Tag Archives: Apuzzo

He Says Apuzzo, I Say A PAZZO!!!

la bete

Apuzzo Was Pretty Sure This Wasn’t A French Poodle

First, why do I say a “PAZZO”??? In Italian, “pazzo” as a noun means a madman, lunatic, or bedlamite. As a phrase, “pazzo” means “off one’s rocker.” Some of the adjectival meanings are even more fun, including, but not limited to, “moony” and “batty.” If you don’t believe me, there is a Google Translate screenshot, redacted for sizing, at Note 2. below:

Next, I need to explain why I prefer the Apazzo  pronunciation and spelling. Here is a link to his latest bit of drooling:


Once again he dives head first into a four inch deep pool of Aristotelian Logic to critique one, Bob Quasius of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.”


The purpose of this article is not to discuss all that is substantively incorrect with Apuzzo’s argument. I will save that for a future post.  To show the problems with his logic it is only necessary to lift the legal covers enough to properly frame the issue.  Since Poor Mario spends a lot of time jumping up and down about an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett, let’s use it to set the stage:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

It is clear that the Minor Court views citizenship as natural born versus naturalized, since by 1875  most of those alive 88 years earlier on September 17, 1787 had died.  What really wads up Apuzzo’s pantaloons is this statement from the 2011 Maskell Congressional Research Service  memorandum, wherein the :

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,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”  In this memo, he also added:  “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.

See the Natural Born Citizenship link in the website header above for the entire memo.  All that Maskell says is that most legal authorities think if you are a citizen at birth, then you are a natural born citizen. The Minor Court seemed to adopt the same view. That is a logical conclusion since the whole purpose for such laws in the first place was the desire of Congress (or before Congress, English kings and English parliaments) to extend the same rights of citizenship to those Americans born overseas as they would have had if they had been born inside the country. I would feel comfortable making that argument in court.

To attack this conclusion Apuzzo resorts once again to the FORMS and STRUCTURES of logical arguments. Here is what he does:

First, as to the formal logical fallacy, let us break down what Maskell and Quasius actually said into its logical form.  I will use the following symbols:  Natural born Citizen=NBC, and Citizen at birth=CAB

All NBCs are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen” mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

First, it is a tautology to argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen.  Second, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (affirming that one is a CAB does not prove that one is a NBC).  Third, this argument suffers from fallacy in that it violates the rule of the undistributed middle (the middle term CABs is not distributed in either the major or minor premise meaning the term has not been defined as belonging or not belonging within the class of NBCs).  So, while the major and minor premises are both true, the conclusion, which equates a CAB to a NBC is false.  We should see intuitively that the conclusion does not follow from the two premises.  An easy way to see the invalidity of the argument is the following:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or some other type of dog.

Poodles??? The first thing that Apuzzo screws up is the form of such statements which is usually. Any undistributed middle is by his own hand.  Let us obtain the proper logical FORM from here:


A properly constructed syllogism consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The conclusion has a subject (S) and a predicate (P) which are derived from the premises. The major premise addresses the predicate, the minor premise addresses the subject and the two premises share a minor (or middle) term (M) which connects them. For example:

Major premise:  All M are P.

Minor premise: All S are M.

Conclusion:        All S are P.

Let’s compare this with Apuzzo’s form!  Let M = poodles, P = dogs,  S=Bubbles

                          Proper Logical Form         Apuzzo Logical Form

Major Premise        All M are P                             All M are P
Minor Premise       All S are M                              All S are P
Conclusion              All S are P                               All P are M

Major Premise       All poodles are dogs              All poodles are dogs
Minor Premise       Bubbles is a poodle               Bubbles is a dog
Conclusion              Bubbles is a dog                     Bubbles is a poodle

Properly executed, you discover that Bubbles is both a poodle and a dog.  In Mario Universe, assuming that Bubbles is a pit bull,  then you end up giving a small child a pit bull for Christmas.  But, even if Bubbles were a poodle, it would simply be a lucky guess because of the FORM.  Apuzzo’s form is logically invalid and can not be relied upon to provide true answers.

Now, lets assume that Apuzzo is wrong about CABs and NBCs and that they are both exactly the same thing as believed by Maskell and the Great Weight of Legal and Historical Authority. Then let’s put the matter to the logic test in proper logical form:

Major premise:       All NBCs are CABs
Minor premise:      Cruz is an NBC
Conclusion:             Therefore, Cruz is a CAB

Major premise:       All CABs are NBCs
Minor premise:       Cruz is a CAB
Conclusion:              Therefore, Cruz is an NBC.

Yes, I can live with either conclusion. Neither strikes me as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue. It would all depend on the truthfulness of the premises. For example, if a court ruled that all CAB are NOT NBC’s, then Cruz may or may not be an NBC. Which brings you to the second big problem with Apuzzo’s whole approach to this thing. Which is, his whole approach to this thing.

Not only was his logical form screwed up, but the entire process of using syllogisms to provide an answer or enlightenment in this case is logically of little probative value.  That is because it is the major premises themselves which are at issue. Are all natural born citizens also citizens at birth? Are all citizens at birth natural born citizens?  If the major premise is incorrect, then the correctness of any  conclusion arrived at as a result of that error would fall into the Lucky Guess category. Amazingly, Apuzzo gets to this exact same point when he says:

Second, now let us examine the informal fallacy of the Maskell/Quasius statement.  Now we will test the truth of the major and minor premises of the argument.  To do that, we need to help Maskell and Quasius a little by converting their invalid argument into a valid one.  Here we go:

All CABs are NBCs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

This argument is valid because if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true.  But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound, meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false.  This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound because its major premise is false.

