Following on the heels of this blog’s move to new hosting, Reality Check Radio has also moved to new digs at WordPress.com, and its most recent article (as is a recent one by me) is about Mario Apuzzo. RC’s article is Mario: Time to Putz up or shut up, and it makes the modest suggestion that Mario Apuzzo offer to represent Charles Tisdale in his appeal of a loss in the Virginia District Court of a case challenging Obama’s eligibility. It would be a perfect venue for Mr. Apuzzo to argue his two-citizen parent theory because the judge used a definition of natural born citizen as part of the rational for dismissing the case!
Here’s what Apuzzo said about Tisdale v. Obama:
This decision consists of an Order of 2 and ½ pages, a good part of which addresses the standard to be applied on a motion to dismiss and for the pro se plaintiff to qualify as a pauper. Woodman fails to tell us that the court cited Wong Kim Ark to support its statement: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.” Again, Wong’s holding is not about a “natural born Citizen” so I have no idea how the court finds what is says to be “well settled.” Tisdale did not engage in any reasoned and thoughtful legal and historical analysis of the “natural born Citizen” issue. Furthermore, none of the other cases cited by the Tisdale court support its position that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents.
Even if Tisdale lacked standing to bring the suit in the first place, the Circuit Court of Appeals will have to say whether or not the District court was in error when it dismissed on those grounds, before it dismisses on other grounds. We’ll just have to wait and see if Mr. Apuzzo (and the other Birther leadership) will leave Mr. Tisdale twisting in the wind, or whether he will get some professional help.
We also have a debate upcoming on Reality Check Radio between Scott Erlandson (for the Birthers) and Frank Arduini (for the anti-Birthers). This is going to be a real formal debate with real rules. The date is next Tuesday, February 21, at 9:00 PM Eastern Standard (US) time.
The new Reality Check Radio link is in the Good section at the bottom of the page.
Will Scott be appearing as himself or as Bernardine Dohrn in drag?
It’s a fair question.
the position birthers adhere to is very foolish, debating someone with such a foolish position produces nothing of value, it will be a waste of time. It’s no different than debating a flat earth believer. A flat earther sitting next to me on a fllight to Hawaii showed me his drink, “…look, my drink is level proving a flat earth, a curved earth would show a tilting drink”. Luckily the plane was not full so I was able to change seats.
Maybe Mario is relunctant to take the case because it has already been ruled on at the trial or hearing level. Any experienced attorney will tell you that it is very difficult to win a case on appeal. I don’t think that Mario should be compelled to accept a dare from a bunch of Obots but I do think Mario should contribute more to the birther movement then just posting a bunch of blog entries. Like Leo Donofrio, Mario should try to help out in cases that have the best hope of sucess.
Mario should contact the Georgia legal teams to she what help he can provide. Perhaps an Amicis Brief is best like Leo’s. Leo and Mario’s scholarly research on NBC cannot be matched.
In this case, Apuzzo could lose the appeal, but still win.
I was reading the appeal order in Drake v. Obama (the spit off of Barnett v. Obama in California). The appeal was lost, but the Circuit Court of Appeals did something interesting. They wrote:
The Circuit Court stated the the lower court made an error by considering the presidential candidate plaintiffs in a special way. The Circuit Court said that since the suit was brought after the Inauguration, that they were no longer candidates and that proper treatment of them was as any other citizen.
In the case of Tisdale, the District Court said that Tisdale failed to state a claim that the Court could address and that the court could not address it because it was already well settled that Tisdale’s theory of eligibility was wrong.
Apuzzo could argue that the District Judge erred when he dismissed the case for that reason. If the Circuit Court disagreed with that reasoning, I think they would have to say so and even if they dismissed the case on other grounds of standing, Apuzzo would still have a Circuit Court decision that affirms his contentions.
That would be a much huger win than keeping Obama off the ballot in Virginia.
And these supposed new & upcoming cases that either Leo or Mario are directly participating in would be….
….
….
*crickets*
….
…
oh, that’s right… there are none.
Big deal, they both merely bloviate from the comfy safety of their moderated blogs. Oh, and Leo “musters up the courage” to print off his 200+ page omnibus of nonsense and merely submit it as a “friend of the court” to attempt to cowardly glom unto other’s existing cases….
But in terms of either of them being willing to actually get back in front of an actual courtroom themselves…. *crickets*…
I think that in the last two cases where Leo submitted research the courts did indeed put a match to it.
Seriously, Mario and Leo both went to court and lost. Now they just kibitz on the Internet and put ads in the newspaper. They can’t win and they know it, unlike Orly Taitz who can’t win, but doesn’t know it.
Leo did do something. He submitted a 200+ page amicus brief in an administrative law proceeding. I bet that had never been done anywhere. It was apparently not very persuasive. Judge Malihi ddin’t even acknowledge that he had read it.
That true, RC. Judge Mahili also did not reject it. It appears that Judge Mahili ignored the Amicis brief. This is not surprising since Judge Mahili ignored a number briefs and motions in the case and failed to either affirm or reject them. Judges are not supposed to ignore evidence. They either affirm or reject evidence.
