Tag Archives: Ankeny

WARNING!!! If You Experience A Rejection Lasting Longer Than 4 Years. . .


Legal Scholar Herb Titus Really Enjoyed His Morning Constitutional!!!

On March 16, 2009, the Tw0-Citizen Parents Birther Plaintiffs in  Ankeny v. Governor had their case dismissed by an Indiana state district judge.  The Birthers appealed and were once again slapped down. You can find the Indiana Appeals Court decision above the blog title under, Ankeny: The Case The “Two Citizen Parents” Birthers Just HATE!!! Thus began the four year history of judicial smack downs of the claim that it requires two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen,

That was over 4 years ago. Since that time the judicial rejections of the idiotic theory have continued to pile up.  To mark the anniversary, on April 3, 2013, a New York court ordered Birther Christopher Strunk to pay $177,000 in damages. Judge Schack gave a review worthy of a bad Broadway play:

“If the complaint in this action was a movie script, it would be entitled ‘The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code,’ ” wrote Judge Arthur Schack, calling the allegations, “fanciful, delusional and irrational.”

Here is a link to the full story:


Strunk had filed over 20 such lawsuits over the years. Here is a pdf copy of the order, and a link to the scribd source from Jack Ryan of Fogbow:



This is part of what I find sooo fascinating about the Birthers. It is one thing to come up with a contrarian legal interpretation, but when one gets stomped in court, time after time, then it is time for any reasonable person to just admit they are wrong. After all, the Birthers are quite free to argue that their standard would be superior to the current law.  But, if Birthers were reasonable, then they wouldn’t be Birthers.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1:  From the image caption, Morning Constitutional:

a walk taken for one’s health


She’s gone out for her morning constitutional.

The phrase was frequently used to euphemistically describe the first trot to the outhouse upon awakening. And sometimes for any morning activity which got the blood flowing, such as doing jumping jacks, or perhaps chopping wood. Like for the kitchen stove.

Note 2. Birther Case String Cite: Here is a link containing 12 pages of Birther legal losses:


Note 3. Herb Titus, mentioned in the Image above. Mr. Titus is an actual legal constitutional scholar, and former law school Dean.  He is one of the few attorneys who promotes the nonsensical theory that it takes two citizen parents to create a natural born citizen. Here he is in a youtube video promoting the silliness:

Note 4. The Title. This is a word play on the warning for Viagra type pills,  “if you experience an erection lasting more than four hours. . .”  to which I have always wished to respond with, “. . . then you’re really screwed!!!”

Fifty Shades Of Stupid!!! (Or, Spanking Another Freeper Birther)

By The 89th Shade, They Were Really Having To Strain For Material

OMG!!! I stumbled across this little bit of SHEER TOTAL STUPIDITY while browsing the Free Republic Birther threads. There is sooo much Birther idiocy there that I could churn out 10 Internet Articles per day easily just by pointing out their legal mistakes, absurdities, and logical fallacies. It would be the equivalent of shooting very stupid fish in a very tiny barrel. Sooo, usually I just giggle and move on to something else. But this piece of nuttiness by Freeper Diogeneslamp was just too dumb to pass up.

Down below in the notes you can find links, and a screen capture of the idiocy.  Now, on with the story. The Freeper Birthers are all babbling and drooling and stuff, and Freeper Diogeneslamp pops out his little copy of John Adam’s personal Law book of English Common law, published in 1736. Which says:

All those are natural born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominions.

and to the side of that the margin note says:

In Calvins Case those which were born in Normandy, Gascon, while under actual Obedience to the Kings of England, were Subjects born. And this by the Statute is declared to have been the Common Law; but those born there now are Aliens, those places not being in the actual Possession of our King.

Now, I debated Diogeneslamp on numerous occasisons before the Freeper Birthers got tired of me kicking their butts and got me banned. He knows about Wong Kim Ark, and argues mightily that it doesn’t provide precedent on natural born citizenship passing to those born inside the United States regardless of the citizenship of the parents. And he knows, from that same case, that natural born citizenship passes to those born outside the country to American parent(s) by statutory law.

In short, Diogeneslamp is fully aware of this excerpt from Wong Kim Ark via the Ankeny Court:

The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

Lookie!!! The Courts say the same thing as the book. “Within the Obedience” doesn’t mean “citizen.”  It means within the physical jurisdiction of the King.  Clearly, it is the place of birth which controls natural born citizenship for those born inside the country. But, to actually read from John Adams’ book and recognize that fact means you have to quit being a two citizen-parent Birther. Because you to have to face the fact that the citizenship of the parents has NOTHING to do with those born INSIDE the country. Criminy, if the country’s possession reverts, there goes the citizenship, parents notwithstanding. What, does your parentage change if the country changes hands??? This is not just my opinion.

