Dr. Conspiracy
Editorial
I’ve seen some disparaging remarks from the attorneys that post here and elsewhere about the response to the Order to Show Cause in the case of Kerchner v Obama filed by Mario Apuzzo. With all due respect to these learned persons, I think Apuzzo’s response was masterfully done and I think that these critical attorneys just say what they do because they think like lawyers. To fully appreciate what Mr. Apuzzo has accomplished with his argument and his cases, it’s necessary do a little thinking outside of the box (or perhaps beyond the bar).
Appreciation of the response requires review of the background in the Kerchner case which is hardly an ordinary lawsuit. I wrote about Apuzzo’s second amended complaint in a series of articles, Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY and Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY, Part 2. Carving up the allegations in that complaint was like the proverbial hot knife through butter. It should have been obvious to any competent attorney, and any layman who paid close attention, that the lawsuit from a legal perspective was dead on arrival, but Kerchner was not about winning; Kerchner was a public relations gambit as evidenced by the coordinated half-page newspaper ads in the Washington Times. The Kerchner lawsuit added a patina of respectability to the otherwise tawdry conspiracy theories and anti-Obama rumors. Suddenly what was just blogs and emails became a lawsuit heard in federal court.
Someone thinking like a lawyer would not have filed Kerchner v Obama in the first place, much less appealed it given the rejection of an almost identical appeal in Berg v Obama, but appreciate how silly concerns become weighty concerns when they are argued before a federal appeals court.
This brings us to Mr. Apuzzo’s latest response. The attorneys commenting on it are understandably offended because of the sloppy proofreading, the failure to understand basic legal principles, and the misapplication of cases that makes their profession look bad. What is important to realize is that federal judges will be offended too that they have to suffer through this sloppily-done and overly-long filing. An offended federal appellate judge runs the risk of making some snide remark to kindle the rage of the Obama denialist masses, akin to the infamous comment from Judge James Robertson in Hollister v. Soetoro:
The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
Judge James Robertson
The lay person sees an impenetrable mass of cases and conclusions, assuming that if it is that long, it must be conclusive, and indeed we have seen commenters here support that view. By questioning the principle of standing itself, and suggesting that the courts may be applying it in an arbitrary manner, the dismissal of all 70 of the Obama denialist lawsuits is called into question.
Finally, Apuzzo makes some pleas for what to the lay person sound like reasonable requests to mitigate the amount of his damages by asking for just a little bit of discovery so that the defendants won’t be able to mean-spiritedly “stick it to him.” The appeals court will have none of any of this and will assess damages and costs, and perhaps since Apuzzo has been so utterly devoid of remorse, they will make an example of him. What could be better publicity for the denialist cause, and what would generate more sympathy (and monetary donations) from the faithful, than for the appeals court to hit Apuzzo with anything but the bare minimum damages. Of course, the denialists will ultimately blame the victim, Barack Obama for any indignity Apuzzo suffers, and ultimately they will be the ones who pay the damages through their PayPal donations.
I don’t see how this could have been played any better given the lack of any honest cause of action in the first place.
Update:
The appeals court has ruled, and it has adjudged that although there is no grounds for it to reconsider it’s ruling in the Kerchner case, it found that Apuzzo had actually researched standing enough to get him off the hook for frivolity. By the lights of my article, then, Apuzzo has failed miserably as a martyr.
Can you say; Foot in Mouth!? LMAO
You seem to be suggesting that, from a financial point of view, this could work. One might guess from LTC Lakin’s appeal for $500,000, which was originally $50,000, that raising hundreds of K$ off Paypal is feasible. And one might suppose the sanctions might be in the tens of K$, like Taitz’s. Hence profit.
This same kind of thinking has made me extremely skeptical of people who suggest a similar motivation for LTC Lakin, because he is risking a pension and a license to practice medicine worth far more. In his case, profit seems impossible. And yet the legal case is just as stillborn. With no chance of winning, no chance of even getting the discovery that birthers think they want, the risk of losing his medical license and the certainty of losing an extremely valuable pension — which will profoundly affect not just him but his family — why is he doing it? I am mystified.
In response, Mario Apuzzo filed a 95-page statement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied…
Another birther fail.
Remember when Khan used parasitic Ceti eels to gain the cooperation of Captain Clark Terrell and Commander Pavel Chekov of the USS Reliant?
They enter the ear and wrap around the cerebral cortex.
