See Apuzzo's A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii.

OMG....when Hill brought up other cases that says that born in US = NBC, The putz said that they didn't spend time reasoning what an NBC is. And the Judge was like (my paraphrasing) "wtf are you talking about? The decisions are declaratory on what an NBC is."

I've seen better arguers on Judge Judy.

My biggest came with the presentation of the yearbook picture with the name Barry Obama. I was afraid the judge was going to lose it and start rolling on the floor himself. I am sure it took great restraint. Yes, it looked like the president. Yes, we know he used that nickname in high school. Okay, for the sake of argument, we could recognize that picture as being our president.
So what are you trying to prove? Apuzzo was stunned by the question.

And the official certification is up:

http://www.nj.gov/state/elections/2012- ... idates.pdf

Here's the list of certified candidates as of today:

http://www.nj.gov/state/elections/2012- ... t-0412.pdf

Sorry, Mario - Obama's on there.

Crap, I'm going to have to watch those videos now. I figured 3 hours would have to be boring. My error was going to look at the Defendant lawyer's expression. I got sucked into the vortex. Thank dog I have popcorn.

Does the judge take a swipe at the "empty chair defense" near the end of video #3?

This assignment to her shows they have confidence in her, and in their defense against these pathetic morans and their ridiculous case. It's rubbing it into Putz's face, the OFA telling the fat loud mouthed birther jerks who think they are bully badasses "I sent my kid sister to fight in my place...because I knew she would kick the butts of all 3 of you fat, stupid, shitheads from beginning to end !"
Smart move. Facts and Law demolish them when the birthers are allowed to "present their case" and have it heard on its merits.

IMO, that's the most effective way. Despite the glaring defects in their incompetent filings that should result in quick dismissal,
when the judge is up to the challenge, defense should not fear letting the birthers "present their case". The judge will rule on their evidence and chop apart all their their kooky nonsense. Even if the birthers have a decent attorney who has control of his mind, (not a scatterbrained whackjob like Apuzzo or Taitz) they have no case. They have no evidence. One judge referred to birthers as "Sisyphus", fighting (in the wrong courts) to undo what is very solid, very well settled law.

Put defense counsel in place, even a brand new attorney. Treat the birthers as a punching bag. Have no mercy. Destroy their evidence and their nonsense arguments. Make it a point to go after the campaign of frivolous suits. Request the court make the plaintiff pay costs and the greatest possible sanctions be imposed. Ask the court to register complaints to the relevant Bar Association (if not a true pro se). Birthers are noxious weeds. Yank them out and thrown they away.

Translation: Thank you for not leaving me alone with Apuzzo and his nutjob clients. And for objecting so I could keep as much of this crap out as the law would permit.

I saw that and came to the same conclusion. I think he felt more comfortable making his ruling with someone from the defense there to object. An empty chair would have won however.

I hope you devote some more time on your radio show to this masterpiece, RC !! You've got tons of audio to splice in for
comedic effect !

Yeah, I wasn't gonna, but I'm glad I did.

Mario really showed what an ass and terrible lawyer he is.

An the purple is just nasty.

Comment at YouTube:



WTF did Apuzzo just argue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorUcc

Just a few observations. I would have thought that an experienced lawyer from NJ would have known the NY law regarding eligibility challenges. Mario had to be told several times that the evidence he presented was not relevant and that were only limited grounds for objecting to candidates. He is as thick as 2 short planks.
It seems to me that the Judge need not have addressed the definition of NBC because it was irrelevant to the case. He was very knowledgeable about the birthers and I think, as others have said, that he wanted an opportunity to put down the birthers. While this is not a full court surely, any future judge can say, as they have said with Ankeny, I agree with the reasoning.
Regards .........Dick

And another thing, Mario admitted that the internet image of the B/C has no value as evidence, something that we have been saying for a long time.
Regards ........Dick

Y'know, Putz used to be a minimally intelligent drunk driving defense attorney before he got into the birfer biz and obotz started slapping him and his arguments silly every time he trotted them out in any forum he showed up in (and actually had to take responses). Too stoopid to bow out, he just kept taking it on the kisser and insisted it didn't even hit him. It's been an on-going intellectual concussion that just blew what grey matter he had away.