Yeah. Duh. If one’s major premise is screwed up, the conclusion may or may not be screwed up, but one is logically incapable of determining that fact from the form of the argument itself.  One can construct valid arguments based on false premises and resulting in silly or sane conclusions all day long and end up nowhere. Sooo, what does Mario Apazzo, Esq. do after reaching this state of enlightenment???

Does he say to himself, “Well, CRAP!  This process is getting me nowhere fast. Maybe I need to do a re-write because whatever I syllogism out is going to be totally dependent on the truth of the premises  the person uses. Which is what we’re all fussing about in the first place. Back to the drawing board!”

OH Hell No!!! He goes on to construct a whole new set of major and minor premises and starts syllogizing all over again.  He isn’t destroying Maskell or  Quasius with LOGIC. . . He admitted  himself that using logical forms doesn’t work unless one accepts the underlying premises. So all he is doing is just spouting off his opinion and glossing it over with some if, thens, equals, and therefores like he is Mr. Logic or something.

He’s PAZZO for doing it, PAZZO for doing it wrong, and PAZZO for thinking nobody would notice.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Also see this from Wiki:


Note 2: Pazzo, in translation:

pazzo translate

Note 3. The Image. This is La Bete, the Beast, from the French film, La Belle et La Bete (1946). This is an absolutely beautiful and fantastic film and if you have never seen it, please remedy that. Here is a little about it from Wiki:

Beauty and the Beast (French: La Belle et la Bête) is a 1946 French romantic fantasy film adaptation of the traditional fairy tale of the same name, written by Jeanne-Marie Le Prince de Beaumont and published in 1757 as part of a fairy tale anthology (Le Magasin des Enfants, ou Dialogues entre une sage gouvernante et ses élèves, London 1757). Directed by French poet and filmmaker Jean Cocteau, the film stars Josette Day as Belle and Jean Marais.

The plot of Cocteau’s film revolves around Belle’s father who is sentenced to death for picking a rose from Beast’s garden. Belle offers to go back to the Beast in her father’s place. Beast falls in love with her and proposes marriage on a nightly basis which she refuses. Belle eventually becomes more drawn to Beast, who tests her by letting her return home to her family and telling her that if she doesn’t return to him within a week, he will die of grief.

Upon the film’s December 1947 New York City release, critic Bosley Crowther called the film a “priceless fabric of subtle images,…a fabric of gorgeous visual metaphors, of undulating movements and rhythmic pace, of hypnotic sounds and music, of casually congealing ideas”; according to Crowther, “the dialogue, in French, is spare and simple, with the story largely told in pantomime, and the music of Georges Auric accompanies the dreamy, fitful moods. The settings are likewise expressive, many of the exteriors having been filmed for rare architectural vignettes at Raray, one of the most beautiful palaces and parks in all France. And the costumes, too, by Christian Bérard and Escoffier, are exquisite affairs, glittering and imaginative.”[2] According to Time magazine, the film is a “wondrous spectacle for children of any language, and quite a treat for their parents, too”; but the magazine concludes “Cocteau makes about a half-hour too much of a good thing—and few things pall like a dream that cannot be shaken off.”[3]

In 1999, Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert added the film to his “Great Movies” list, calling it “one of the most magical of all films” and a “fantasy alive with trick shots and astonishing effects, giving us a Beast who is lonely like a man and misunderstood like an animal.”[4] A 2002 Village Voice review found the film’s “visual opulence” “both appealing and problematic”, saying “Full of baroque interiors, elegant costumes, and overwrought jewelry (even tears turn to diamonds), the film is all surface, and undermines its own don’t-trust-a-pretty-face and anti-greed themes at every turn.”[5] In 2010, the film was ranked #26 in Empire magazine’s “100 Best Films of World Cinema”.[6]


This also explains the Image Easter egg.

Looking Into The Abyss


Deputy Zullo Was Convinced The Real Long Form Was Down There, At The Bottom Of Mauna Loa

One of Friedrich Nietzschze’s most remembered quotes is Aphorism 146 from Beyond Good And Evil:

Wer mit Schwachsinnige kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Schwachsinnige wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.

Translation: He who fights with idiots might take care lest he thereby becomes an idiot. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

Or something like that.

On a personal level I realized last October that this had happened to me.  I had fought so long and so often with Birthers, that I slipped into my own form of idiocy. I mean, what else do you say about a person who woke up each morning and rushed to read the lastest dribble over at ObamaReleaseYourRecords, or Orly Taitz’s Madhouse??? Do sane people give a hoot what some clown like Deputy Zullo claims? Do sane and mentally healthy people engage  in arguments with clodhoppers like Tracy Fair (aka KenyanBornObamAcorn)???

Here I was knocking out 3 to 4 posts a day sometimes. I must have been mad! Is it not some sort of bizarre obsession when a person tries to convince a Mario Apuzzo, Esq. or edge919 of the error of their ways? Or even worse, does a non-masochistic person dare read the scribblings of Butterdezillion??? She evokes images of H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu Mythos wherein Butterdezillion plays the role of Abdul Alhazrad, the Mad Arab, and all who read her words are driven to suicide or insanity.

So, anyway I took a long break. I knew that I was cured when I could no longer remember the name of the goofy navy guy who was Apuzzo’s client. BTW, which means “by the way”, “Apuzzo” is a name which would fit nicely into a Lovecraft setting. Maybe something  like this:

The Old One was named Apuzzo, a hideous giant toad-slug hybrid which slithered and slurped it way down the ivied wall of Miskatonic University’s legal library, taking its own sweet time and devouring some random tidbit from each legal tome, and then regurgitating the digested words in a vomitous mulch, random and meaningless and . . .