That explains Lakin’s swan dive into madness as well as anything. Or it’s a prolonged, psychotic release of xenophobic paranoia. Either way.
Dr. Conspiracy:
You are widely known over most of the internet as being a buffoon who is not only not a doctor but who is also not a lawyer and your idiocy of an “Editorial” entitled “Mario’s Masterful Missive” certainly bears that out and shows you know little else, either. Offering such half-baked (or less) legalistic opinions will put your poll numbers lower than those of your hero fairly soon.
Better stick to farming since you at least have an appropriate chapeau for it but it’s a shame there is so little to hold it up except hot air.
Doc, you have poll numbers? Who knew?
Maybe someday, if I work hard, I can be widely known over most of the internet.
Then I’ll have poll numbers too!
This delusional fool 4score thinks that Dr. Conspiracy has poll numbers! That is the funniest post I’ve read in weeks!
Besides that’s more of a safari or explorer’s hat.
Apuzzo is claiming on his website that the court isn’t going to make him pay costs, but there is no court order posted. Anyone know anything?
Yup, here’s the order
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34736228/03-09-4209-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Appeal-Show-Cause-Order-Discharged-2010-07-22
Off course in typical Obot fashion you leave out the other part; His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing. However, based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause, filed. Sloviter, Authoring Judge. (PDB).”
Can YOU say; Foot in Mouth!?
Wow, you really set the bar low if your only method of “victory” is that Apuzzo escaped receiving sanctions. Woo-hoo for you! I will heartily congrat Apuzzo on avoiding sanctions this time and have no problem admitting that I predicted that aspect wrong.
But wow…if that is all you can scrape as a “victory”…sad. Look at the big picture of what matters – he lost his case. He lost his appeal. The court’s opinion stands that his case is still just a frivolous waste of time.
Site statistics suggest that over most the Internet, I am entirely unknown. But of course I have made it clear that I am not a doctor or a lawyer. (You know they’re grabbing at straws when they have to make fun of the hat.)
I don’t understand why some here are puzzled by Mario’s, Lakin’s, etc. motivations.
Yes, I’m certain profit is important to Mario and, so far, he must have made rather well out of the whole Kerchner case.
But I also wrote long ago that this case was what we French call a “submarine,”i.e. am undercover or disguised attempt to push the racist KKK-like agenda into the mainstream and possibly create precedents of a kind that might be used elsewhere.
The bubbling up of the bigotry laws in Arizona didn’t happen in a vacuum. Mario’s and Donofrio’s efforts have played a role in making “Whitey” vindicated that he’s the victim of a giant fraud perpetrated by the darkies and he must strike back.
And so far that plan has worked like clockwork, as the persecuted and self-justified racist community is poised to retake the House (according to some polls) in November, and launch their retaliation campaign against the uppity n****.
If you liked Clinton-The Second Term, it’s nothing compared to what you’re likely going to go through in the next two years. And yes, Mario will have played an invaluable role in that vast propaganda effort.
I think you make some valid points there. And such goes way beyond just the realm of “birthers”. If anything, they appear to be just one mere kook manifestation of a broader movement with that very intent.
The FOX news story themes over the past two years certainly appear to follow just the very propaganda pattern you mention and that has never been more self-evident than it has this past week.
A lot too can be said for a number of the “Tea Party’s” actions and the non-grassroots RW think tanks and funders that are really behind ginning them up…
Your comment is certainly incisive, and I want to help you. I have found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that’s right here!
Thanks for visiting.
To quote Krugman:
“Republicans aren’t trying to rescue George W. Bush’s reputation for sentimental reasons; they’re trying to clear the way for a return to Bush policies. And this carries a message for anyone hoping that the next time Republicans are in power, they’ll behave differently. If you believe that they’ve learned something — say, about fiscal prudence or the importance of effective regulation — you’re kidding yourself.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opinion/23krugman.html
Shorter version: Jeb is waiting in the wings.
You being a comic book fan as I am, I;m sure you you remember the old issues of Marvel’s SHIELD when HYDRA was revealed to have several branches like A.I.M. The Secret Empire, etc.
I think of the birthers as merely one of the (craziest) branches of the right-wing Hydra, which wishes to continue the Bush legacy of the Forever war and the looting of your country. (Social security being next, mark my words.)
The birthers exist purely to discredit Obama, his legitimacy, and above all to create a feeling of resentment, fear and injustice among some Whites. To that extent, the program has succeeded admirably.