Here it is again, in Ankeny, citing Wong Kim Ark:

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, 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.

Diogeneslamp has been exposed to all this before. Numerous times. There is no excuse for him not recognizing it.  So, how does he handle this clear conflict between his own evidence and his own beliefs??? Simple. He ignores it and tries to pass it off as the same as Vattel’s definition. Like this:

A. English Common law says if you are born here, you’re NBC, and your PARENTS’ citizenship is irrelevant.


B. Vattel says NBC only occurs when both PARENTS are citizens.


C. They must be the same thing as what Vattel says, because they both mention the word PARENTS.

I don’t think stupid is too harsh a word  to use. Here it is in his own words:

Hmm… It mentions that a person’s Parents must be in Actual Obedience to the King, and it mentions this BEFORE it says anything about where such a subject should be born, establishing the first requirement as the more important of the two, in my opinion.

Wow. This definition of “Natural-born Subject” sounds very much like the Vattel definition of “natural born citizen”! The first thing both definitions mention is “parents.” Loyal Parents. If “parents” aren’t important, why would they be mentioned? This law book was also subsequently owned by John Adam’s son, John Quincy Adams. (Who also became President.)

But, being the legal whiz that he is, Diogeneslamp must realize that the link to Vattel is a little weak. Sooo, how are we supposed to know that John Adams ascribes to the Vattel definition???  Simple. Because Adams stayed with Vattel’s published in France during the Revolutionary War.

Sooo, that is pretty stupid. Ignoring the Wong Kim Ark and the Ankeny Court saying the same thing as is found in John Adams’ book is pretty stupid. Trying to cobble Vattel onto the book in spite of the clearly opposite meaning is pretty stupid. Ignoring your own evidence is pretty stupid. Trying to convince us that Adam’s staying with the publisher is proof of anything is pretty stupid. But you know what is the stupidest thing of all that Diogeneslamp does???

He forgets to check the publishing date of Adams’ personal book on English Common Law – – – which proves to be 1736, or 22 years BEFORE the first publication of Vattel’s Law Of Nations in 1758.  Yes, Diogeneslamp believes, and expects us to believe, that Adams’ book is parroting a definition of citizenship that won’t be written for another 22 years. I could go on.

If somebody made a career of studying Diogeneslamp’s stupidity, I am pretty sure they would need a title like 1000 Shades of Stupid.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Screen Capture: Here is a screen capture of Diogeneslamp’s dribble. You can click on it to make it larger:

Note 2: Here is a link to it. Just scroll down to comment #224:


Note 3. Here’s a link to the 1736 book:


Note 4. the Free Republic ban. Here is a link, with photos, of when the Free Republic Birthers wussied out and ran in panic stricken terror from me:


Note 5: The Image.  This is a 1947 photo of Salvador Dali using a model as a desk.   Photograph by Bob Sandberg, Museum of the City of New York, The LOOK Collection.”  It is rumored that IKEA is working on reproductions.

Florida Birthers Roll Out The Big Legal Gun!!! (Or, Sam Sewell Can’t Count To 2)

When The Matches Wouldn't Light, Quick-Thinking Larry Tried Striking Two Pieces Of Coral Together For A Spark

Sam “Mr. Mensa” Sewell over to The Steady Drip is applauding the fact that Larry Klayman, Esq.has joined the Florida Birther Battle. Here are a few excerpts from the Press Release, and the entire story can be found at the link following:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – :FLORIDA Obama eligibility battle – Larry E. Klayman is jumping in as lead attorney

PRESS RELEASE – March 20, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Iconic public interest attorney Larry E. Klayman is jumping into the long simmering Obama eligibility battle and will  represent clients in Florida and other states to challenge Obama’s inclusion on the ballot .

Larry’s entre into the Obama eligibility lawsuit arena was facilitated by the Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 (OSBC) (obamaballotchallenge.com) organization. The group’s Communications Director, George Miller, said it was necessary to bring in a heavy hitter who knows how to force governments to be accountable.  Sam Sewell is the group’s Florida Project Manager and OSBC Director Pamela Barnett is the California Project Manager.

Sewell stated “An analysis of several national polls on the subject of AKA Barack Obama’s eligibility shows that about half the citizens in American are unsure or don’t believe that he is eligible to be President.  It makes sense that Obama supporters would want the issue settled along with everyone else.  I would conclude that those opposed to releasing all of Obama’s history are frightened of the truth, just like AKA Barack Obama.”