Oops, I digress. Anyway, today, knowing that I was once again mentally healthy, I looked up Apuzzo’s blog and found the missing name which my mind had hidden away in an effort to protect my sanity – – –Kerchner! So, I will sally forth (or should it be Squeeky forth???) once again into the breach. This time I will restrict myself to one post per day or less.  And I will get exercise. And eat plenty of vegetables.

Sooo, have I missed anything???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Apuzzo Resurfaces In Vermont!!! (Or, The Un-Champ Monster)

When Uncas Heard A Big Snake Was Coming To Town, He Mistakenly Went Down To Lake Champlain

Well, unable to make any headway in the bigger states, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. decided to resurface in poor little Vermont. For those of you who do not know where Vermont is, it is one of the light blue spaces on the Monopoly Board row as Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues, but before you get to Jail. Apuzzo has been rather quiet since losing his last case in New Jersey.

I hear Vermont is nice this time of year. It even has its very own lake monster, Champ.  Here is an excerpt from The Burlington Free Press:

The losing candidate in last month’s Republican U.S. Senate primary has filed a 40-page lawsuit claiming President Barack Obama is ineligible to seek the White House and demanding his name be removed from Vermont’s election ballot.

PDF: Brooke Paige’s complaint

PDF: Attachments to the complaint

The lawsuit, filed by Washington, Vt., resident H. Brooke Paige, names Obama, the state of Vermont and Secretary of State James Condos as defendants. Condos, a Democrat, is named because he is the state’s top election official.

Paige’s lawsuit indicates that it was prepared by Mario Apuzzo, a Jamesburg, N.J., lawyer who has filed a similar action in that state.

Apuzzo, however, is not licensed to practice law in Vermont. Paige said he was unable to enlist a Vermont lawyer to represent his claims, so he plans to represent himself when the case is argued in court and have Apuzzo there as an advisor.

Burlington Free Press Article -Former GOP Senate candidate sues to get Obama off Vermont ballot over birth eligibility?

Having never won a Birther case, it is a pretty good bet Apuzzo will lose this one, too. He is kind of like a counterpoint to Lake Champlain’s “Champ” monster.  Apuzzo is the “Un-Champ.”

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from a really cool “Champ“, the American Loch Ness Monster,  page, where you also find this:

Reports of the monster start showing up in newspapers around 1873. According to a story in the New York Times, a railroad work crew was laying track near Dresden, New York, when they saw the head of an “enormous serpent” emerge from the water. After a moment of paralyzing shock, the workmen ran away. The creature, in turn, swam away. Witnesses reported that the animal had bright, silver-like scales that glistened in the sun. The article said, “The appearance of his head was round and flat, with a hood spreading out from the lower part of it like a rubber cap often worn by mariners.”

In August of that same year, a small steamship loaded with tourists, allegedly struck the creature and nearly turned over. According to newspaper accounts, the head and neck of the animal were sighted afterward about a 100 feet from the ship.

As the fame of Champ grew, showman P.T. Barnum posted a $50,000 reward for the “hide of the great Champlain serpent to add to my mammoth World’s Fair Show.”

All the reports of this era seem to picture the creature as a long serpent with an arched back and a broad, flat tail. In modern times there have also been similar reports about Champ. In 1970 the creature was reported spotted by two independent witnesses traveling on a ferry across the lake. Richard Spear, one witness, said the animal was “dark brownish-olive” in color with “the size and shape of a barrel in cross-section.” The other witness said the creature appeared to be “a large snakelike creature, swimming with its head above water, held as snakes do, with coils behind.”


Note 2: The Image Easter Egg. KAUSEKHOIKEH KSCHACHTEU!!! This is the best I can do to say “Holy Smoke!” in Mohican. Here is the source I used:


Venn People Talk In Circles

It's Getting Pretty Easy To See Through The Birthers

CDR Kerchner created a new handout a few months ago with a Venn Diagram in it. Kerchner seem to very proud of it, and particularly the Venn Diagram. I have been seeing this idiotic flyer all over the Internet, and figured it was time to discuss it. First, what is a Venn Diagram? Wiki says:

Venn diagrams normally comprise overlapping circles. The interior of the circle symbolically represents the elements of the set, while the exterior represents elements that are not members of the set. For instance, in a two-set Venn diagram, one circle may represent the group of all wooden objects, while another circle may represent the set of all tables. The overlapping area or intersection would then represent the set of all wooden tables. Shapes other than circles can be employed as shown below by Venn’s own higher set diagrams. Venn diagrams do not generally contain information on the relative or absolute sizes (cardinality) of sets; i.e. they are schematic diagrams.

Sooo, Venn Diagrams are more about the relationship between groups of things. Luckily, there is not any hard type math involved and this stuff is pretty much just about logic. Venn Diagrams are not necessarily proof of anything. If you had two circles, and one circle represented houses and the other circle represented cows, and they were drawn to where the two circles intersected, then somebody needs to call a veterinarian real quick. So, with that being said, let’s look at Kerchner’s Venn Diagram from this better copy I found:

Kerchner, and his attorney, Mario Apuzzo, Esq., believe that natural born citizenship is the intersection of the red circle representing the two citizen parents, and the green circle representing the place of birth. Those born to two citizen parents and within the United States are the blue natural born citizens.

This is a very accurate representation of the two citizen-parents Birthers‘ theory, but is it an accurate representation of legal reality as found in the laws, records, and Constitution of the United States of America??? Of course not. 

In Wong Kim Ark (1898) and in Ankeny v. Governor (2009), which cites WKA, we find:

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 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.

And, born in the allegiance meant:

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.13

Thus, Kerchner’s red circle is an imaginary circle. Two citizen-parents are  simply not required for those born within the United States. The only parental requirement is that the parents be neither diplomats nor invading soldiers. The parentage  red circle is a figment of Kerchner’s imagination. This is why the Birthers keep losing in court. Venn will they ever learn???

