in esse copyright patent pending in his case against everyone in New York.  Apuzzo wrote a blog post in opposition to sanctions and Strunk filed it with the court. The blog post had the usually effectiveness of all of Mario's briefs. Strunk is saddled with costs it appears. I have updated the case list and totals to reflect the addition. Is it fair to count this case as a loss? I think so and I am the decider. ]

[Updated 6/5/2012: The 4th Circuit just issued an order denying the appeal in Tisdale v Obama. I will be updating the article to reflect this shortly.]

[Updates 9/12/2012: On September 5 the New Jersey Supreme Court denied "denied with costs" the petition for certification of the appeal in Purpura et. al. v Obama.  This denial keeps Apuzzo's record in Birther cases perfect at 0 for 9. ]

[Updated 10/18/2013: The Vermont State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the lower court denial of a ballot challenge filed by H. Brook Paige. Attorney Mario Apuzzo had assisted Paige throughout the case and is actually listed on the most current denial by the Vermont Supreme Court. This denial makes Apuzzo's record a nice even 0 for 10.]

[Updated 5/23/2014: In Paige v Vermont, et. al.  The United States Supreme Court denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Brooke Paige.  This denial makes Apuzzo's record a nice even 0 for 11.]

About these ads
This entry was posted in Ballot Challenge, Birther Cases, Mario Apuzzo and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Mario Apuzzo’s Amazing Birther Legal Adventures

  1. Suedb says:

    Very nice write up. Any chance we will get a good shot at Putzy? He would be a literal riot as a guest. You would have to throw a truckload of sawdust under him or a boatload of peanut shells first.

  2. Suedb says:

    Then again, when I remember the skirmish at CAAFLog.com … I don’t know if Mario has that much blood left. It took those folks weeks to get all the blood off the floors and walls. Those ;military folks didn’t put up with stupid shit. (guffaw) He tried to tell military lawyers how to do their job…

  3. I will fix the formatting when I get a chance. WordPress didn’t like Word tables.

    I really hope Apuzzo continues to litigate and add to his perfect record. All he needs is real $$$ sanctions to make it complete. Now that he has been told by at least two jurisdictions that his arguments are frivolous and without merit he has no defense against sanctions if he tries the same nonsense arguments.

    Unfortunately for us he is actually such a poor attorney he will likely never be admitted to practice outside New Jersey.

  4. HistorianDude says:

    Mario appears to be no better at figuring out who a person is than he is at figuring out who a person is not. I’m sure you recall my exchange with him on CAAFLOG during the Lakin trial where iIwas posting under my real name. He insisted that he knew (the real) me and that I was not him. A flurry of emails failed to elicit from him how he could possibly have known (the real) me, and so we are left with an enduring mystery.

    How does a person manage to get such simple and easily demonstrable details so completely wrong?

    As I have said before, between all the Appuzzo’s, Donofrios, Meronis, Liberis, Arpaios and Zullos I have considered having the terminal vowel legally removed from my last name.

  5. RoadScholar says:

    I’ll try posting something on Mario’s site about his perfect record of failure. I will post under my real name, and even tell him where I am. My guess is he’ll ignore me, because claiming the critic is somebody else is always more fun and safer for a chickenspit loser than acknowledging him or her up front.

  6. Intrepid Reporter/Observer says:

    I’m not sure how to classify Mario’s blog post of May 6, 2012 titled “The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Litigation”.

    Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Strunk maintain this was an amicus brief, although it was presented to the court by Mr. Strunk and Judge Schack did not call it an amicus brief. Perhaps one of the attorneys who reads your blog can determine whether this blog post could or should be considered an amicus brief.

  7. Oh, I forgot that one! I will revise the article. That is why all the failures need to be cataloged.

  8. I don’t think Mario will come on the show. He doesn’t like me very much. He is protective of his legal record and does not like to be challenged on it or reminded about his failures. Look as his reaction to the sanction mention on Kerchner I posted from the Liberty Legal Foundation case. He was apoplectic over that. He believes since the Third Circuit discharged the OSC his record is clean. He argued for days at CAAFLOG or somewhere that the court by discharging the order for costs that the court no longer found the appeal frivolous.

    I can understand why Mario is indigent about his record but the truth is the truth. It sucks. He can try to gloss it over and claim judges haven’t understood his “evidence” but his theories are just wrong and his oral arguments are a joke.

  9. OMG RC!!! It looks like Mario may have weighed in on the Obamacare ruling!!!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    (PS: ITYS!!! Tee Hee! Tee Hee!)

  10. Pingback: Birther Attorney Mario Apuzzo chalks up another loss « RC Radio Blog

  11. Intrepid Reporter/Observer says:

    Mario lost another one today. You may recall that Mario authored the Vermont ballot challenge Paige v. State of Vermont, et.al., though he could not represent the plaintiff as he could find no sponsoring attorney in VT. It was kicked to the curb today–dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and lack of merit.

  12. IR/O

    Thanks for the information. I had forgotten about that one! The big question is do we count that as another defeat for Mario? I think we should. That makes 0 for 10.

  13. Intrepid Reporter/Observer says:

    I would count it, yes. And I have a post in moderation on the top post on the blog, probably due to links. ;)

  14. I am holding for now. I sent an email explanation. You did some very good research though.

  15. Intrepid Reporter/Observer says:

    Ok, cool. When I saw Foggy’s post at TFB, I thought that might be the reason. No worries! I don’t use that email much so didn’t see your note. Will go check it though!

  16. I am not going to kick this article to the front page but note that I updated it to add Mario’s latest huge win in Vermont. :lol:

  17. Sterngard Friegen says:

    Reading the Vermont decision clearly, and putting on the glasses Mario Apuzzo usually uses, it is clear he won, not lost. The Vermont court just got it wrong.

    What demonstrates more than anything else why the court was wrong was the length of its order. Anything less than 5,000 words is obviously wrong under Apuzzolaw.

    Expect another explosion of words from Apuzzo to prove, once again, that not only was/is he right but that he won.

  18. Of course Apuzzo wants us to ignore that he has been wrong on the issues of standing, the political question doctrine, justiciability, and mootness 10 times and was even threatened with sanctions appealing a frivolous case. However, he expects us to take his word for it that he is right on on the meaning of NBC and even on that he has been told by judges he is wrong.

  19. Thomas Brown says:

    The Black Knight (Esq.) ALWAYS triumphs!

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s