Asked whether he has the goods on Obama, Klayman exclaimed, “Of course!  Others have already gathered what we need, with more in the pipeline. The task at hand is to compel court proof, official acknowledgment and removal from the ballot, as well as present the damning facts about Obama to the court of public opinion.”   Asked what he’ll do to help succeed, he stated: “accurate reading of applicable law, attention to rules of evidence, researching case law, venue selection and use of ‘political theater’ out of court.”  Case: Voeltz v. Obama, et. al.(Case No.: 2012CA00467) and is filed in Leon County Superior Court.


Hmmm.  I think you can translate present the damning facts about Obama to the court of public opinion and use of ‘political theater’ out of court into Larry Klayman, Esq.  plans to make an ass out of himself just like every other Birther lawyer to date.

What Sam Sewell, and the other Birthers, like Dean Haskins, who are down on Orly Taitz, Esq. don’t understand is that their problems in court don’t have much to do with the particular lawyer. It’s their case that sucks.  Sewell has a link in his Internet Article which shows just how badly their case sucks:


In these excerpts, you can see where Sewell stumbles out of the gate:

There are three types of citizenship in theUnited States:

1.   Naturalized Citizen – Born in another country of foreign parents, and completed the naturalization process –
Naturalized Citizens can hold any elected office except President or Vice President.

Example: Former GovernorArnold Alois Schwarzenegger who was born in Austria of Austrian parents and become a Naturalized Citizen.

2.   Native Born Citizen – Born in the United States of foreign parents –

Native Born Citizens can hold any elected office except Vice President or President.

Example one:  Senator Marco Rubio was born in the United States, but his parents were not citizens of the United States at the time of his birth.  

Example two: So called “anchor babies” who are born in the United States and are thus citizens of the United States, but whose parents are not citizens of the United States.

3.   Natural Born Citizen – A Natural Born Citizen is a “second generation American citizen.”  They are the natural offspring of citizen parents, and the history of the Constitutional phrase Natural Born Citizen emphasizes a citizen father.

Only two elected offices have the constitutional requirement of “Natural Born Citizen;” President and Vice President.

  Example:  Citizens born in the United States to two American citizen parents are Natural Born – Both George Bush and Bill Clinton are Natural Born Citizens.

Yes, that is right.  Sam “Mr. Mensa” Sewell is sending Poor Larry Klayman, Esq. right back into the same place as the Birthers who got clobbered in Ankeny v. Governor (2009), to wit:

[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a  “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.

The Ankeny Court did not see it that way:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

The three different types of citizen stuff has lost every time. It will lose again.  And, the Ankeny case continues to rack up Persuasive Authority Brownie Points in case after case.

Perhaps the Birthers do not need a new lawyer. Maybe they just need a new Kindergarten Teacher to help them learn how to count??? With that in mind, I present the following for Sam Sewell and the rest of the Birthers to study up on. Maybe it will save some wear and tear on the brick walls of the nation. And their skulls:

Now, after they realize that “3” is not a Happy Number for the types of citizens, they can study this one!!!

I hope this helps!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

The Outer Limits Of Birtherism (And An Answer To Mario Apuzzo, Esq.)

Not Being Properly Grounded Has Resulted In Many Fantastical Creations

I try to keep up with several Birther Blogs to see if there is anything new under the sun, and I came upon these two comments at Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.’s blog:

(Click on the Image To Make It Larger.)

Here is the link:


First, let me address Texoma’s comment. I  do not ever remember  intentionally not answering this question.  But, if I didn’t, then I apologize.  Here is the answer.  The relevant part of the 14th Amendment has two elements. First, birth within the United States, and second, being born under the jurisdiction thereof. These are the same two elements required for natural born citizenship for those born inside the United States. This makes sense since the 14th Amendment was simply declarative of birthright citizenship. Wong Kim Ark was born after the passage of the 14th Amendment, thus making it applicable to his situation.  The whole reason for discussing natural born citizenship in the case was to lay the foundation for the existing law of which the 14th Amendment was declarative.

Now, to Mario Apuzzo’s comment that I run an Artsy-Fartsy Blog as opposed to a Hard-Hitting Legal Analysis Blog .  This is half true, and I do it intentionally.  Here is why. There is an Outer Limit to two citizen-parent Birtherism. That limit is that Barack Obama must never be considered eligible for the presidency. To accomplish that, the Birthers must argue NOT that jus soli law is no longer reasonable in light of easy global travel, for example. The Birthers must argue NOT that using parentage to determine citizenship is a  better and smarter option than simply relying on place of birth which may be accidental, for example a premature birth while the parents are on vacation.