There are other problems with Kerchner’s Diagram which relate to children born overseas of American citizens. As the Ankeny Court noted:

We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

Generally, Congress has the constitutional power to define who shall be a citizen at birth for those born overseas.  But, since Obama, Rubio, and Jindal were all born within the United States, there is no urgent need to address that issue.  But a question that does arise is, what would a realistic Venn Diagram look like??? Here is my submission, with the area inside the box consisting of all citizens. A and B are citizens at birth, or natural born citizens:

(Click on Image to make it larger.)

You know, this stuff is kind of fun! Let me try one more:

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image.  This is Bond of Union (1956) by M.C. Escher.

Note 2. Kerchner’s Masterpiece. The entire flyer maybe found here:


The Apuzzo Brief – The Speeder’s Digest Condensed Version

Well, Somebody Had To Clean Up All The Water The Brief Didn't Hold

Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.  just filed a 199 page single-spaced brief in the Pennsylvania eligibility suit, Kerchner/Laudenslager v. Obama.  Well, for your entertainment, amusement, and overall mental health, I prepared this Speeder’s Digest Condensed Version. I call it that because you can speed right on through this and not spend all those mind-numbing hours.  Plus,  I call it Speeder’s Digest because Reader’s Digest would have probably pulled some SOPA Stuff on me if I had borrowed their name.

Anyway, there is a whole lot of water in this Brief and the biggest criticism I offer is the excessive lengthI do some legal typing for my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, and this brief could benefit from some heavy duty editing and re-organization for easier reading and comprehension.  As far as the content, those of us who follow this issue have seen all of these arguments, or some incarnation thereof, numerous times.  However, Apuzzo has managed to gather them all into one big document. I suspect this Brief will be re-titled The Birther Manifesto at some point in the future. Here are the main arguments and points:

1. The Founders were really, really scairt of FOREIGN INFLUENCE.

2. Natural born citizens are NOT the same as citizens at birth or citizens by operation of the 14th Amendment.

3. Sooo, therefore a natural born citizen is what the Founders thought it was.

4. Which to them, would have meant somebody born of two citizen parents.

5. They would have gotten this concept from Natural Law, Vattel,  The Bible,  lions, Indian tribes, Whigs, Ancient Greeks and Romans, and some guy named Quintilianus;

6. And also by translating terms and phrases back and forth between French, Latin and Greek a few times for good measure.

7. Plus, the Minor v. Happersett Court said there were doubts whether kids born here of foreigners were citizens, so there should certainly  be doubts about them being natural born citizens.

8. The Founders did not look to English Common Law to define natural born citizenship.

9.  And anyway, natural born citizens are not the same as natural born subjects.

10. Plus, there was the  James McClure Case,  and since he was born around the time of The American Revolution, this shows how the Founders viewed this issue.

Aside: Apuzzo Shouts out to Freeper Rxsid and Leo Donofrio!!!

11. Just ignore the Wong Kim Ark stuff because that court had it all wrong.

12. Vattel’s The Law of Nations was a very important book, and it was used as a reference  a lot back in those days.

Aside: YEAH!!! On page 68, Apuzzo uses my “Swiss guy” language!!! Plus, I see Apuzzo shadowboxing some other arguments from my Internet Article here, “A Place To Get The REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship.”

13. Indigenes means “natural born” in French.

14.  Vattel and his book were very popular with the Founders.

15. Some Saint, named George Tucker, thought you should be able to quit being a citizen if you wanted to.

16. The Ankeny Court  was wrong in 2009 , and so was the Lynch v. Clarke Court back in 1844.

17. There are some cases which back up the Natural Law Definition, including Venus Case (1814) , The Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor Case (1830), the Shanks Dupont Case (1830) and Dred Scott (1847) (which earns an extra Rictal Scale point!)

18.  Some speeches by Congressmen, legal articles, legal dictionaries, and Jefferson’s Citizenship Statutes back up the two citizen parent theory.

19.  Naturalization Statutes and The James McClure case (again) back up the two citizen parent/natural law theory.

20. The 14th Amendment didn’t do nothing, vis a vis natural born citizenship, and several SCOTUS cases proved it.

21. Minor v. Happersett.  Minor v. Happersett. Minor v. Happersett. Minor v. Happersett. Minor v. Happersett.

Aside:  An extraneous discourse on lactation and coconuts??? With something cut and pasted from the comments section of his blog??? (Who is the  “Your” he is referring to???) (Page 138-139)

22. Contrary to popular belief, the Wong Kim Ark case affirmed Minor’s two citizen parent theory, and distinguished between a 14th Amendment born citizen and an Article II natural born citizen.

23. Being European, Emer Vattel realized it took both a man and a woman to make a baby.

24. There are a couple of cases that the Obama Enablers cite to show Obama is a natural born citizen, including Calvin’s CaseLynch v. Clarke (1844), Kwock v. White (1920), and Ankeny v. Governor (2009).

25. Obama still has to prove he was born in the United States, but even if he does, he can’t prove he was born to two citizen parents, plus he is British, to boot.

Well, that is pretty much a run down of The Apuzzo Brief.  Even in this condensed version the repetition is obvious. All in all, the Brief is well written as far as grammar and syntax. It far surpasses wussy Leo Donofrio’s recent 209 page Brief, of which 3/4 are photocopied attachments.  Apuzzo did not stoop to photocopy filler. Or even double-spacing. Say what you will, Apuzzo manned up.

