Vermont Saps At Sea!!! (Or, A Week Case???)

Frantic, Apuzzo And Paige Show The Washington Times National Weekly Ad To An Uninterested Judge

Oh My!  Vermonter H. Brooke Paige and his putative attorney, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. nearly set a record for how quickly their Birther lawsuit seeking to keep Obama off the ballot got denied by the court. The lawsuit was filed on September 5, 2012 but did not hit the news until September 17, 2012.

Less than a week later, by Friday, September 21, 2012, Judge Robert Bent had already denied the injunction. These excerpts are from the Burlington Free Press:

H. Brooke Paige of the town of Washington had asked the Vermont Superior Court in Montpelier for an injunction to stop distribution of the ballots. Paige contends Obama is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution because his father was not an American citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

“The court has been presented with a radically insufficient basis on which to issue a temporary or even a preliminary injunction,” Judge Robert Bent wrote in a four-page ruling issued late Friday afternoon. [Sept. 21, 2012]

Bent, however, signaled that he thinks there is little evidence to support Paige’s claim that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” noting the jurists in a number of other states had reviewed that issue and rejected it.

“The myriad versions of the claim that President Obama is ineligible for office because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ have been litigated throughout the country exhaustively,” Bent wrote. “They have never succeeded, usually on standing or jurisdictional bases.”

The full story is here:

Judge-denies-request-to-take-Obama-off-Vermont-ballot

I will post a copy of the 4 page decision as soon as it is available.  I am not sure if the case in chief goes on or not.  Paige seems to think it does. All in all, this does not speak well about Apuzzo’s legal abilities. The Article II Constitutional Expert’s opinion on natural born citizenship got disrespectfully whomped upside the head before the lawsuit was even served on Defendant Obama.  Shouldn’t an expert win a case every once in a while??? Anyway, I guess Mario Apuzzo needs to update  his Curriculum Vitae:

Apuzzo CV

As far as H. Brooke Paige, I wonder if he will say to Apuzzo, “Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into!”

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1940 film, Saps At Sea, starring Laurel and Hardy. Wiki says about the film: Wiki says:

Stan and Ollie work in a horn factory, where Ollie is sent home after developing “hornophobia” and starts going crazy each time he hears horns or horn-based musical instruments. A physician (Jimmy Finlayson) is called to treat Ollie and, warning Ollie that he could develop a more serious condition, “hornomania,” he prescribes a relaxing boat trip and goat’s milk. Ollie dismisses the idea because he is afraid to sail on the ocean, but Stan prescribes an alternative: they will simply rent a boat and keep it attached to the dock, getting all the sea air they can while never actually going out to sea. When Stan’s trombone teacher arrives and Ollie hears the music and throws the teacher out, he knows he should take that advice.

Stan and Ollie rent an unseaworthy boat called Prickly Heat that is supposed to stay moored to the dock. An escaped murderer named Nick Grainger stows away on the boat to avoid being caught by the police. The goat which they have brought to provide milk chews away at the docking line and overnight the boat drifts out to sea. Nick confronts Stan and Ollie with a gun (which he affectionately names “Nick Jr”) and tells them to make him breakfast. They have no food on board, so they decide to prepare Nick a “synthetic” breakfast made up of string, soap and whatever else they can find. Nick spies on them and realizes what they are up to, and forces them to eat the fake food. Stan becomes inspired and starts to play his trombone. Ollie starts to go crazy and overcomes the criminal.

Here is a short clip, dealing with an “expert.”

Note 2. The Title. Saps is a reference to Vermont, which is famous for it’s Maple Syrup. But it also means a “sucker.” “At Sea” is an idiom which means:

(all) at sea (about something)

Figuratively, to be confused; to be lost, confused, and bewildered. (Alludes to being lost at sea.) When it comes to higher math, John is totally at sea.

The Caption, is a reference to the ridiculous ads run by CDR Kerchner, Apuzzo’s original Birther patron. The ads are full of false legal theory. You can always find them at ObamaReleaseYourRecords. Here is an example:

Bad Ad

Note 3. The Apuzzo Curriculum Vitae. This originally appeared back on April 1, 2012, here:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/harvard-names-mario-apuzzo-esq-to-ezra-pound-chair-of-common-law/

Recommending The Partnership Of Taitz and Apuzzo, Attorneys At Law!!!

Between The Two Of Them, Oiram And Ylro Had A Perfect Record!

Well, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq’s Birther lawsuit has just been denied certification by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  (See notes below for link.) By my calculation, he is not presently involved in any Birther lawsuit. Meantime, poor overworked Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is running around like a chicken with her head cut off. She has major hearings coming up this month in Mississippi and Indiana, and as she explains, she hasn’t got time to breath.

