TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41901
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#51

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:37 am

I think Rikker should go back and give Apuzzo the title we now feel best suits him.Whats that, "Shit Head"Actually, that's a very good one.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8402
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#52

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:42 am

I think Rikker should go back and give Apuzzo the title we now feel best suits him.Whats that, "Shit Head"That lacks any semblance of class, tact, politeness, or diplomacy. Which means that he might actually understand it. I like.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Taverl
Posts: 753
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:41 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#53

Post by Taverl » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:48 am

Apuzzo is a real attorney. He's just a crappy one. So his title should be Crappy Attorney Mario Apuzzo.OK. Now I haz a confuzzled. Is it Crappy Putative Attorney Mario Apuzzo or Putative Crappy Attorney Mario Apuzzo?Well, we know he's crappy, so it can't be "Putative Crappy." And the Real AttorneysTM here tell me they know he's an attorney, so "Putative Attorney" is out too. Which I guess leaves: Crappy Attorney Mario "Putztative" Apuzzo.Well, since The Putz calls the legitimately-elected president "putative," using the term before "attorney" seems appropriate. Maybe Crappy "Putative" Attorney Mario Apuzzo?



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41901
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#54

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:53 am

I like that one, Taverl.



User avatar
wavey davey
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:01 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#55

Post by wavey davey » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:14 am

I suspect my friend has read Loh's corrections and has already incorporated them in his/her string cite. :-Hope he didn't just cut and paste, because as is inevitable for a minor correction, I got something wrong myself. I transposed a space and a comma.We'll let that pass. But just don't forget to italicize the commas and periods. That would be a heinous error.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22748
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#56

Post by bob » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:14 am

Apuzzo is a real attorney.If Apuzzo is a real attorney, he would have no problem showing his bar card. What is Apuzzo hiding?


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#57

Post by Paul Pieniezny » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:00 am

...Well, since The Putz calls the legitimately-elected president "putative," using the term before "attorney" seems appropriate. Maybe Crappy "Putative" Attorney Mario Apuzzo?Actually, since he calls a legitimate president putative, I would say that makes him a "[link]Putsch,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch[/link]tative" Attorney.



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#58

Post by Piffle » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:55 am

If we were to do a judicial tally on rulings that Obama is NBC, (total number of judges), would all of these count? Are there more?





Marion County IN Superior Court?





Indiana Court of Appeals - 3-judge panel





Indiana Supreme Court - 5 Justices*





Fourth Circuit VA U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - 1 Judge





OSAH GA - 1 ALJ


________________________________





Preliminary sub-total - 10 5 Judges have ruled or concurredI struck the Indiana Supreme Court because (assuming you're referring to Ankeny) they merely denied transfer (the Indiana equivalent of denying certiorari). Therefore, it's not quite correct to say that they ruled or concurred on the issue. If you'd like, Addy, I can explain this further. ;)



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14355
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#59

Post by Reality Check » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:27 am

I would add to that list the Illinois State Board of Elections in rejecting Michael Jackson's petition the hearing examiner said: The birth certificate attached as Exhibit A clearly establishes the candidate's eligibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen".


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 23101
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#60

Post by Addie » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:34 am

Thank you :hug:


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#61

Post by everalm » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:21 am

I think Rikker should go back and give Apuzzo the title we now feel best suits him.Whats that, "Shit Head"That lacks any semblance of class, tact, politeness, or diplomacy. Which means that he might actually understand it.





I like.In addition to the above, La Putz alas has no discernable sense of humor, he got seriously bent out of shape when I posted this at CAAFLOG during the Lakin debacle.





Mario meets The Supremes….





Justice Alito: Mr Apuzzo, I would….





Mario: Esquire





Justice Alito: I beg your pardon





Mario: It’s Mr Appuzzo Esquire, I’m a lawyer you know.





Justice Alito: I am fully aware you are a lawyer Mr Apuzzo, you’re here arguing a case.





Mario: It’s important to get the terminology right, I paid good money for the Esq.