Parts of the Brief are actually interesting.  As far as legal ooomph, there isn’t much. Apuzzo just can’t twist Minor v. Happersett into positively saying what he wants it to say, although he does make a Herculean effort. Conclusions and rationalizations about what the Founders meant by natural born citizen do not negate the precedental value of Wong Kim Ark.  But, unlike the Ankeny Birthers, Apuzzo does meet the issue head on and he doesn’t try to ignore the case altogether.

I do not believe the Apuzzo Brief was written for lawyers, judges and courts. It is far too long, and there is way too much irrelevancy and conclusory reasoning.  For example, Apuzzo knows that Quintilianus doesn’t trump Coke or English Common Law. All that stuff,  and all the multi-lingual translational quips are meant for the Birther Hordes, who hunger for copy and paste material with which to clobber the smart-alecky Obots and Anti-Birthers out there on the Intertubz. Apuzzo has given them their money’s worth, with 199 pages of single-spaced legal jargon cum Birther sound bites.

For Apuzzo, this may very well prove to be a wise move and if he can continue to push the Constitutional Article II Expert appellation, I predict this will serve to repair some of his damaged legal credibility. This is not because of any brilliant legal insight, but because of his move from practical reality-based law toward the realm of ersatz academic law. Think about it. A law professor who writes a paper on why we should not enslave killer whales is considered trendy, if eccentric.  He will be invited to give speeches. The working lawyer who actually sues Sea World on behalf of Shamu just gets 12(b)6’ed while his friends snicker and make the crazy horizontal rotating finger sign behind his back.

Like I said above, prepare to see this Brief come out in book form with the title, The Birther Manifesto.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image.  This is from Disney’s Fantasia, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice vignette. Disney’s tale is based on Goethe’s Zauberlehrling, about which Wiki says:

The poem begins as an old sorcerer departs his workshop, leaving his apprentice with chores to perform. Tired of fetching water by pail, the apprentice enchants a broom to do the work for him — using magic in which he is not yet fully trained. The floor is soon awash with water, and the apprentice realizes that he cannot stop the broom because he does not know how.

Not knowing how to control the enchanted broom, the apprentice splits it in two with an axe, but each of the pieces becomes a new broom and takes up a pail and continues fetching water, now at twice the speed. When all seems lost, the old sorcerer returns, quickly breaks the spell and saves the day. The poem finishes with the old sorcerer’s statement that powerful spirits should only be called by the master himself.

It is generally presumed that the story embodies some maxim or moral, and that it is something along the lines of “don’t meddle with things you don’t understand.

If you are interested in the original poem, see here:


Note 2. Not Hold Water.  The idiom means not standing up to critical examination,  or not being sound and valid, as in “This argument just won’t hold water“, or “Her reasons for quitting don’t hold water.” This negative form of the metaphoric expression alludes to a container that can not hold water without leaking. [c. 1600]

The Apuzzo Brief – Paper to Raise Whelps With

Poor Boomer Was Confuzzled. This Paper Already Had A Bad Smell To It.

OH, did I ever call this one or not!!! Last night I predicted in the  On Viewing Apuzzo As A Court Jester Internet Article, that Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. would litter the court with paper. Well, LO AND BEHOLD, he is in the case like one day and here it is. The Mario Apuzzo 200 Page Eligibility Brief:

Apuzzo’s Not-So-Brief Brief

It can be found here, if you want a fresh copy, or to check for other documents:


I was originally going to use this picture as the image, with the same title, Paper To Raise Whelps With, but I decided to keep it clean. Plus, there word issues as described in Note 1, below:

After You Read Each Page, You Will Say, "Thank You Mistress! One More Please!!!"

Sooo, I am going to start telling myself that this isn’t going to hurt, and Apuzzo is a Court Jester, . . . page 1. . .


Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Whelps. This word is usually used to mean

whelp (hwelp, welp)
1. A young offspring of a mammal, such as a dog or wolf.
a. A child; a youth.
b. An impudent young fellow.
a. A tooth of a sprocket wheel.
b. Nautical Any of the ridges on the barrel of a windlass or capstan.

But I have also heard the word whelp used to mean the red marks that get raised after a switching, or after some kind of skin abrasion. The “h” was usually silent, and it was definitely a “p” and not a “t” sound as in welts. I looked the word up in this context, but can not find it anywhere except a few places in an anecdotal sense, such as the red whelps from bug bites. I distinctly remember my Grandmother saying “Squeeky, you better straighten up and quit being so mean or I am going to take a switch and raise whelps all over them little legs of yours!!!”

Perhaps it is just a Texas colloquialism??? I called my Mother to double check and she said that she often heard the word too, and not just from family members.  There may also be a nautical root for the word, since it refers to ridges, as can be seen in the picture on page 3 here:


You will just have to trust me on this one.

Note 2. Idiom, Going to the dogs. In the Easter Egg for the Image above. It means:

go to the dogs

to become worse in quality or character go to hell (in a handbasket) He was a marvelous actor, but his drinking problems caused his career to go to the dogs. It is sad to report that this once first-class hotel has gone to the dogs.

On Viewing Mario Apuzzo As A Court Jester

The Lummox With The Flummox Is The Crank With A Prank, The Yank With The Rank Has The Bag With The Swag

Well, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.,  (aka The Lummox With The Flummox) has gotten up off the Birther Bench and entered the fray as CDR Kerchner’s new attorney.  The story is reported at ObamaReleaseYourRecords here:


In the Internet Article above by CDR Kerchner (aka The Yank With The Rank), we learn that Mr. Apuzzo is now a Constitutional Article II Expert!!! Somebody must have forgotten to tell the various courts that fact, as Mr. Apuzzo’s legal theories have been bounced out of court time after time.