Does someone have a fire-extinguisher handy. Come on 4score, you must have read the Mario’s latest legal filing. It would take long for you to see the problems in it.
Mario’s actually admits the following regarding the question of standing…
Mick,
I am not the plaintiff. Sanctions against me do not give me standing. My answer is not to imply that even if I were a plaintiff, that sanctions would give me standing because they still would not.
July 22, 2010 8:08 PM
No standing. Just an overload of narcissistic grandstanding.
Do you understand what Doc C wrote above? His argument is that Mario has failed in his attempt to martyr himself in order to get more paypal donations. Where do you think he can go from here?
And still a complete bust:
Fact 1. Mario lost the case for the plaintiff. (In another context outside of delusional-zombie birtherstan this would be considered a problem for the lawyer.)
Fact 2. This last final action had nothing to do with Obama irregardless of the outcome. Mario had already COMPLETELY failed in that regard.
Of course over in freerepublic.stan they have cast this utter failure as as a big victory (as if not get sanctioned was the point of the case) and missing the point that there is no further action possible – and somehow seeing an opportunity with the SCOTUS!
Somehow “not getting fined” is a victory. Talk about low expectations.
Birthers, if you were arrested for a crime would you hire any of these birther case lawyers to defend you?
Well, there is Lakin & Jensen.
Also known as lowering the Bar (Assoc.).
You apparently fail to comprehend that the Court of Appeals has already considered Mario’s arguments about the merits of the case, and the Court has found his arguments to be “unpersuasive.”
The only thing which Mario “won” was the avoidance of sanctions. If that is what you birthers consider to be a victory, that’s fine with me. I’m sure that Mario is relieved, but it does nothing for his client, Kerchner, and it gets you no closer to your fantasy of getting discovery of Obama’s personal records and getting that scary black guy out of the White House.
I think the spin will say the court retreated on damages after Apuzzo asked for discovery.
From Mario, over at NBC’s site because he is still too afraid to post over here….He is considering not getting sanctioned a “win”…Boy does he set the bar pretty low….However if I am not mistaken Barack Obama is still the President and mario’s case is still dismissed….Unless I missed something and was transported to Mario and James’ bizzaroland where up is down and a defendent is required to prove their innocence…
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/kerchner-v-obama-no-sanctions/#comments
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
July 23, 2010 at 20:05
The deceit here does not cease to amaze me. When the Third Circuit ruled that the Kerchner plaintiffs did not have standing and dismissed the case, that was not the news. Rather, the big news was that Apuzzo was going to get “sanctioned.” All the flock here and at Dr. Conspiracy’s and other places were all having tailgate parties, with actual cocktails and wagering how much the Court was going to “sanction” me. Now all of the sudden the sore losers (and I do know them) try to paint the contest as though the whole matter was about Obama being President and not about me getting sanctioned.
Well, for the deceivers here and elsewhere, you can fool people that do not have all of the facts. But you cannot fool those who are well informed.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says:
July 23, 2010 at 16:58
Most of us have heard of the famous saying, “do as I say, not as I do.” I saw a lot of preaching here and at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog about if someone is wrong they are supposed to just admit it. Well, the hypocricy (and much more) abounds here and at Dr. Conspiracy’s. The offenders among you are an example of the old saying in live action.
Great analogy! Along those same lines, reminds me of the storyline leading up to Captain America #350, where it was revealed that the Red Skull was back & had been manipulating everything and all of these crazy organizations in the background for years… 😉
Aw dang! You guys had a cocktail party and forgot to invite me? 😉
I was wrong. I thought Mario Apuzzo would get sanctioned for his appeal in Kercnher, and it turns out that he was not.
When one says that they expect X to happen, and it does not, I don’t know if an admission is absolutely required, but I do acknowledge that what I thought might happen did not happen. I think the admission is more expected when one makes a big deal about the prediction. On the other hand I also expected Apuzzo to lose the appeal and that did happen.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that all of us over here have had no problem coming forth and saying that we were wrong about the sanctions part.
As you said, the key thing is that we were right about everything else about how Mario’s case would go – not only that he would lose the appeal but many of the reasons why.
Funny how Mario can never admit all the stuff he’s endlessly been wrong about himself and has to lie to his minions about us over here to make his fragile ego feel better.
So kudos again to Mario for avoiding sanctions so far. Not much of a “victory” if you ask me, considering he’s been wrong on everything else and has lost all of his birther cases & appeals and been directly told that they are frivolous, which still stands.