Justice Scalia: OK already, we get it, the Esq is given lets move on.





Justice Alito: Thanks Tony, moving on, Mr Apuzzo, your case is one that seeks….





Mario: I object





Justice Alito: What ! What do you mean you object, I’m trying to describe your case how can you object to that?





Mario: They are here !!!





Justice Scalia: What, what are you talking about, who is here..?





Mario: Them, those two, over there in the black robes





Justice Thomas: We all wear black robes, that’s all I’m saying and it’s not dicta.





Justice Roberts: Sammy, what’s he saying, look can we hurry up, she who must be obeyed has a long Honey-Do list for me for Christmas





Justice Alito: Mr Apuzzo, just WHAT or WHO are you objecting to?





Mario: Those two there, (points wildly)





Justice Alito: From your frenetic semaphore I take it you mean Justices Sotomayer and Kagan





Mario: Yeah, them two, shouldn’t be here





Justice Kagan: I got this Sammy, OY, paisan, what’s your problem with me, ’cause I’m a woman, ’cause I use Jewish words or ’cause I’m from Noo Yawk. Well, spit it out, don’t keep me waiting.





Mario: You didn’t recuse yourselves that’s why AND YOU KNOW WHY !!!





Justice Kagan: No Joisey, I don’t “know why” why don’t you enlighten Sonia, me and the boys





Mario: You were nominated by the Usurper so you’re tainted, begone by the power of Vattel vested in me.





Justice Sotomayer: Vatell…Vattel, what’s he babbbling about, ¦anyone..?





Justice Kennedy: I seem to remember something from. .no not that’s it ..no…¦Don’t they make childrens toys? Is this a consumer safety case? I thought it was an electoral issue?





Mario: NO not Mattel, Vattel, Vattel he is the most significant contributor to the Constitution and defined Natural Born Citizen, its’ all in my briefs





Justice Ginsburg: I remember, part of a pop quiz back in ’56 at Harvard, “Who was cited the LEAST in the Federalist Papers but had a minor input on international relation definitions in the Constitution”, no one got it, we couldn’t even agree how his name was spelled or his nationality. Nasty ideas but a creature of his time.





Justice Breyer: Oh no..Johnny, he’s a bloody Birther, what in the name of Beelzebubs left nut are we doing with this. We had this chat over 2 years ago





Justice Kagan: A Birfer…A Joisy Birfer..A Joisy Birfer who things he can tell ME to recuse myself? Sammy, did you set this up?





Justice Alito: I’m sorry, a friend asked if I could have a look, I owed him a favor, what can I say. Maybe when I saw all the clerks sending his brief around as a punk’d email I should have looked a little closer.





Mario: I demand they recuse themselves it’s a plot by Soros.





Justice Scalia: Shut it….Sammy, I get it, I understand but really, Birfoons in the court, we had this out when that Mad Cow Orly was around, no Birfoons except at the Christmas party for light entertainment.





Justice Alito: Sorry all, I’ll make it up for everyone in the Christmas present





Mario: But..





Justice Roberts: Can it “esquire”, frivolous case, inherently valeless, a waste of this courts time, what say you ? Show of hands..OK done





Mario: But my case..it’s a Konstitutional Krisis.!!





Justice Roberts: Can it or the sanctions here will make Orly swoon. Bailiff, escort “esquire” from the courts and if he gives you any trouble……





Mario: (voice receding) Let me FEEEENISH



User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 7861
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#62

Post by Chilidog » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:51 am

Don't even mention the "Sons of Italy" or the Frank Sinatra lodge to him. . . just sayin' :twisted:



User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9134
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#63

Post by GreatGrey » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:16 pm

Capt Pambly thinks she can use this case to further her cause, she left a comment.[/break1]scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al] ... bama-et-al.