On top of that she has ongoing Birther cases in Texas, California, and who knows where else. And today there is BREAKINF NEWS that she filed a new one somewhere, with all kinds of paperwork going on:

Sooo, does partnering up with Mario Apuzzo, Esq., who has all this spare time on his hands, make sense or what???  He is an Article II Constitutional Expert, while she has all the clients. She has way too much to do, and he way has too little. Instead of trying to keep busy writing 200 pages briefs, Apuzzo could spend his time doing something useful like writing pleadings for Taitz.

Plus, Mario could expose Orly to some other kinds of law, like defending DWI’s and divorces and automobile accident cases. And wouldn’t it be fun to watch Dr. Taitz bring her aggressive litigation style to something other than Birther cases??? If there are any professional problems forming a partnership because of Dr. Taitz’s California law license and issues of reciprocity, then maybe she could just become “Of Counsel” to  Mr. Apuzzo.

In all sincerity, I think this would be a wonderful idea and I think the two of them should really give this suggestion some serious consideration.

Just trying to be helpful,

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a cel from DC Comic’s Superman series relating to the Bizarros. About whom Wiki says:

In the Bizarro world of “Htrae” (“Earth” spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states “Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!” In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: “Guaranteed to lose money for you”. Later, the mayor appoints Bizarro No. 1 to investigate a crime, “Because you are stupider than the entire Bizarro police force put together”. This is intended and taken as a great compliment.

The concept of “Bizarro World” is a fundamental element in “The Bizarro Jerry”, the 137th episode of American sitcom Seinfeld. In the episode, Elaine makes a new group of friends who represent inverted types of the normal Seinfeld gang. Jerry labels them a Bizarro world. These characters are kind, considerate, curious about the world around them, and good citizens. Though Elaine is initially attracted to their friendly ways, she is ultimately turned off by the formality and lack of simple camaraderie which she enjoys with her old, selfish, shortsighted group. A second reason for her leaving the Bizarro group is the fact that she is “normal” Elaine. Conceivably, her Bizarro version would be ladylike. If you look in the background of the Bizarro apartment you will see a Bizarro figure on a shelf, just as a Superman figure sits on a shelf in Jerry’s apartment. You can also see a unicycle hanging from the wall instead of a bicycle, and images of horses instead of cars.

This is a long article, and here is the link to the rest of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World

Note 2. The Image Easter Egg.  Following Bizarro Rules of Logic, the normal Earth Counterparts of Oiram and Ylro would be the most competent lawyers on Planet Earth.  Clearly, this is not the case. However, they had this little encounter with some purple spotted kryptonite, which as Wiki notes in its Kryptonite article, has some strange effects:

Purple Spotted Kryptonite: Mentioned in Streaky’s fictional story in the animated cartoon Krypto the Superdog. This phony kryptonite made Krypto chase his tail.

Obviously this constant tail chasing has caused problems for the Earth counterparts, who otherwise would have reached their full potential as attorneys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptonite

Note 3. Links. here is a link to RC Radio’s Internet Article about the New Jersey Supreme Court turning its nose up at Apuzzo’s Reuest For Cert:

http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/birther-attorney-mario-apuzzo-chalks-up-another-loss/

Here is the link to Orly Taitz’s BREAKINF NEWS:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=284694

Mario Apuzzo, Vampire Hunter???

Old Abe Lincoln Took An Axe And Gave The Vampire Forty Whacks

In 2010, author Seth Grahame-Smith released his novel, Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.  It was a ripping good yarn and was made into a movie by the same name a few months ago. Wiki provides the gist of the story:

When Lincoln is eleven years old, he learns from his father Thomas Lincoln that vampires are, in fact, real. Thomas explains to his son that a vampire killed Abraham’s grandfather (also named Abraham Lincoln) in 1786. Young Abraham is also shocked to learn that his beloved mother Nancy Hanks Lincoln succumbed not to milk sickness but rather to being given a “fool’s dose” of vampire blood, the result of Thomas’s failure to repay a debt. A year later he lures the vampire responsible for his mother’s death to the family farm and manages to kill it with a homemade stake.

At the age of sixteen Lincoln gets word of a possible vampire attack along the Ohio River and investigates, but this time he is no match for the vampire and is nearly killed. He is saved at the last moment by the intervention of the vampire Henry Sturges. Henry nurses Lincoln back to health and explains some of the nature of vampirism, emphasizing that some vampires are good and others are evil. Lincoln spends the summer with Henry and trains for combat, becoming a skilled wrestler and silver coated axe-handler. For several years following, Henry sends Lincoln the names and addresses of evil vampires; Abraham dutifully tracks them down and kills them.