Any argument that suggests that the current law needs to be changed, also implies that until it is changed, Obama is eligible for the presidency. And, since the definitions are wrapped up in the U.S. Constitution and Amendments, then it will take an amendment to change the law.  That isn’t going to happen before the November 2012 presidential election. This leaves the Birther in a very tight spot.

The Birther must argue that the current state of the law is such that jus soli, place of birth-type natural born citizenship is not really the law, in spite of the language of the 14th Amendment, the holding in Wong Kim Ark (1898), the holding in Ankeny v., Governor (2009), and any other applicable case.  This is why they so desperately mangle the language in Minor v. Happersett (1875.) This is why Mario Apuzzo, and the late Leo Donofrio scrounge back through the history books looking for justification and sound bites. In other words, the Outer Limits of Birtherism confine their options to misrepresentation of the law.

But, that same situation leaves the Anti-Birther and Obot is a very happy spot legally speaking.  We never have to discuss the relative merits of jus soli citizenship vis a vis jus sanguinis  citizenshipAll we ever have to do to defeat a Birther legal argument is throw out a few paragraphs of Wong Kim Ark at them, or maybe Ankeny v. Governor, and we win. The correctness of our position is being confirmed now by numerous courts on a regular basis. To see the fuller extent of these confirmations, see Birther String Cites by tesabria, found here:

Birther String Cites

And, as Anti-Birthers and Obots, we also have the luxury of being short-winded. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. may need to write 50 pages to try to convince someone that Minor v. Happersett defined natural born citizenship. Speaking of that case, the Ankeny Court only needed one sentence to pop that bubble:

Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

To address Apuzzo’s Minor v. Happersett argument, we need only provide the relevant 7 sentences from the case, and that one sentence statement from the Ankeny Court, and it is game, set, and match for our side. No amount of Indian History, or Lion Pride Behavioral Analysis by Apuzzo will defeat it.

And, The Birther Think Tank does its fair share of this type of argument. For example,  in the header area above with the blog title, is one page, “A Place To Get The REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship” which sets out the proper legal standard. There are numerous articles here dealing with Wong Kim Ark, and Minor v. Happersett and other cases.  But remember The Outer Limits of Birtherism– – -the Birthers can not go beyond misrepresentation of the current state of the law lest they admit that Obama is currently eligible for office.

That little nugget of limitations is easily defeated by simply providing the actual law. But what addresses the fact that the misrepresentations are being made in the first place??? Does Mr. Apuzzo imagine that in a courtroom setting, opposing counsel would limit herself or himself to the very proper:

Your Honor, regarding Minor V. Happersett, the Ankeny Court said: “Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”  Thus, the case is clearly not precedent for determining natural born citizenship.

Does Apuzzo not think that the phrase, not necessary to solve these doubts from Minor would be shoved up his rear end sideways by opposing counsel??? Can he not hear:

Your Honor, what part of not necessary to solve these doubts does Mr. Apuzzo not get??? What part of doubts don’t he understand???

These are some of the things I point out in an Artsy-Fartsy fashion. For example, I did a parody song called “What Part of Doubts Don’t you Understand??? Here are 2 verses”:

What part of “Doubts,” don’t you understand?
This Minor v. Happersett stuff’s, getting out of hand.
They left the issue open, let’s put out these flames you’ve fanned.
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?

I appreciate your audience, wants a miracle.
But your logic is so screwy. . . (Is it satirical???)
You need a good scrubbing because you got unclean hands.
What part of “Doubts” don’t you understand?


I could have simply repeated the words of the Ankeny Court above, but that gets boring after a while. And, it doesn’t really address the manipulative and intentionally ignorant mindset behind that particular Birther argument. Plus, it gives the non-legally astute reader something that is easier to grasp.

Sooo, yes Mario Apuzzo,  my blog is artsy-fartsy. But I think that only makes it more dangerous to the Birthers. Because I don’t just come at you with the dry legal stuff.  I come at you with an understanding of where you are going, what you are trying to do, and why you are trying to do it.  Art is really good at expressing stuff like that.

I just hope that I am doing justice to the Arts.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from The Outer Limits episode, Behold, Eck! from 1964. Wiki has a very good Internet Article about it:


Note 2: Minor v. Happersett.  The Birthers claim that the indented sentences from the case define natural born citizenship. People who can read English notice the part from the Ankeny Case that I have bolded:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

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. 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.

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12