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#64

Post by Epectitus » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:54 pm

Capt Pambly thinks she can use this case to further her cause, she left a comment.[/break1]scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al] ... bama-et-al.But her own website seems deathly silent regarding Malihi's ruling. \ :D /


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14355
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#65

Post by Reality Check » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:53 am

I think Mario haz a mad at me because I asked him to take up the Tisdale case. :twisted: [/break1]wordpress.com/2012/02/07/mario-time-to-putz-up-or-shut-up/#comment-694]http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... omment-694


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

xKat
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:06 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#66

Post by xKat » Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:10 pm

Apuzzo is a real attorney.If Apuzzo is a real attorney, he would have no problem showing his bar card. What is Apuzzo hiding?

Well, I've been licensed in New Jersey since 1993 and I've not gotten anything to prove it other than my admission certificate (which is still sitting unframed in a cardboard envelope in my house) and my annual registration form.





In PA we have a wallet card that is replaced every year when our dues are paid, but not in NJ. Maybe some county courthouses provide special cards for attorneys who are there frequently, but I'm not in court in NJ that often.





So you should visit Mario, maybe he has his admission certificate framed and hanging in his office for you to see.


If we amplify everything,
we hear nothing.

Jon Stewart
10/30/2010

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14355
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#67

Post by Reality Check » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:18 am

I added the due date for filing an appeal in the 4th Circuit, February 22, to the [link]Birther Calendar,https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?s ... ssionid=OK[/link]. I wanted to make sure that Mario (and Leo) do not miss this important date. [-X I want to help where I can. :hug:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 23101
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#68

Post by Addie » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:26 am

RC :P


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14355
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#69

Post by Reality Check » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:19 pm

Mario claims a notice of appeal has been filed in this case.This Order is not a published precedential decision, and Obama’s supporter surely keep that fact out of the public discussion. Finally, on January 24, 2012 (the next day after the dismissal), plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals where the case is currently pending.[/break1]blogspot.com/2012/02/tisdale-v-obama-and-natural-born.html]http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/tisda ... -born.htmlCan anyone confirm that?


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#70

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:22 pm

Mario claims a notice of appeal has been filed in this case.This Order is not a published precedential decision, and Obama’s supporter surely keep that fact out of the public discussion. Finally, on January 24, 2012 (the next day after the dismissal), plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals where the case is currently pending.[/break1]blogspot.com/2012/02/tisdale-v-obama-and-natural-born.html]http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/tisda ... -born.htmlCan anyone confirm that?Yes. In fact, contrary to the Putz's moronic statement (as any fool knows that a trial court opinion is generally not controlling precedent), the fact that it is at the Fourth Circuit is right in the parenthetical of this very thread title.Also, the [/break1]thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7202]very first post of the thread includes the entire docket at the Fourth Circuit as of the date of the post. So I'm not sure what that idiot is on about.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22748
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#71

Post by bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:28 pm

So I'm not sure what that idiot is on about.Lookie how Apuzzo starts his opus:There are some supporters of putative President Barack Obama commenting on the recent 4th Circuit court [highlight]decision[/highlight]E.D. Va.'s dismissal; the 4th hasn't decided anything yet, "counselor."


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14355
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#72

Post by Reality Check » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:00 pm

Also, the [/break1]thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7202]very first post of the thread includes the entire docket at the Fourth Circuit as of the date of the post. So I'm not sure what that idiot is on about.Thanks, I should have checked the docket. Mario doesn't say he will try to enter the case. Of course, that would involve money out of his pocket and applying for admission to practice in Virginia.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41901
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#73

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:18 pm

And actually having a case on the merits where his arguments would be laughed out of court. (And he'd probably be found to have litigated frivolously again.)



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31118
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#74

Post by mimi » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:37 pm

And he's a coward.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34175
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#75

Post by realist » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:03 am

And actually having a case on the merits where his arguments would be laughed out of court. (And he'd probably be found to have litigated frivolously again.)Mario's not going to "enter the fray" again. It's much easier to sit on the sidelines, claim you didn't lose your birther case, and like Leo just make shit up out of whole cloth regarding the Constitution and the law. That way, when the courts all rule against those fantasies you made up to please birthers, you can just claim you are right and the courts are bought off Nazis... rinse/repeat, and you maintain your street cred with the nutcases.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”