Poor guy, he's something akin to "punch-drunk". He's "obotz-drunk". We iz some mean obotz!

I want to know whether Judge Masin has created a user ID on the Fogbow yet. I can tell that he is a reader.

He was so well informed, it's hard to believe that he picked all the knowledge he showed over Easter weekend.

On a tangentially related topic, I checked the list of Candidates for Texashttp://www.txdemocrats.org/2012/[/link] (full list .csv) to see if Randal Terry or another candidate could mess with my (I'm the Chair) County Convention next Saturday.

Texas actually has three additional candidates who also had to pay a $2500 filing fee and get 1000 signatures statewide.

[link]John Wolfe (pro Occupy Wall Street), Bob Ely (he'll give everyone a job and raise taxes), and Darcy G. Richardson (anti-war, anti-Wall-Street, pro-Occupy, government isn’t the enemy).

I hadn't heard anything about them, but I don't think they will disrupt my convention.

No. I think the judge realizes that the "empty chair defense" was not a failure of the defense in Georgia, but an act made necessary because of a certain ALJ's incompetence.

The competent judge was actually pleased the defense showed up, even though it did not have to show up to win.

Judges generally prefer that all parties be represented, because things go more smoothly.

Rarely, someone who is not actually a judge may choose to hold a completely improper proceeding. That has only happened once in these cases, though. The Putz was not lucky enough to find himself in such a proceeding.

I know John. He is a nice guy and competent attorney. Why he is running around the USA running for president, I do not know. He has also run for local offices. He came in 2nd in Louisiana and actually won a parish or two.

Agreed.

What I thought was cool about the young attorney was a) that the law firm obviously had the confidence in her to allow her to appear at the hearing to represent the president, but I most enjoyed the fact that they sent what the case deserved... a junior associate to face The (great birfer lawyer) Putz.

All these primary challenges "on the merits" have laid quite a foundation for judges to quickly dispatch the inevitable ones that will be filed in the general election.

I actually kind of hope he isn't, because if he is and Orly (or other birther-lawyers) found out, asking for a recusal would be just the beginning. A Fogbow judge would be looked upon as even more vile than a Muslim one.

Does this count as two wins for the Constitution since Patrick Galasso's objection was included in the dismissal?

Having defense counsel present to make the proper objections to Putz's and Purple's "stuff" helped the judge tremendously. It wasn't pre-arranged, she simply did her job - she knew the NJ statutes that were involved, she knew the complaint (better then the plaintiff's attorney, it would appear....), and she had done her research on relevant case law - which is Plentiful. So had the Judge.

IANAL, but this hearing went the way "THE FOUNDERS" (that Putz and his buddies like to talk about) would prefer. John Adams and his peers would be pleased to know that facts and the law were successfully defended against the raving lunacy of unreasonable dipwads...dipwads who don't even bother to read the statutes. Dipwads who's only complaint is they they don''t like that Barack Obama was elected POTUS, fair and square.

Apuzzo is like all birthers, trying to mislead the press by saying this court's decision is a "sham of justice " for allowing the heinous crime of Obama being on the ballot...its a crime because kooks are ACCUSING...so therefore he MUST be removed from office...
by whichever municipal or town or traffic court, or zoning board that they can find to rule in their favor....
Ludicrous. Factually and procedurally it is absolutely Ludicrous.
The US Constitution outlines how to remove a President from office, and nowhere does it mention anything about county and state courts, or even Federal courts. Future birther complaints - anywhere - need to be shut down and the person's filing the complaint get spanked and directed to take it up with the House of Representatives.
But spank them.
Every magistrates and Defense counsel who are burdened by future birther complaints or appeals should have at their disposal a complete package - including the transcripts and ruling from these proceedings - to help them. As Judge Masin said, "We don't need to reinvent the wheel..."

Unfortunately typical shitty job of reporting and writing in this Patch article about the hearing. It's cross-posted on a number of Patch sites in NJ.

http://redbank.patch.com/articles/judge-rules-against-obama-objectors







I don't know who the bigger moron is here, the writer of this or Apuzzo.

Thankfully, the comments are overwhelmingly anti-birther.