Bottom line, he’s a loser and a sore loser at that.
If I predict that the Giants are going to lose by 5 runs and it will be a foggy day, should I be ashamed if the day turns out sunny, but the Giants still lose by 5 runs?
G,
Il lupo perde il pelo ma non il vizio.
Alla cazzo di cane.
And you owe me a new keyboard.
mamma mia!
Thank you. I’ll be here all week. Please tip the veal and try your waitress.
What do you think this place is, Tony and Tina’s Wedding?!
If we were to continue the analogy, we would have to equate the birthers with the Ringmaster and his Circus of Crime.
(There even was a Nazi Ringmaster in the CAP stories of the 40s.)
Personally, I was HOPING he’d get sanctioned and more.
I had no educated ideas about what would actually happen.
Unlike Mario and his absurd analysis of Vattel, I do no make judgment calls about another country’s legal system. I have never comment on your 14th amendment & the various SCOTUS decisions quoted here etc.
I still believe Mario should be disbarred, and can only hope that such a fate, or any other form of sanction, will eventually come to pass.
Then who will drunks hire to get themselves back behind the wheel?
I believe that translates to the Italian saying, “The wolf loses the hair but not the vice.”
Which I think is something like the American saying that “a leopard cannot change its spots”, but I’m not Italian, so I easily could be wrong.
I’m not sure if Mario’s just trying to say that as a lawyer, with a stinker case like this one, he’s simply doing what he feels he needs to do to represent his client and the actions he takes are really the only path he has…
…But I could be way off or reading too much into it.
Does that mean “dog poop”?
Doing things in a very messed up way. Literally, “as the dog’s dick way.”
Like birther lawyers’ handling of cases. 0 wins and 71 losses. Ouch. That’s really lowering the bar.
LOL! Another good one! Ah yes, the Ringmaster and his Circus of Crime! Classic!
…And to continue the analogy even further, those behind-the scenes manipulators & stokers of birtherism, the Tea Parties and some of these other RW fear/smear/hate campaigns would equate to the likes of Arnim Zola, Baron Zemo and the Hate-Monger. 😉
LOL! Thanks for the translation!
I don’t know Italian, so I could only really pick up that cane seems like canine. Cazzo sounded like caca to me, which is why I guessed “poop”.
It can also be translated as ‘go (rhymes with luck) a dog.’ Ya get my drift?
If you have a reprint or FANTASTIC FOUR #21, when the Hate-Monger first appeared, read his hate speech when he first appears, and Reed Richards’ reaction to it (I wish I could upload the page here) and tell me if we don’t live in a horrible version of a Marvel Comic.
The fact that his villainy could be so easily discredited and portrayed in clearly caricatural terms in a comic book of 1962, but the same speeches have basically become mainstream today, seriously discussed and reported on national media, is a sad commentary on how crazy America has become.
If you don’t have the comic, I’ll retype the dialogue. Go and get it. Scary.
A leopard cannot change his spots.
A leopard cannot change his spots.
Another way to put it . . .
Birther attorneys are like scorpions.
The scorpion needed to cross the river but can’t swim. He spotted a turtle who represents an easily misguided, gullible person. His name is Chuck or Terry or something. He asked the turtle to carry him across the river on his back and the turtle said, “No! You’ll sting me and I’ll die! The scorpion said, “That’s ridiculous! We both need to get across. You’ll be doing me a HUGE favor. I won’t hurt you. That would put my life in danger as well.” The turtle thought, “That makes sense.”
So the turtle agreed and the scorpion hopped onto his back. About halfway across the river, the scorpion whipped his tail around and stung the turtle in the neck. As they’re both about to drown the turtle asked, “Why?”
“Because I’m a scorpion.”
LMAO! 😉
Lupin, if you could find & share the dialogue for all of us to reflect on, that would be great.
I probably *do* have access to that specific issue (I believe I have a hardbound Marvel Masterworks collection with that set of FF issues in it buried in a long box somewhere, but not one I could easily access or find at the moment). Hat-tip to you on the reference and just to let you know, I did know that Hate-Monger first appeared in FF.
Thanks again for the translations & answers, Majority Will.
I think your analogy, using the classic scorpion story makes a lot of sense and was very helpful.
And when it comes to birther attorneys’ competence, “Life’s a female dog.”
Your wish is my command! 🙂
Now let’s all keep in mind this is from a comic book in 1962, meaning that (a) it’s meant to be caricatural or simplistic; and (b) it’s as universal and uncontroversial as can be, publishers shying away from controversy (Marvel has a lot of commie villains fighting Iron Man etc.)