As a young adult, Lincoln and a friend travel down the Mississippi River to New Orleans on a flatboat to sell a number of goods. Here Lincoln’s life is changed forever after he witnesses a slave auction. Lincoln follows a slave buyer and his new slaves back to their plantation and discovers to his horror that the buyer is a vampire – the slaves are to be used not for labor but for food. Lincoln writes in his journal his belief that vampires will continue to exist in America as long as they can easily buy their victims in this manner – to end slavery is to end the scourge of vampires. Lincoln becomes an Abolitionist. He marries Mary Todd, begins to raise a family, starts a law firm, and is elected to a term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

While in Washington, Lincoln meets his old friend Edgar Allan Poe, who also knows the truth about vampires. Poe tells Lincoln that the vampires are being chased out of their ancestral homes in Europe (in part because of a public outcry over the bloody atrocities of Elizabeth Báthory) and are flocking to America because of the slave trade. Poe warns that if the vampires are left unchecked they will eventually seek to enslave all Americans, white and black. Lincoln leaves Washington in 1849 and declines to seek re-election; Poe is found murdered that same year in Baltimore, the victim of a vampire attack.

In 1857 Henry summons Lincoln to New York City. Here Lincoln and fellow vampire slayer William Seward are told that the vampires in the South intend to start a civil war so that they can conquer the north and enslave all humans of America. Lincoln runs for the U.S. Senate and debates Stephen A. Douglas in what became known as the Lincoln–Douglas debates. Although Lincoln loses to Douglas (an ally of the Southern vampires), he gains a great deal of publicity and respect, which allows him to capture the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States and then the office itself.

The secret behind creating these kinds of fictional works is the careful interweaving of real facts and real events into the story. For example, Lincoln really did win a seat in Congress in 1846, and he did decline re-election. He was handy with an axe. His mother did die in 1818. Poe died in 1849 and the circumstances of his death were shrouded in mystery. Lincoln did become an Abolitionist, etc.

In fact, for a story such as this to get to the level where one can suspend the disbelief  long enough to read the book or watch the movie, it must incorporate some patina of reality into the underlying framework of the fiction. Or, you end up with Plan 9 From Outer Space.

The same is true of the Birther movement.  Some are more skilled at this art than others.  For example, the Birthers who filed the Ankeny action in Indiana in 2009, simply left out all mention of the 1898 Scotus case, Wong Kim Ark.  Not surprisingly, that Court noticed this rather glaring omission. After explaining Wong Kim Ark (WKA) to the plaintiffs, at some length, they concluded:

The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority [WKA] in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Squeeky’s Law Dictionary defines conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions as:

Factual or legal material that a party has pulled out of their a$$ in the vain hope of influencing the tribunal.

But, where these Birthers were sloppy, and gave rise to the Ankeny precedent which is now found persuasive across the country, other Birthers work harder and incorporate the WKA case and other little tidbits of reality into their fictional dream narratives. Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. provides an excellent brief example, from just the other day:

A “natural born Citizen” is implicitly defined by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 and explicitly defined by The Venus (C.J. Marshall concurring), Inglis, Shanks, Dred Scott (J.Daniels concurring), and Minor. Minor explained that under “common-law” which which the Framers were familiar when they adopted the Constitution, Virginia Minor was a “citizen,” who belonged to the “natural born Citizen” class. Minor and these sources which preceded it all relied upon the law of nations, as explained by Vattel in The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) and treated as American “common-law” and national law, to conclude that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.

This original definition of a “natural born Citizen” is the supreme law of the land as is the other two presidential eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e., age of at least 35 years and residency of at least 14 years. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed that American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did was provide a definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth, by looking to the colonial English common law as an aid in construing the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which is not the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark defined a “citizen of the United States” which is a different class of “citizen” from the “natural born Citizen” class. Hence, your reliance on Wong Kim Ark to support your theory that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” the same as the English defined a “natural born subject” under the English common law is misplaced. Rather, today the definition of a “natural born Citizen” continues to be a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of the country at the time of the child’s birth.

Here is the link, and this was the second comment on the page:

Comments Mario Apuzzo’s Blog

Rather than go to one of his briefs and pull out a much longer excerpt, I am just picking on this short example. Apuzzo is engaged in a comment exchange with someone named “Linda,” who is whacking him around like a goat carcass on a Buzkashi field.

Anyway, look at how sneakingly Apuzzo slips in HIS characterization of WKA:

What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did was provide a definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth, by looking to the colonial English common law as an aid in construing the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which is not the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

There is some truth in that statement. The real question in WKA was not whether poor Wong was born in the United States,  but whether or not he was “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as set out in the 14th Amendment. BUT, the WKA Court started it’s analysis with an in depth discussion of natural born citizenship as found in Article II of the Constitution.  That is the same place Apuzzo starts. In fact, two of the seven sections in the case dealt exclusively with the concept of natural born citizenship starting in England, and then continuing to the United States.

