Last week New Jersey Attorney Mario Apuzzo kept perfect his record of all losses in Birther cases. RC Radio can confirm that the New Jersey Supreme Court has denied his petition for certification for appeal of the denial of his ballot challenge of President Obama’s eligibility in Purpura et al v. Obama. The case was initially denied by Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin. The Secretary of State affirmed the denial and that was later affirmed on appeal by three judge panel in the New Jersey Superior Court. The court analyzed Apuzzo’s claims and said in their decision on May 31st that “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit.” The refusal by the Supreme Court to certify the petition for certification is the end of the line for appeals at the state level. The only option left is to appeal the denial to the US Supreme Court, which to date has not seen fit to hear even one case appealed from any court or petitions claiming original jurisdiction in the highest court.
The New Jersey Supreme Court issued the one page denial on September 5th
and they followed a recent trend by including costs (we assume this will thereby allow the the defendants in the case to seek costs from the plaintiffs). Congratulations to the New Jersey Supreme Court for rejecting Apuzzo’s nonsense appeal and once again upholding our Constitutional right vote for the candidate of our choice. Let’s hope the Obama Campaign follows through on the offer to collect costs.
[Edit: I found New Jersey Rule 2-12 and the “costs” may refer to a $300 deposit that may be forfeited if the certification is denied.]
2:12-5. Deposit for Costs
In all civil actions, unless a supersedeas bond has been filed or a deposit in lieu thereof made pursuant to R. 2:5-2, the petitioner shall, within 30 days of the filing of the notice of petition for certification, deposit $300 with the clerk of the Supreme Court, to answer the costs on the petition, if denied, and the cost of the appeal if granted, but no deposit shall be required if the petitioner is a party exempted from making deposit by R. 2:5-2. Notice of deposit and dismissal for failure to make timely deposit shall be in accordance with R. 2:5-2.
The order was short and sweet:
[Update 9/12/2012: I have added this loss to a previous article titled “Mario Apuzzo’s amazing Birther legal adventures” chronicling Apuzzo’s dismal record in Birther cases. Hhe is now 0 for 9. As Bill Clinton might put it: How many Birther cases has Mario Apuzzo won? Ze-ro!. ]