So this is Page 4 of FF#21.
The FF dressed in street clothes, trying to look inconspicuous, are walking through Manhattan.s East side.
THING (reading a newspaper): Boy! If I ever go my hands on that Hate-Monger’s scrawny hide, I’d really give ‘im something to yell about!
REED: I know how you feel, Ben — But his type usually doesn’t get very far in a free nation like ours!
Suddenly the Thing points to a rally, where a man wearing a pointy hood, surrounded by stormtroopers-like goons holding torches, is haranguing a small crowd.
THING: Oh No?? What do you think that is, chum — a PTA meeting?
MAN IN CROWD #1: Long live the Hate-Monger! He’ll clean up this country for us!
MAN IN CROWD #2: Down with all foreigners! Down with everybody who disagrees with us! Hail to the Hate-Monger!
Then the Hate-Monger starts his speech:
HATE-MONGER: Those who are not with us are against us! They must be destroyed!
HATE-MONGER: We must drive all the Foreigners back where they came from! We must show no mercy to those we hate!
ONE OF THE FF (balloon doesn’t identify which): Reed, it’s unbelievable! He seems to have the crowd in a trance! They–they’re actually agreeing with his Unamerican sentiments!
The crowd starts assaulting a man.
MAN IN CROWD: The Hate-Monger’s right! Kick the Foreigners out if our neighborhood!
VICTIM: No! Stop! I am a citizen — the same as you! As you all mad?!
After that the FF intervenes, then get zapped by the Hate-Monger’s “H-Ray” — like you need a special green ray to generate hate in the heart of the American public. (That’s what I meant by “simplistic”.)
The fact is, this was meant to be a cartoonish, unrealistic scene in Stan Lee’s comics of 1962, and the Hate-Monger’s simplistic racism was clearly labeled “unamerican”.
Today, that comic book is called Arizona.
LOL, it was the only Italian saying I knew.
That’s impressive. OT – I was born a comic and an artist in 1962.
I stand corrected on one thing. FF #21 was cover dated December 1963, *NOT* 1962. My memory was faulty, although i don’t think it detracts from my point. The entire issue is worth a read.
Holy crap, Mario Apuzzo’s site is vile.
A hot shower isn’t going to fix this feeling of disgust.
He has attracted some . . . so hard to describe . . .
Thanks for sharing that, Lupin!
Although the whole thing was good and very apropos, I thought this was the most poignant line to what is going on today:
…so sad but true. As Stan Lee would say, ‘Nuff Said!
Thank you, G.
Hispanics fleeing Phoenix; local economy decimated:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/22/nation/la-na-immigration-phoenix-20100723
When I tell James that he and his ilk are like a fifth column destroying America, I do mean it. They’re wrecking your country.
From the article: “But earlier this year, Davenport said, she was stopped by a police officer on her way to work. She said the officer did not believe she was in the country legally and warned that he could refer her to immigration authorities for deportation.
“They don’t want Mexicans,” she said. “So we’ll leave.”
Brilliant.
And they’re already gearing up for impeachment (“presidenting while black”) obviously because they’ve got nothing else:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024868.php
At this juncture in history what you need is obviously another 2 years of Washington chicanery with nothing else being achieved.
I swear it, the Chinese couldn’t do a better job at destroying your country.
The Guardian (UK mag) doing an ever better job than the LA Times at analyzing the real cost of Arizona’s immigration battle:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/18/hispanics-flee-arizona-immigration-law
“It’s as if the whole area is turning into a tourist ghost town, for which the west is renowned. But this is not supposed to be a ghost town. This is bustling Phoenix, capital of Arizona and one of America’s fastest growing and most dynamic metropolises”
Hey, Whitey, feeling richer already?
Lupin: we were talking about conservatives, and stereotyping.
From the NYT:
“The “Dreyfusards” appealed to Enlightenment ideals of truth and justice, while conservatives, with the support of the Roman Catholic Church, argued for nationalist traditions that the army was held to embody.”
Conservatives are still at zero.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/books/review/Damrosch-t.html
Conservatives are sickening.
Well there was a party of sorts in the chat room attached to the Reality Check Radio channel for the Tim Adams no show. I think our friend James was there (under a different ID) cutting and pasting birther nonsense. I missed the party for Apuzzo.
It’s easier to buy if you say some conservatives are sickening.