Apuzzo wants to separate “Article II natural born citizenship” from 14th Amendment’s “citizen of the United States” at birth. He wants to pretend that they are two distinct concepts. That way he can weave WKA into his fictional framework, and make his case more believable, all while ignoring the painful reality.  The painful reality is that  the WKA Court specifically says the two phrases are talking about the same underlying concept.  Which is, that the 14th Amendment affirms the concept of natural born citizenship for those born inside the United States, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, as long as they are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers.  From WKA Section V:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

So yes, WKA construed the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction,” but WKA also found that concept to be the same thing as the requirement for natural born citizenship.

Article II natural born citizenship = birth within the dominion + subject to the jurisdiction

14th Amendment citizens at birth  = birth within the dominion + subject to the jurisdiction

And, the WKA Court explicitly states this:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

This is not the only piece of reality that Apuzzo carves up and uses snippets from to weave into his creation. Natural born citizens truly are defined by various  naturalization statutes. The problem is, naturalization statutes have nothing to do with persons born INSIDE the United States. Those statutes only apply to the foreign born. From Section IV of WKA:

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.

Darn, that is strange. I wonder how Mario Apuzzo, Esq. could have read WKA and not seen that part??? He is a lawyer, after all.  Similarly, there really was a case called, Minor v. Happersett  (1875),  but that case doesn’t run off to Emerich de Vattel of Switzerland for its definition of natural born citizenship any more that Lincoln sought out Edgar Allan Poe for advice on Vampires. Here is what the Minor Court says about the term, and where it went to get its definition:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

And that is usually where the Birthers leave off the cite, and somehow forget to provide the rest of the Court’s thoughts on the subject of who was a natural born citizen:

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts

Those doubts were solved 23 years later in WKA.  Apuzzo adds some more pizzazz to his tale with this:

This original definition of a “natural born Citizen” is the supreme law of the land as is the other two presidential eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e., age of at least 35 years and residency of at least 14 years. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed that American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Yes, we have a constitution, and yes it is the supreme law of the land. But that document does not define natural born citizen. As both the Minor Court and the WKA Court stated, you have to go to English common law for the definition. And Emerich de Vattel’s writings ain’t common law. And his book called The Law of Nations is NOT part of the U.S. Constitution.

But that is how the Birthers roll. Little pieces of reality mixed in here and there with big chunks of fiction. The problem is, they keep trying to pass this crap off as a documentary, when it is more like a cheesy science fiction B movie called “Emerich de Vattel, Alien Hunter.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image Easter Egg. This is a word play on Stanley Kowalski’s utterances in A Streetcar Named Desire.  The Image is a photoshopped job of Abe Lincoln chasing Edward Cullen from the Twilight vampire series. His girlfriend is named Bella Swan.

Natural Born Encounters Of The Third Kind!!!

True, He Was A Little Rough Around The Edges, But He Had A Groovy Set Of Wheels

After my recent discussions with Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. (see notes below),  it looks like there must be THREE KINDS of natural born citizens. Once, there were but two:

1. Natural born citizens born inside the United States;

2. Natural born citizens born outside the United States as declared by Congress.

If we assume for a moment that Apuzzo is right, and that natural born citizens born inside the United States must be born to two citizen parents, then what in the world do we do with the Third Kind of natural born citizen??? The kind described in the Wong Kim Ark (1898) (WKA) decision.

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day [1898], aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, [] [and] the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

And, the kind described  in this case, cited with approval in WKA:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

So, let’s see, Rhodes says:

All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens;

And the Supreme Court says the same thing, and defines “allegiance” to boot:

1. aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance of the English Sovereign, [unless within the two exceptions.]

2. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.,

Well, that means that children born here of aliens, who are not foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, are within the allegiance and thus natural born citizens. That sounds right to me. I wonder if the WKA Court ever said any of this again??? Yep. Lookee! Here’s a big one,  from Section V:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;

Wow! it looks like the WKA Court is even tying the 14th Amendment into this whole thing, but let’s ignore that for a moment. The Court clearly calls these children born here of aliens, natural born. And, the WKA Court is very comfortable equating natural born subject and natural born citizen, because in section III, they cited this case with approval:

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.

Well, lets substitute the terms subject and citizen, and see what we get:

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural citizen, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born citizen;

All of the above analysis is unnecessary for most of us, because any honest and intelligent reading of Wong Kim Ark readily leads to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment simply affirmed the Article II common law notion of natural born citizenship and put it safely into the U.S. Constitution.

The reason I am going through all this to show that even to Birthers, there was definitely some kind of creature discussed in WKA called a natural born citizen who did NOT have two citizen parents. This creature, this WKA natural born citizen, could even have two alien parents, as long as he was born inside the country. Birther cryto-zoologists should be high-fiving each other and rushing off to the woods with camera traps. This is the equivalent of finding Big Foot!

Non-Birthers already knew about this, and it is no surprise to us. In fact, we tend to notice a suspicious lack of the phase “two citizen parents” running through the case at all. But why haven’t the Birthers ever admitted that there is some species of Natural Born Citizen in WKA that doesn’t match up to their Imaginary Law requiring two citizen parents??? The common law creature is certainly discussed and talked about. My goodness,  Sections II and III of the decision are all about him, and he surfaces periodically throughout the rest of the decision.