It is not anticipated that Mr. Apuzzo’s entry into this matter will make much difference to either the courts, or to people,  here in the United States.  However, trees across the country are hunkering down in terrorem, knowing that many of them will soon find themselves converted to paper, covered in Apuzzoisms, and subsequently tossed into trash cans and the bottoms of bird cages.

Dr. Conspiracy of Obama Conspiracy Theories is many steps ahead of me and has already read the case. He reports that it avoids the birth certificate questions entirely, which leads me to suspect it is all two citizen parent nonsense, served up in a greasy roux of Minor v. Happersett lard.


I will probably remain behind on future pleadings in this case. I must confess that I have a certain reluctance to read Apuzzo’s Opuses. They are always long and tedious, and when you get through reading them, you realize that 900 pages  were devoted to supplemental confusion designed to augment his initial  Minor v. Happersett misinterpretation. Frankly, there is just not much Apuzzo or anybody can ever say to make me misunderstand the words, not necessary for us to resolve these doubts. Except maybe with  Rohypnol, which I understand lowers one’s resistance to bad suggestions.

Sooo, in order to do Mr. Apuzzo justice, I have decided to embark on a course of self-hypnosis to train myself to see him, not as a serious lawyer advocating a ludicrous position, but instead as a Court Jester performing his obligatory  high jinks.  About Court Jesters, Wiki says:

In ancient times courts employed fools and by the Middle Ages the jester was a familiar figure. In Renaissance times, aristocratic households in Britain employed licensed fools or jesters, who sometimes dressed as other servants were dressed, but generally wore a motley (i.e. parti-coloured) coat, hood with ass’s (i.e. donkey) ears or a red-flannel coxcomb and bells. Regarded as pets or mascots, they served not simply to amuse but to criticise their master or mistress and their guests. Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1558-1603) is said to have rebuked one of her fools for being insufficiently severe with her. Excessive behaviour, however, could lead to a fool being whipped, as Lear threatens to whip his fool.

One may conceptualize fools in two camps: those of the natural fool type and those of the licensed fool type. Whereas the natural fool was seen as innately nit-witted, moronic, or mad, the licensed fool was given leeway by permission of the court. In other words, both were excused, to some extent, for their behavior, the first because he “couldn’t help it,” and the second by decree.

I believe that viewing Mario Apuzzo in such a fashion, as a court licensed fool,  will help me judge his conduct in a less severe light. Instead of doubling over in pain as I read his missives, perhaps I can learn to double over in laughter.  If I can only learn to view his absurdist legal theories as High Farce, perhaps I can wade though them more easily. It is certainly worth a try.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The Lummox With The Flummox, etc. This is a take off on The Vessel With The Pestle routine found in Danny Kaye’s The Court Jester (1956). This was on TCM recently and I laughed until I cried. Here is a youtube video of the duel between Kaye’s character and Sir Griswold:

Coincidentally, there is some confusion as to the actual identity of a young king in this film. As far as The Lummox with the Flummox, just try saying those lines above a few times without reading them.  I can not without clanking and branking.

Note 2. Lummox and Flummox. These are not Dr. Seuss words.


noun /ˈləməks/
lummoxes, plural

1. A clumsy, stupid person
* – watch it, you great lummox!

* lout: an awkward stupid person

* stupid, clumsy, foolish or incompetent person.


verb /ˈfləməks/
flummoxed, past participle; flummoxed, past tense; flummoxes, 3rd person singular present; flummoxing, present participle

1. Perplex (someone) greatly; bewilder

* – he was completely flummoxed by the question

* To confuse; to fluster; to flabbergast

Note 3. Hunkering.  There is more to hunkering than I ever knew.  Wiki says about hunkerin’, in part:

Hunkerin’ (hunkering) is where a person sits on the balls of their feet in a squatting position. It is common worldwide, but briefly became an American fad in the late 1950s.

Hunkerin’ had been in use in many cultures, particularly in Asia, for centuries when it suddenly became a fad in the United States in 1959. Time reported that the craze started at the University of Arkansas when a shortage of chairs at a fraternity house led students to imitate their Ozark forefathers, who hunkered regularly.

While the word “hunkerin'” is believed to originate from the Scots word for “haunches”, claims were made for Yorkshire, Korea and Japan. The fad spread first to Missouri, Mississippi and Oklahoma, then across the U.S. While males were the predominant hunkerers, it was reported that female hunkerers were welcomed. Within months, regional hunkerin’ competitions were being held to discover champion hunkerers.

Considered by authorities as preferable to the craze of the previous year, phonebooth stuffing, people hunkered for hours on car roofs, in phone booths and wherever people gathered. Life referred to it as “sociable squatting”. Different styles of hunkerin’ were reported as “sophisticates” tended to hunker flatfooted while others hunkered with their elbows inside the knees.

There is more at this link:


Note 4: not necessary for us to resolve these doubts. Those inscrutable words from Minor v. Happersett which Birthers magically transform to mean, Yippee! They resolved the doubts!!!

Corsi, The Hatchet Man, Gets The Axe!!! (Some Legal Advice)

In A Previous Existence, Corsi Was A Lumberjack In A Pulp Wood Factory

Jerome Corsi, PhD., the Birther Agent Provacateur Extraordinaire, got canned from his day job as senior managing director at investment firm, Gilford Securities. He has been employed by the firm since 2010. Corsi complains that he was fired for working on a money-laundering story for World Net Daily, where he is employed in a part time capacity as a writer and assistant janitor.

Corsi said that Gilford notified him Monday that it would file a U-5 form with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, to deregister him from the firm due to “corporate reorganization.”


