Masterful work, as always. Nolu chan rocks.

Gosh, you don't suppose Mario will write a 300 page rebuttal to nolu chan, will he?

Maybe after tomorrow's hearing?

Nolu Chan quotes State v. Manuel, 23 4 Dev. & Bat. 20 (1838):


I don't suppose Apuzzo, in full candor, has a line like that anywhere in his brief(s)?

I didn't think so. Putz.

Well, to be fair, its kinda hard to say that when the objections to your argument includes stuff like "the very next sentance in minor V Happersett says..." and "this view was voted down in the first congress 36 to 1"

Mario has posted a reply to briefs by the Obama campaign and the NJ AG that we have not seen. You can get a feel for what was argued in response to Mario's initial brief from this reply letter. It was only filed today. How can the plaintiff be allowed to file something so late just the day before the hearing? The briefing schedule only mentioned the plaintiff's opening brief and the replies.

http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/95195368- ... ED-5-29-12

If this response were dedicated to an honest response to new issues or argument raised in the opposition, it might be appropriate. However, it seems pretty clear that ain't the case. Most if not all of it is just Mario trying to get a second bite at the apple.

Not to worry. The court's smart enough to figure this out.

Yesterday I attempted to obtain the Appellees' brief.

Alas, no luck.

If we only had a reporter in NJ.

I see what you did there. I had to read it twice. I'm still fixated on "Amercia". You mean Reporter!

Mario is totally losing it on Dr C's blog right now where he has been reduced to recycling of old misrepresentations and misunderstandings, such as the claim that the Madison administration agreed with his position...

Poor sod... The stress must truly be getting to him.

In a few minutes, he'll be up at the plate in N.J. Glad to hear he's cool, calm and collected for that.

Link, please.

here

He claims that the Madison Administration agrees with him even though he provides NO evidence. He apparently believes that an anonymous letter by 'Publius' carries any legal weight while the administration's actions declaring McClure a native citizen are to be ignored. Worse. we are expected to ignore Madison's jus soli position.

What a fool

He also claims that WKA naturalized WKA even though the courts have held that one cannot naturalize a child born on soil...

Too bad we can't get blow by blow updates from the court.

[Slightly off topic]
Whenever I read Mario's legal musings I am reminded of an essay by Scott Berkun, (with slight modification for Mario) "Why smart pompous people defend bad really crazy ideas.

http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/

Berkun closes his essay with some ideas for additional fodder. The last one looks like a glove-fit for Mario, "They may simply want something to be true, that can never be".

I think I am reading the work of a racist thug.

While I may be guilty of parsing words, I have never regarded Mario as being racist. Mario is an elitist. Simply put, Mario believes he is superior to others regardless of their race, sex, religion, etc.

An elitist thug???

Yeh, I'll strike the "racist."

No no... Mario is no racist as much as so convinced of being correct that he will be impervious to reason and logic, let alone facts. He may be a blowhard but I would not consider him to be a racist.

Maybe not racist, sure as hell a lying bigot

Oh and not to forget thin skinned, humorless, pedantic, bloviating, ignorant, prejudiced, asinine, biased, ridiculous, pathetic, perjorative, narcissistic, delusional, entitled, deluded, crapulous and coprophagic............on a good day.

Last year Apuzzo complained about a post with too many Jewish words in it. I suspect he's got some problems with people who aren't like what he conceives himself to be. And he almost certainly has an ironic superiority complex, too. He's slightly more competent than Orly Taitz, can follow basic format (but not page length) requirements, but in the end convinces no one except Charles Kerchner, who pays his bills.

When Apuzzo slithers back to representing drunk drivers we will all be a lot safer. Apuzzo's clients will almost certainly be convicted if he pulls any of the crap he does as a birther. Which means it will keep them off the streets.

I suspect Apuzzo self-destructed today in his appeal. It will be fun learning why three more judges are wrong.

Did we have anyone in the courtroom?

When Kerchner first started out, he said he was looking for someone to represent him pro bono. Afterwards he and Apuzzo hooked up. I don't think Apuzzo ever said he took the case pro bono, but perhaps a third party other than Kerchner is funding his work.