I agree with you, John. It would be amusing to see their windy incompetence in full fail.
“We also have a debate upcoming on Reality Check Radio between Scott Erlandson (for the Birthers) and Frank Arduini (for the anti-Birthers).”
Wow . . . if Scott speaks as badly as he writes, that should be one lopsided debate.
will someone PLEASE ask if santorum and i are “natural born” in the birtherstan world?
tia
i should have added THIS:
Note that if the Italian parent naturalized as a citizen of another country independently, and prior to reaching legal Italian adulthood (age 21 prior to March 10, 1975, and age 18 otherwise), then often that parent retained Italian citizenship and could still pass citizenship on to children.
Also, a single, qualifying Italian parent (father only before January 1, 1948) is sufficient to pass on citizenship, even if the other Italian parent naturalized or otherwise became unable to pass on citizenship.
Sometimes that qualifying parent is the “foreign” mother, because foreign women who married Italian men prior to April 27, 1983, automatically became Italian citizens and, in many cases, retained that citizenship even if their Italian husbands later naturalized.
gee i guess I TOO AM AN italian citizen and NOT “natural born” in birtherstan – WHO KNEW?
Donna:
Birtherstan cares not whether Santorum is a NBC. As for you, if your skin is a darker shade and you are a Democrat, they will find a way to “prove” that you are not.
Hope I cleared that up for you.
lol
thanks for the giggle – i guess i have to reconsider my 2016 run for pres then – i would also like to know if donofrio and apuzzo (both italians) are “natural born” due to italian law and their TWISTED brains
Donna:
We have repeatedly tried, as you just did, to demonstrate the idiocy of the “nobody is eligible who was born with dual citizenship” birfer delusion, to no avail. It is, as Barney Frank once remarked, “like arguing with a dining room table.”
If that were a rule, North Korea could officially declare that anyone born in America is also a citizen of North Korea. Presto! No more Presidents.
Nitwits.
Maybe they are not being understood because they lack the proper grammar in their briefs. They could take a suggestion from a recent filing by David-Russell: Myrland.
Now there is some high-class: grammar that Leo and Mario can use.
Wrong again, John.
A judge (or a panel of judges) has no obligation to consider an Amicus brief. That is entirely up to the court’s discretion. Also, briefs and motions are legal arguments, not evidence.
More evidence that Mario is being paid as a political mouthpiece and not to fight doomed cases in court.
I do not see how this ‘debate’ will go well.
Frank is smart, articulate(at least in writing) and very knowledgeable. Scott is like a kid with ADD, who can’t sit still, and has never been able to articulate why he believes Obama is corrupt, other than mentioning that he is from Chicago.
I would almost be willing to listen to that….almost.
Agreed.
Correct, Judge Malihi was under no obligation to read or do anything with Donofrio’s submission. It was funny watching Leo dramatically announce he was sending the brief on his blog as if it were going to make one whit of a difference. I suspect it was met with great laughter in Judge Malihi’s office when they saw a 200 page brief filed in an administrative law hearing. Of course Orly taking the stand as her own witness topped all in the hilarity department.
I picture lots of laughter, eye rolling and paper hats and airplanes.
He probably ignored it because Leo’s brief conclusively proves Obama is not an NBC. I have reviewed the brief. It is scholarly and well-constructed. Leo’s brief is expansive in his arguments and leaves no stone unturned about the meaning of NBC and our nation’s legal history about the construction of NBC. I agree with Charles Kerchner. The courts know the answer to the question. They know Obama is not a NBC. But, no court do date is willing to have courage to render a ruling as such. We thought Judge Mahili had the courage but we were mistaken.
In your writing here, you have not exhibited any qualities that would make me think that you are capable of judging an argument as being “scholarly and well-constructed.”
On the contrary, you seem to exhibit sycophantic praise of anything birther, and a wholly predictable knee-jerk rejection of anything critical of the birthers. Your writing is about as sophisticated as an automatic headlight dimmer.
I suppose it’s funny in hindsight. Shock was the feeling I got watching in person. A courtroom is a very serious place and Judge Malihi had a very serious demeanor. I found Taitz’s performance in context more troubling than funny.
FIFY.
A little education, for free: “proves” means that most rational, open-minded people will agree. What Leo’s brief does is “asserts;” not the same thing at all. I can assert, for instance, that you are a genius, and no matter how well-constructed the argument is, I doubt I’ll convince anyone.
Why, John? What are they afraid of? What would happen? . . . Cue scary music. Cue grainy images of civil unrest. Cue Don LaFontaine: “In a world gone mad, only one man has the courage to stand up and say, ‘Not in MY White House!’. Mario Apuzzo is, The Vexatious Litigant!.”
And that tells everyone all they need to know about John.
I tell you what, John. Identify a single history text, civics text, or Constitutional law text which states that a natural-born citizen must have two U.S. citizen parents. Just one!
Or an empty courtroom table…
The only place Mario is skilled at persuasion, is in front of an ER stretcher.