“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:

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

.

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

The Dreckled Band (Or, We Are Going to Stoke Moran This Day!!!)

The Men From Scotland Yard Were Somewhat Taken Aback That The Birther Wasn't Wearing Any Pants

Well, I guess if it was a snake, it would have bit us. Here the Birthers are claiming that Obama is a British citizen and we have all missed the obvious response:  If Obama, by operation of British law is a British citizen, then why are you suing in American courts??? 

I mean, think about it for a minute. If there is some aspect of British law which is relevant, and you want to see it enforced, or to obtain a declaratory judgment, why would anyone go to an American court???  British courts should be involved. These suits should be taking place in England.  Scotland Yard should be involved.

Duh!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Notes:  Well this is a strange Internet Article where the Notes will be longer than the article.

First, the title The Dreckled Band is a play on the Sherlock Holmes short story, The Speckled Band. Dreck is defined as:

/drɛk/[drek]
noun Slang.
1. excrement; dung.
2. worthless trash; junk.
Also, drek.

Origin:
1920–25; < Yiddish drek; cognate with German Dreck filth; compare Old English threax, Old Norse threkkr excrement

I use Dreckled Band to describe the Birthers as a group covered up in various forms of bullsh*t.

The alternative title We Are Going to Stoke Moran This Day! is a direct quote from the story.   Stoke Moran was the name of the town, particularly the ancestral mansion where the crimes took place in the story. The statement, by Sherlock Holmes:

“And so do I. It is precisely for that reason that we are going to Stoke Moran this day. I want to see whether the objections are fatal, or if they may be explained away. But what in the name of the devil!”

Of course, there is a secondary meaning which plays on the words stoke and moran.  Stoke means:

stoked past participle, past tense of stoke (Verb)
Verb:

1. Add coal or other solid fuel to (a fire, furnace, or boiler).
2. Encourage or incite (a strong emotion or tendency): “his composure had the effect of stoking her anger”.

And moran, as defined by the Urban Dictionary:

1. The ironic way to spell moron.
“Get a brain! Morans”
2. The preferred method of spelling “moron” by morons, particularly that of a Missouri redneck at a rally supporting the US led war in Iraq.

Both based on this iconic image:

So in effect, I am inciting the Birther morans with my suggestion they seek redress in British courts.

The Image of the two men and the baboon above is an actual illustration from The Speckled Band. The reference to the Birther having no pants is an allusion to Jungian Dream Analysis wherein nakedness can be interpreted as:

Nudity also symbolizes being caught off guard. Finding yourself naked at work or in a classroom, suggests that you are unprepared for a project at work or school. You may be unprepared in making a well informed decision. With all eyes on you, you fear that some flaw will be brought to public attention. You fear that people will see through your true self and you will be exposed as a fraud or a phony.

http://dreammoods.com/cgibin/nakeddreams.pl?method=exact&header=dreamid&search=nakedintro

It is the Birther who is naked, and truly, most of us see right through them.

The Easter Egg in the Image, My Dear Watson, I Think He Means His Checkbook Is In The Office is based on the statement by Dr. Grimesby Roylott upon bursting into Holmes and Watson’s room:

Ha! You put me off, do you?” said our new visitor, taking a step forward and shaking his hunting-crop. “I know you, you scoundrel! I have heard of you before. You are Holmes, the meddler.”

My friend smiled.

“Holmes, the busybody!”

His smile broadened.

“Holmes, the Scotland Yard Jack-in-office!”

Jack-in-office is an English term meaning, a self important petty official. Jack is also a slang term for money. . .oh  well, you get it.  I am not sure if Holmes actually received a 1099 from Scotland Yard for this adventure. Tax laws only require certain records be kept for five years, and this took place in 1892.

There is another huge groaner in the article, but disclosing it would be spoilers for those who have not read the story. Which may be found, with illustrations, at this link:

http://wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:%D0%A2

It is short, and worth the read.