Time will tell who is telling the truth on this matter, and personally, I wonder whether  he was perhaps sent packing for being a nut. I mean the guy is into all this Obama birth certificate and two citizen-parent Birfer stuff, 9/11 truther stuff, abiotic oil stuff,  and New World Order stuff. I don’t know about the last two of those, but I think I am on firm ground that being a 9/11 Trufer-Birfer is indicative of a strong delusional streak. The kind of delusional thinking that causes people to bet the bank on European Sovereign Debt, and the pet.com sock puppet.  Delusions are not good things in the investment business.

But what I really wanted to do in this Internet Article was to give some legal advice to Corsi.  He is going to have to hire attorneys to help him through this, and I suggest that he hire the Dream Team of  Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo, and Leo Donofrio. I am not being sarcastic or anything.

Orly Taitz is nothing, if not a fighter as proven by the number of appeals she files. Leo Donofrio seems to be under-employed and could use the money to pay off some sanctions. He has plenty of time to research the issues, and is not afraid of going all the way back to 1785 to find legal precedents to overturn 1898 SCOTUS cases.  I mean, you just don’t find that kind of dedication every day.  Mario Apuzzo is located right there in New Jersey, so it is just a hop, skip, and a jump over to the Wall Street District for court and depositions and stuff.

Corsi obviously trusts their legal acumen, preferring their legal analysis to the 99.9999% of attorneys who think Obama is a natural born citizen and wonder what all the fuss is about. Corsi and World Net Daily constantly trumpet the findings of each of these attorneys, and you just know they would never do that unless they were really impressed with their legal abilities and talents.

It is true, that none of these three has any securities law background, but a lack of background did not stop them from diving into all this Birther stuff  and coming up with all sorts of new insights that eluded the Brand Name Attorneys and White Shoe Law Firms .  I mean, did Hillary Clinton’s legal advisers realize that Minor v. Happersett was the precedent for determining natural born citizenship??? No. That was Leo Donofrio who discovered that, and Hillary Clinton would be president now if she had been properly advised that Obama was not eligible for the presidency.

Mario Apuzzo is no legal slouch either, and his seminal works on the influence of Emerich de Vattel and French law upon the development of  American Law even escaped the like of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who foolishly thought it was the English who provided the foundation. Orly Taitz has single-handedly over-turned the outdated twin concepts of judicial immunity and judicial respect, which have long allowed judges in this country to make unpopular decisions with impunity. She has introduced a whole new generation of lawyers to her Moldavan Krav Maga Method of Litigation.

Sooo, in conclusion, I think Jerome Corsi should put them all on his payroll ASAP before Gilford Investments hires them out from under him.  I mean if these lawyers are good enough for Jerome Corsi and World Net Daily to push on the rest  of us,  shouldn’t they be good enough for Corsi???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Moldavan Krav Maga Method of Litigation. This approach to litigation, with its emphasis on brutality, no rules, and a no frills street fighting efficiency, is based on the Krav Maga fighting method. Wiki says:

Krav Maga  /krɑːv məˈɡɑː/ (Hebrew: קרב מגע‎ [ˈkʁav maˈɡa], lit. “contact combat”) is a noncompetitive eclectic self-defense system developed in Israel that involves striking techniques, wrestling and grappling. Krav Maga is known for its focus on real-world situations and extremely efficient, brutal counter-attacks. It was derived from street-fighting skills developed by Imi Lichtenfeld, who made use of his training as a boxer and wrestler, as a means of defending the Jewish quarter against fascist groups in Bratislava in the mid-to-late 1930s. In the late-1940s, following his immigration to Israel, he began to provide lessons on combat training to what was to become the IDF, who went on to develop the system that became known as Krav Maga. It has since been refined for civilian, police and military applications.

Krav Maga has a philosophy emphasizing threat neutralization, simultaneous defensive and offensive maneuvers, and aggression. Krav Maga is used by Israeli Defense Forces, both regular and special forces, and several closely related variations have been developed and adopted by law enforcement and intelligence organizations, Mossad and Shin Bet. Outside Israel, Krav Maga is used by various special police, military and intelligence forces, such as American CIA, FBI, US Marshals, USAF, DEA, Federal Air Marshals, various police departments (SWAT teams), French GIGN, Belgian Army, etc.

A key principle of Krav Maga is finishing a fight as quickly as possible and therefore all attacks are aimed towards the most vulnerable parts of the body (e.g., face, neck, groin, knee, etc.). Because there are no sporting rules, individuals trained in Krav Maga are not limited to techniques that avoid severely injuring their opponents, but training and sparring drills provide maximum safety to the students by the use of protective equipment and the use of reasonable force. For example, kicks to the groin during sparring is commonplace, but groin protection must be worn and students should demonstrate due diligence with regards for their partners’ safety. Students learn to defend against all variety of attacks before engaging in full-contact sparring. Students are taught to respond to attacks in the quickest and most efficient way; a common lesson taught is ‘always use the nearest tool for the job’. This basically means use whichever limb is closest to your attacker at the time and whichever feels most natural. Men and women generally undergo the same drills. It has no sporting federation and there are no official uniforms such as a gi. Usual training attire consists of a t-shirt and loose fitting trousers. Krav Maga is also one of the few martial arts in which footwear is habitually worn due to it being ‘reality based training’. Most organizations recognize progress through training with rank badges, different levels, and belts.

General principles include:

* Counter attacking as soon as possible (or attacking preemptively).
* Targeting attacks to the body’s most vulnerable points such as the eyes, jaw, throat, groin, knee, etc.
* Neutralizing the opponent as quickly as possible by responding with an unbroken stream of counter attacks and if necessary a take down/joint break.
* Maintaining awareness of surroundings while dealing with the threat in order to look for escape routes, further attackers, objects that could be used to defend or help attack and so on.