Hmmm, let’s redo our list and see what the reason might be:

1. The Birther natural born citizens born inside the United States, to two citizen parents, based on French law, and checked-out library books;

2. Natural born citizens born outside the United States as declared by Congress; and

3.  The WKA natural born citizens born inside the United States, to parents who are neither foreign diplomats, nor invading soldiers, based on English common law, American common law, and a long line of legal cases.

Yes, comparing No. 1 to No. 3, I can see why the Birthers treat the WKA natural born citizen like a red headed stepchild at a family reunion. That whole French law-library book foundation seems a tad shaky. Is it safe??? Here, let me touch it with my mouse. . .click. . .

The Law Offices Of Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Shortly Before The Vattel Cornerstone Crumbled

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. I do not know which movie this is from. I saved this picture in the past without a link.  I searched images of old science fiction movies without success. If anybody knows, please tell me.

Note 2. The Squeeky – Mario Discussions link:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/the-squeeky-mario-discussions/

Note 3. Ignore This Note! I am just giving myself a place to link a silly picture:

 

The Squeeky – Mario Discussions

Sometimes You Can Take Advantage Of Things

The other day I posted an Internet Article in which I tore into one of Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s lines of reasoning.  Apuzzo responded on his website in the comment section, and now I am responding to his response. A lot of this is long legal stuff, and to make it easier to follow, I am just going to post pdf”s and links here.  If I didn’t this, this thing would be like 20 feet long or more. Plus, this is going to be boring to people who do not like legal arguments, and this will make it easier to skip past it.

Here is the link to the first salvo, from me:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/the-two-citizen-parents-requirement-oh-yeah-the-birthers-built-that/

Here is a pdf of Mario’s response, and a link to his website, where you can find it in the comment section:

Mario Apuzzo Esq.’s Response To Squeeky

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=4876804503083480762

Here is my latest response to Mario’s response:

Squeeky’s Response to Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

The “Two Citizen Parents” Requirement??? Oh Yeah, The Birthers Built That!!!

Aha! The Birthers Were Privy To Secret Information After All!

Well, I am not above ripping off the “You Didn’t Build That-Yes I Did Too Build That” partisan squabble theme.  Sooo, lets look at the Imaginary Law that the Birthers built, all by themselves.  Now we could do this by reading Wong Kim Ark (1998) and then Ankeny (2009) and so forth and so on, and prove the Birthers entire theory is not based in REAL law, and thus by that process infer that their theory is totally manufactured.

But it would be far more fun to take the Birthers’ own thought processes and examine how they go astray from their end. Thankfully, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.  is on retainer with the Birther Dreamwerks, so we won’t have to look far. Plus,  he is an Article II Constitutional specialist on this stuff, in much the same way as Lem Putt is a specialist in his chosen field. (see Note 2, below).

Here is what I found at Apuzzo’s blog, and with this one six-sentence  paragraph we can see where the Birthers derive their weird beliefs and why judges equip their bailiffs with butterfly nets whenever the Birthers come to visit:

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.” When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

Here is a link, in case you want to read the whole thing:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/08/barack-obama-ballot-challenge.html

Now, let’s examine this sentence by sentence to see how Apuzzo ending up constructing the ramshackle hovel of his theory.

Sentence 1: The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Well, this is true. No problem so far.

Sentence 2: It [14th Amendment] does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.”

Whoops! @#%!!&**#. Mario just whacked the crap out  his thumb with the hammer. Apuzzo is making a conclusion here. This was a FALSE assumption on his part. Because when you refer to the SCOTUS case, Wong Kim Ark (1898), section V., you find this:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

From sections II and III of the Wong Kim Ark decision, we know that “fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion” was also known as NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Further down in section III, we find this put even more succinctly:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

So Mario Apuzzo Esq. is simply, and badly, wrong. By the clear holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court, the 14th Amendment DID INDEED give those born within the country, and not subject to the two exceptions, “the status of a “natural born Citizen.” This fundamental mistake is where the Birthers first start to go off course.

Sentence 3: When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment.

This is true. The 14th Amendment was not passed until 1868.

Sentence 4: Hence, they surely did not write the clause [natural born citizen] into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also true, because the Constitution came first by about 80 years.  But, that does not mean that the opposite is also true.  In fact, it is very possible for the 14th Amendment coming 80 years later to  ”have in mind a citizenship standard that is contained in the Constitution.”  Repeating again the introduction to section V:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

Did you get that Mario??? Both the 14th Amendment, and the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866, affirmed the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion. This was the common law on natural born citizenship. For, as is stated further down in Section V, and cited with approval:

In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American Minister to Italy, said:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.

2 Whart.Int.Dig. p. 394.

and here is more from section V, which proves the 14th Amendment was declaratory of pre-existing law, that is – the common law relating to natural born citizenship, [cites omitted]:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

And what was that common law they were referring to? One more time for the slow:

[E]very child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

So no, Article II of the Constitution did not contemplate the 14th Amendment, but the 14th Amendment sure contemplated the Article II common law on natural born citizenship.

Sentence 5: And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Very true. The 14th Amendment did NOT repeal or amend the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause. That is because the 14th Amendment actually AFFIRMED the Article II natural born Citizen. From the bottom of section V of Wong Kim Ark:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory. . .

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject. . .

Sentence 6: Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

No they don’t. For persons born within the United States, they are the same thing. Which is what court after court keeps telling the Birthers. Those courts either cite the same things from Wong Kim Ark, that I have, or they simply cite the reasoning in the Ankeny decision, which in turn is based on WKA, as persuasive.

You see, the courts aren’t looking to play devious little word games which back up their personal desires. They are just courts, and judges, who read the law and try in an honest fashion to figure out what it means. In their simple and naive fashion,  the judges and courts think that:

1. The common law concept that persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

and:

2. The 14th Amendment provision bestowing citizenship on persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

are:

3. Talking about the same group of people – native born citizens, or citizens at birth, or natural born citizens.

They think this because the same requirements are met by both groups, to wit:. . . born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers. In fact, for this NOT to be true, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. would have to amend his 5th sentence above to read the reverse of what it does:

The Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Because if 14th Amendment didn’t repeal or amend the previous common law, then those  born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers are the same people, no matter which law you use. In effect, Apuzzo’s own assumptions and reasoning destroys his own argument.

This has been a step by step analysis of how Mario Apuzzo, Esq. ended up in legal La La Land.  This is how he ends up believing Emerich de Vattel sets the standard for natural born citizenship. This is how Apuzzo latches on the the two citizen parents stuff, because that notion is nowhere to be found in the 14th Amendment. It isn’t found in the Constitution either, but since the term isn’t defined there, it is easier to play games with. But first, Apuzzo has to get rid of the pesky 14th Amendment or his other tenets  can go nowhere.

But, as you can see above,  Apuzzo went astray in his reasoning early on. And it is obvious to the non-Birther community. This is why the Birther mantra, “there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen” keeps getting bounced out of courtrooms across the nation.  This is why the Apuzzites are getting assessed court costs, and  having their arguments called frivolous, and without merit.

Apuzzo can not even maintain internal consistency in his own argument. Sooo, with the image above in mind, people should be careful about entering his sanctuary. You might fall in.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. I found this image (An outhouse at Goat Peak, 6,305 ft (1,922 m) above sea level) at Wiki, which has many interesting things to say about Outhouses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outhouse

Note 2. Lem Putt, The Specialist.  My father had a copy of this book.  Here is a online link to the short 1929 book:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/specialist.html

Note 3.  Privy. For ESL’s, this word has two meanings:

1. outhouse: a small outbuilding with a bench having holes through which a user can defecate

2. privy(p): (followed by `to’) informed about something secret or not generally known; “privy to the details of the conspiracy”

Reader hklrnaa47 has provided this additional information about the etymology of these two definitions in the comments below. I am updating this note to add this. Thank You hklrnaa47!!!

Hi Squeeks. Your 2 part definition of the word ‘privy’ doesn’t actually explain how the same word gained those 2 definitions.

In fact ‘privy’ is a very old word having to do with toilet and the location of emptying ones bowels. Once upon a time, Kings, being special people and all, were provided with special servants, called ‘Privy Counselors’ whose job it was, quite literally, to wipe the Kings ass.

As you can imagine, someone entrusted with this rather intimate access to the Kings person had to be completely trustworthy and dependable. They would grow, over time, to do more than just help with the Kings movements, they would be entrusted with secrets of all kinds.

Thus definition number two.

For the Image Easter Egg. Another word play. Going over the edge is an idiom which means to go crazy. However, the word “going” or “go” (which also means to use the restroom) combined with a privy perched on the edge of a cliff,  and presumably emptying  out over said edge, means something else entirely.

Famous Birther Lawyer Tackles The Obamacare Ruling!!! (Is This For Real???)

This Chair Would Be Great For Birthers Who Are Off Their Rockers. . .

OMG!!! Is this for real??? My secret sources are always sending me stuff, and sometimes I think they are pulling my leg.  Sooo, I am not sure if this is really Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq., or just somebody artsy-fartsy person’s attempt at satire. Here is the three page document. Just click on the pages to make them bigger:

And here is a pdf copy of the file.

Apuzzo Legal Analysis

Now, here is what I see from this.  First, the document is not signed, and that might indicate that it is not for real. Nor, do I see the word “putative” in it anywhere, and Apuzzo just loves using that word.   And, there is no reference to either Roman law, or the animal kingdom. Finally, it is only three pages long, and that is sentence-length for Apuzzo.

But, on the other hand, there are many similarities in the thought processes which seem to reflect that it is genuine, to wit:

1. Ignoring the clear recent legal holding in the Obamacare ruling, and mischaracterizing it as a “tax case.”;

2. Reference to the Founder’s intents while ignoring recent case law;

3. Reference to Emer de Vattel;

4. Reference to Congressional intent while ignoring recent case law;

5. Reference to SCOTUS cases which predate later relevant cases;

6. The little face thingie logo;

7. The reference to being a “Constitutional Article II expert;

8.  The footer, Remember:  If You Fail Your Breathalizer, You Should Call Your Legal Adviser! ; and

9. The whole Universe of Ideas thing.

Sooo, I am just going to report and let you decide.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Sen. Fred Thompson Kicks Birther Butt!!! (Meanwhile, Apuzzo Squirms)

If You Get Knocked Out And Can’t Hear the Ten Count, Do You Still Lose???

Former Republican Senator Fred Thompson kicked serious Birther Butt in this piece concerning the eligibility of Marco Rubio, and others, for the presidency. His Internet Article  can be found here:

http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

Here is an excerpt:

Where the issue has been squarely before a court, the result has been otherwise. In Lynch v Clark, decided in 1844, the issue was the right to inherit. The New York court held that the child, born in the U.S. of British subjects, could inherit because she was a NBC. In 1898 the Supreme Court in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark held the same way. Those cases are still good law today. These courts relied upon , in part, the English common law in deriving the intent of the Founders and pointed out that in England being born on English soil was sufficient for citizenship. The statements of James Madison, for one, make it clear that the Founders had no intention of deviating from the common law in this regard. This is further supported by official opinions of our nation’s Attorney Generals going back several years.

Finally, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which states, in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Reading this together with Article 2 would indicate that the additional “natural born” requirement of Article 2 for a citizen to be eligible to be president meant that being “naturalized” would not suffice. He must be born here.

In 2011 the Congressional Research Service accurately stated, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth” …by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents…”

While the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential candidate’s eligibility as a NBC, it is inconceivable that the Court would depose a president who was born on American soil. Some people love to excite and stir us up but we have an election coming up, folks. May I suggest that we resist the temptation to chase every rabbit that comes down the trail and focus, instead, on that?

Meanwhile, Apuzzo is going nuts because Thompson appears to be ignoring him, as can be seen in these tidbits from ObamaReleaseYourRecords:

Mr. Thompson,

I would appreciate it if you would release my comment from moderation.”

My second comment is also still in moderation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 31, 2012
_________________________________________

I posted my response to Mr. Thompson yesterday which he did not release from moderation. My response contained nothing but my legal argument on the question of whether Marco Rubio and Barack Obama and Bobby Jindal are “natural born citizens.” I followed up with an inquiry as to why he did not release my comment from moderation. He also did not release that second comment. Today, I see that my two comments have been totally erased from Mr. Thompson’s blog.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 1, 2012

Here is a link to Putative Attorney Apuzzo’s response:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/atty-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-fred.html

More on this later.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

“Liohippelates Apuzzo” Gets Swatted Down!!!

Kimberly And Jeff Were Well Prepared For Those Annoying Little Pests

Well, one the scientific names for flies is Liohippelates Pusio, and much like that annoying pest, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. got a double swat down in New Jersey. First, ALJ Jeff S. Masin decked him in testicles with a powerful Ankeny overhand smash, paragraphed a little by me for easier reading:

The second objection involves the meaning of the Constitutional phrase, “natural born Citizen.” Discussion and consideration of this issue is of course relevant only on the understanding that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. This issue has been the subject of litigation concerning Mr. Obama’s candidacy in several jurisdictions. No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act.

Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, the thrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’” Id. at 685.

The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position.2 In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born” and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99, 7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26, 40, 41 (1860).

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

(Note) The Wong Kim Ark decision was preceded by Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874), where the Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution did not say “in words” “who shall be natural-born citizens” there were “some authorities” who held that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were citizens. The Court concludes that it was not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims.

The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated

We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions [children of ambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution.

[Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at
462].

The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born Citizen.

Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.

Here is a pdf of the full decision:

88910250-Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

Then, two days later, NJ Secretary of State Kimberly M. Guadagno accepted Masin’s findings and delivered a short and sweet little coup de grace swat to the poor, writhing little bug on the floor, in a  2 page decision which may be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/89431332-Final-Decision-of-SOS-in-Purpura-Moran-Ballot-Objection-4-12-12

But, summertime is coming up on us. Like all flies, I am sure that Apuzzo laid some eggs in a big pile of manure somewhere and soon the little maggots will spread their wings and take the sky and file some more appeals.

Swat mercilessly.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a still from the film, Just Imagine (1930), and may be found here:

http://zorchv38.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

Note 2. Liohippelates Pusio. If you are interested in flies and pests, here is some info:

http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/livestock/flies/liohippelates.htm

Apuzzo Going Agin The Court Again!!!

Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather Vattel Advanced Rapidly Toward The Rear

Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. sallies forth into another surreal and silly Birther Battle, this time in a plenary hearing in New Jersey. As Apuzzo says:

There will be a plenary hearing on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey  08619.

The Objection may be read at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88210603-Purpura-Moran-Objection-to-Obama-Nominating-Petition-4-5-12 .

UPDATE:  The hearing will take place not at 10:00 a.m., as we were initial told by the New Jersey Division of Elections, but at 9:00 a.m.  It will be before Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619.

I have been advised that there are reports on the internet that the court has already dismissed the case and that the hearing has been cancelled.  These reports are false.

Here is the link to the full story on his blog:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/04/objection-to-candidate-barack-obamas.html

Here is a pdf of the filing in case you have trouble with the scribd document:

Apuzzo’s Purpura Moran Objection

I looked up plenary hearing, and here is what I found:

“literally, . . . full, entire, complete, absolute, perfect or unqualified; but with reference to judicial proceedings, it denotes a [complete, formally pleaded suit wherein] a petitionor complaintis filed by one or more persons against one or more other persons who file an answeror a response.” 315 S.W. 2d 521, 525.

A plenary action is one in which a full trial or plenary hearing is had on the merits of a complaint following full discovery, as distinguished from a summary proceeding.

It seems rather soon for this kind of hearing and I am not aware who is representing Obama or the Democrats on this. I will try to find out more. In the meantime, I guess the Objection is what the hearing will cover.

It is the usual 42 pages of concentrated BS, and includes the standard lie about Minor v. Happersett. On the birth certificate side of things, Apuzzo has added the Cold Case Posse findings, a “doubts” statement from Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker,  an Affidavit Of Hearsay and Scuttlebutt from Tim Adams, ex-clerk at the Honolulu Elections Office, and a half dozen or so youtube videos from the CCP and its experts.

In other words, pretty much the same old Birther crap that has lost time after time in court. Unless ALJ Masin is an idiot, this latest load of crap will get the same heave-ho. If Masin is an idiot, then the stuff will get the heave-ho at the next level.

But, I suspect the Birthers will lose. Apuzzo will then write a blog post about how this judge got it wrong, too. Just like the judges in Calvin’s Case, Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny v. Governor in Indiana, Tisdale in Virginia, Allen in Arizona, and AJ Malihi in Georgia, etc. all got it wrong, while Apuzzo gets it right. Then, there will be an appeal, and some more Internet Articles, and when that loses, another appeal, etc.

As far as Apuzzo’s statement above :

I have been advised that there are reports on the internet that the court has already dismissed the case . . . .  These reports are false.

No. The reports are just coming a little early.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is supposedly a painting of the French Cavalry running away from the Battle of Agincourt in 1514.  I chose this theme because Apuzzo decorated his page on this with a picture of the 1776 Battle of Trenton, wherein the Americans under George Washington snuck across the Delaware River and captured a bunch of Hessians.

I suspect a more accurate picture, and example,  for Apuzzo and the Birthers, would have been the 1514 Battle of Agincourt, wherein English Common Law clobbered French law.  Anyway the image may be found here:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

where one also finds very interesting pictures and historical facts, such as:

The lack of reliable and consistent sources makes it very difficult to accurately estimate the numbers on both sides. Most contemporary English sources have the English outnumbered by 4,000,000 – 1 or more. The Burgundian sources use numbers of 50,000,000 for the French, and 11 or 13 for the English. French sources include at least one which has the English army as slightly larger than Avogadro’s number. Another has the French “more than half again as numerous as the English – more than half by a long way involving so many zeros that we ran out of fingers”. Estimates used by recent historians vary from 6 to 9 for the English , and from about 12,000,000 to about 36,000,000 for the French.

Such heavy armour allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Dennis described as “a terrifying hail of arrow shot and shite”. However they had to lower their visors and bend their heads to avoid being hit in the face with excrement, which restricted both their breathing and their vision. . .

When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and Uzis, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud). The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as being knocked to the ground and then unable to get back up. As the mêlée developed, the French second line also joined the attack, but they too were swallowed up, and French men-at-arms were taken prisoner or killed – mostly killed since the attending English bishop had preached the sermon “the only good frog is a dead one” (Leviticus 4:12) prior to the battle. The fighting lasted about three hours, but eventually the leaders of the second line were killed or captured. The English Gesta Henrici describes three great heaps of the slain “which had risen above a man’s height and which we pissed on mightily” around the three main English standards.

Note 2. Agin.

Definition of AGIN

dialect variant of against