The Rictal Scale of Birther Lawsuits

Poor Rocky, The Gargoyle, Had The Misfortune To Live On The World Net Daily Building

Apparently, the Deluge of Birther lawsuits will continue for quote a while. I suspect appeal after appeal will be filed as these stinkers get drop kicked out of the courthouses. Some of these will be pro se lawsuits filed by individual Birthers untrained in the law. Others will be filed by attorneys. Their level of absurdity will vary greatly. There needs to be some way to rate these lawsuits, much like the Richter Scale and Fujita scale are used to rate earthquakes and tornadoes.

But there is a problem. Part of rating earthquakes and tornadoes relates to the amount of damage done, and Birther lawsuits don’t do any damage outside of wasting the Court’s time. Paraphrasing Shakespeare, these are lawsuits filed by idiots,  full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.  However, if we can’t rate Birther lawsuits by the output, maybe we can rate them by the input!

To that end, I propose The Rictal Scale!!! Rictal is the adjective form of Rictus which is defined as:

ric·tus [ˈrɪktəs]
n. pl. rictus or ric·tus·es
1. The expanse of an open mouth, a bird’s beak, or similar structure.
2. A gaping grimace: “his mouth gaping in a kind of rictus of startled alarm” (Richard Adams).
3. a fixed or unnatural grin or grimace, as in horror or death.

rictal adj.

In other words, the more we groan at the lawsuit, and make faces, the higher on the scale it is. All we have to do is identify the elements which make us groan and assign them a numerical value.  Here are  my thoughts.  A Birther Lawsuit gets a point for each of these elements of absurdity:

1 Point for citing Minor v. Happersett as a precedent.

1 Point for stating there is a legal requirement for two citizen parents.

1 Point for simultaneously raising fraudulent birth certificate issues.

1 Point for citing the Dred Scott decision in support.

1 Chutzpah points for introducing Obama’s birth certificate as evidence  Obama’s father was a non-citizen while also claiming the birth certificate is fraudulent and false.

1 Point for claiming there is a difference between a 14th Amendment Citizen born in the United States and an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 natural born citizen.

1 Point for more than 10 spelling errors in the Complaint.

1 Point for suing the wrong party, with 1 Point for each additional mistake in service.

1 Point for mentioning Emerich de Vattel.

1 Point if the Complaint states The Law of Nations book is included in the U.S. Constitution.

1 Point for filing on a  pro se basis.

1 Point for filing in forma pauperis.

1 Point for requesting no empty chairs be allowed in the courtroom.

1 Point for filing after inauguration should Obama win in November 2012.

1 Point if the Plaintiff describes himself as a “patriot.”

1 Point if the Complaint mentions Leo Donofrio or Mario Apuzzo.

1 Point for each time a judge is asked to recuse himself.

1 Point if the Plaintiff accuses Obama of being a British citizen.

1 Points if the attorney is Orly Taitz.

1 Point if the Plaintiff prepares and files his own Amicus Curiae brief.

1 Point if the Plaintiff fails to mention Wong Kim Ark in the Complaint, or any Brief.

1 Point for each Amended Complaint.

1 Point for each Motion for Reconsideration.

1 Point for missing the Appeals deadline.

1 Point if any of the following words or terms are found in the Complaint or any Briefs: Usurper, frog march, Kenya, Muslim, Admiralty Court, New World Order, or gold fringe.

1 Point if the Plaintiff types his name in all lower case letters.

1 Point if the Plaintiff files as John Doe, or Anonymous.

1 Point for each and every other Absurd claim found in the Complaint or any Briefs as long as such absurdity is clearly listed.

Now this list could go on and on, but the beauty of the Rictal Scale, is that there is no upper limit like is found in the Fujita Tornado Scale or even in the Richter Earthquake Scale where as a practical matter, 9.5 seems to be tops. This is a good thing, for who could ever hope to predict the upper limits of Birther Absurdity.

Please consider the Rictal Scale, as a work in progress, and any and all contributions to further refining this tool will be appreciated.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1:  Thanks to G, at Obama Conspiracy Theories, for suggsting a point be added for Birther Plaintiffs citing the Dred Scott Decision!!!

Note 2: After initial publication of this Internet Article, the scale was renamed The Rictal Scale, the adjective form of the noun rictus being deemed more grammatically correct as descriptive of the noun scale. Like I said, this is a work in progress.

Yes, Virginia, There Is NO Two Citizen-Parents Clause

No, Mario. I'm Only Asking About Santa Claus. Everybody Knows The Two Citizen-Parents Requirement Is Just A Childish Fantasy.

Now, in a short and sweet decision, a Federal court in the State of Virginia has pricked another Birther Balloon. One, Charles Tisdale, filed a complaint alleging:

Mr. Tisdale seeks an injunction enjoining the Virginia State Board of Elections from certifying any candidate who lacks standing as a “natural born citizen” from appearing on the ballot for the upcoming presidential general election on November 6, 2012.Specifically, Mr. Tisdale cites Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul as ineligible to appear on the ballot, on the grounds that each had at least one parent who was not a citizen of the United States. The Court rules that the Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Federal Judge slapped the suit down holding:

The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”); Perkis v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, “those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ … have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding … and thus eligible for the presidency.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.

And, the ruling was “with prejudice” which means the Plaintiff can’t come back with an Amended suit:

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint for failure to state a claim. This dismissal is with prejudice, as the Court finds that allowing leave to refile would yield the same result, given the underlying premise of Mr. Tisdale’s claim.

This is about the same thing as coming right out and calling the suit frivolous. Where, O Where is all that legal jargon that Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and Leo Donofrio, Esq. like to bandy about??? Court after court is simply chucking the imaginary two citizen-parents requirement in the garbage can where it belongs.  Here is where you can read the whole 3 page decision:


Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter