Tag Archives: Cuba

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Is All Wet!!! (Part II, On Cruz Control???)

witch trial

Fabia Sheen, Esq. And Squeeky Fromm Could Handle This With One Hand Behind Their Back

This is Part II of my response to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. and his latest critique of me, the Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter:

The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:  A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter

Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter (“Squeeky Fromm”) continues in vain to try to persuade the public that she has refuted my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.


In Part I of my response, I covered the syllogistic aspects of Apuzzo’s argument, and the inapplicability of logical syllogisms to the question of whether or not a citizen at birth is the legal equivalent of a natural born citizen.  This article will deal with Apuzzo’s alleged substantive arguments found in Section III of his post,  which includes, but is not limited to the Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark, and Rhodes v. U.S. cases,  his interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the writings of Emer de Vattel. Because of length, I will probably have to write a separate post to cover his claims in Section IV of his argument.

For a brief history, this whole episode began when Apuzzo weighed in with his opinion that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.  My substantive counter-attack was written in the form of a hypothetical judicial opinion rendered 7 years hence, in the year 2020, occasioned by  Apuzzo challenging Cruz for the Republican nomination.  Doing things in this fashion forced me to think about the specific legal nature of the Birther challenge. And have no fear,  if Cruz  runs, there will be Birther challenges, and to obtain legal standing,  Birthers will file to be placed on the ballot.

This method also forced me to go ahead and craft a judicial response. This was necessary because current case law does not directly provide an answer as to whether or not Cruz is a natural born citizen. However, the case law does give a pretty good indication how a court will rule. In addition to Ted Cruz, Jack Maskell also believes this, writing:

[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including any child born ‘in’ the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

Sooo, I am in good company. A copy of Maskell’s Congressional Research Memo may be found above, in the header under “Natural Born Citizenship.”


Now, here was my original substantive response, the hypothetical Order, in pdf form, which I will recap a little:

Apuzzo Order

My GUESS, as to the form of the Birther challenge was:

1. Sen. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution because he does not have two citizen parents.

2. Sen. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution because he was born in Canada, outside the boundaries of the United States, thus necessitating naturalization to make him a citizen.

I dealt with the first objection in the same way as the various courts who have heard the issue have dealt with it, that is, with a good whopping strong dose of Wong Kim Ark. There is no need to repeat it here since it is in the Order above. The second argument is more difficult, because the courts haven’t directly ruled on this point. My arguments were:

1.   From, 8 USC § 1401(g), only one parent is required for someone born outside the country t0 be a citizen at birth, so that if a citizen-at-birth is legally equivalent to a natural born citizen, it clearly doesn’t take two citizen parents;

2. From Wong Kim Ark (WKA), a nation has the right to make it’s own citizenship laws;

3. From WKA,  the Court recognized, without objection, that in the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress provided that Americans born abroad  were natural born citizens;

4. From WKA, Congress was recognized to have broad authority to bestow citizenship on those born abroad;

5. From Book 1, The Law of Nations, § 214. Naturalization, Emer de Vattel recognized that countries may grant citizenship to those born abroad in varying degrees;

6. Apart from any judicial recognition or notice, The 1st United States Congress itself, in The Naturalization Act of 1790, believed it possessed the authority to grant natural born citizenship status to certain children born outside the United States;

7. The USCIS does not believe that granting the status of citizen-at-birth, is the same as naturalization, to wit:

Note: You may already be a U.S. citizen and not need to apply for naturalization if your biological or adoptive parent(s) became a U.S. citizen before you reached the age of 18. For more information, visit our Citizenship Through Parents page;

8. [A]s a matter of statutory construction,  Congress is presumed to act with awareness of relevant judicial decisions, and knowledgeable about existing law pertinent to the legislation it enacts; and

9. With No. 8 in mind, through the provisions of 8 USC § 1401(a), numerous classes of persons are listed who are citizens at birth. The first of these is:

a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Therefore, when Congress lumped all other citizens-at-birth into the same class with these persons, it must be presumed

i.  To have known that these persons were natural born citizens through the provisions of the 1th Amendment, and judicial holdings such as WKA; and

ii.  By so including them, without restriction or limitation, therefore  intended the other described classes were also natural born citizens.

Here is a link to 8 USC § 1401 et.seq.


All of the above are factors which I believe will mitigate in favor of Crus being found a natural born citizen. I put them in list form here to better compare them with Apuzzo’s reasoning.  Rather than recognize that Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen is a question more subject to statutory construction, Congressional intent, and previous cases on natural born citizenship,  he continues to thump hard and fast on the same definitions he has utilized to dispute Obama’s eligibility. Here is his first bad step:

She [Squeeky] attempts to dismiss Minor as being irrelevant to the issue of both Obama and Cruz’s eligibility, arguing that Minor did not define or deal with children born inside the United States to alien parents. This is incorrect.

Duh! And how does Minor have anything significant to do with a person born in Canada and made a citizen at birth by statute??? Minor was an 1875 female voting rights case out of Missouri. The Minor Court didn’t even find it necessary to deal with doubts about the children of aliens and foreigners born inside the country, much less those born outside the country. Supposedly, Apuzzo finds Minor relevant because he wants to establish that common law does not cover people born outside the country.  Well, why not use Wong Kim Ark (1898)???  Not only is it a later case, it contains much more information about naturalization than Minor.

If his over emphasis on Minor was a bad step, his next argument is like falling off a mountain top, and tumbling about 2 miles down the hill, wrapped up in a big snow ball:

She states that the clause “natural born citizen” “was discussed at length in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.” This is false. Wong Kim Ark discussed at length the English common law and an English “natural born subject.” The English common law defined neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen.”  Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir.Ct. D. Ky. 1866) (No. 16,151), told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were defined by the English common law. The court said that “British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject.  . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. ”  Id. at 788.  So, Wong Kim Ark, which spent much time on analyzing the English common law, could not have been analyzing the meaning of a “natural born citizen” which clause was not even found in that law. 

Huh??? Is Apuzzo trying to be tricky, or is he really confused? Of course English common law did not cover natural born CITIZENS. It covered natural born SUBJECTS. Which the WKA Court, and others before it, found to be similar concepts. The entire “II Section” of WKA was about natural born subjects, followed by Section III which set forth the American version, natural born citizens:

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

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

And, Mr. Justice Swayne, in the Rhodes case mentioned above by Apuzzo:

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

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

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

So, in those two brief excerpts, you get a definition of natural born citizen, good until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Namely, someone born in the country, under its allegiance, meaning neither a diplomat, or hostile invader. WKA took it a step further, and held in Section V, that the 14th Amendment was just an affirmation of this principle:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions [three exceptions omitted]  The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

How does Apuzzo read this?

Hence, that the Fourteenth Amendment or a Congressional Act might declare someone born either in the United States or out of it to be a “citizen at birth” does not prove that that person is a “natural born citizen.”

Uh, Mario, the WKA Court just said that it did. The Courts who have addressed the two-citizen parents think it does. That “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions [three exceptions omitted]” and “those children are natural born. And those exceptions are diplomats, hostile invaders, and wild Indians NOT. . . children without two citizen parents.

If natural born citizenship did actually require two citizen parents, then WKA should be the case where that alleged requirement would show up. But WKA goes far beyond that and flatly comes right out and states that the citizenship of the parents is irrelevant for children born here. The Birther refusal to recognize this simple fact is what guaranteed every loss they have experienced in court, and will continue to guarantee future losses.

Apuzzo does not stop there. Here is his next brush with reality:

Here, she makes the absurd argument that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” by way of a naturalization act of Congress.  Using her logic, the “natural born citizen” clause would have no meaning or limits if Congress could simply naturalize anyone at birth which Squeeky Fromm then considers to be a “natural born citizen.”  She looks to the Naturalization Act of 1790 for support. Regarding whether children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help Squeeky Fromm because the 1795 Act, with the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.

But isn’t that the issue at question??? Whether or not Congress can decree a natural born citizen out of someone born overseas to American parent(s)? What Apuzzo does once again is to just argue his conclusion. He doesn’t argue to a conclusion. He just jumps straight to a conclusion. He argues that when Congress did not include the natural born citizen language in its 1795 enactment, it did so because they did not intend for them to be considered natural born citizens. Maybe.  Or maybe it just seemed obvious to the 1795 Congress that those foreign born children to whom they were extending citizenship, were being granted the full spectrum of American rights, including the right to become President. The Constitution itself contemplates the eligibility of  a 35 year old President who has only spent 14 years of his life inside the United States, and the remaining 21 years in a foreign land.

What Apuzzo completely fails to do is present any kind of respectable case that Congress is prohibited from extending natural born citizenship status to children born of American citizens when they are outside the country. I presented 8 or 9 indicia which I think stand for the proposition that Congress has that power, and has exercised it.

That is how non-Birther legal minds work. Examine the law and history, and then reach a conclusion. Birther minds work differently. Pick a conclusion, then ignore anything which conflicts with that conclusion. Here is another exercise in that vein:

Squeeky Fromm also fails to understand this fundamental truth–that one becomes at once a “citizen at birth” and does not need naturalization does not mean that one was not naturalized. See Calvin’s Case (1608) which was decided in England in 1608. That case proves that being a “citizen at birth” can entail having been naturalized at birth which necessarily excludes one from being a true “natural born citizen.

I am not sure what point Apuzzo is trying to make here. Calvin was declared a natural born subject by common law, not naturalization statutes.  In one sense of the word, all people everywhere are naturalized, that is, made a citizen by some statute or law. I don’t think that it is the soil itself which reaches up and coats a baby. If it did, it must be some pretty smart dirt that can tell the difference whether or not a child is the offspring of a diplomat or hostile invader.

More to the point, it is law itself that naturalizes. In some countries, it is by parentage, other countries by place of birth, and quite often some combination of both.  There is no immutable Law of the Universe which dictates that American law must be that  anyone born here, with the two exceptions,  is a natural born citizen and eligible for the Presidency. Neither does the study of physics indicate there is a Vattel Particle which requires two citizen parents lest matter and anti-matter collide and blow us all to smithereens. What each country has is its own laws and legal concepts regarding membership in that country.

Our country sets forth a membership standard which is most usually met by simple birth inside the country.  We also have a form of junior membership called naturalization. And these junior members have freedom of the grounds everywhere except the White House. Our laws also provide membership benefits to those born of our citizen(s) who are overseas at the time. There is not much which indicates that particular membership is of the junior kind, and as detailed above, many indicia that just the opposite is true. Mario Apuzzo has not yet set forth anything substantial to rebut those arguments.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Is All Wet!!! (Part I, The Witch Test)

witch ski

Apuzzo Suddenly Realized That He Wasn’t On Solid Ground

Well, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. once again takes issue with my assessments of his arguments. Here is a link to his latest broadside at me, the Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter:

The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:  A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter

Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter (“Squeeky Fromm”) continues in vain to try to persuade the public that she has refuted my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.


For purposes of space, this article will only discuss his syllogisms, or logical form arguments. Part II will cover his substantive arguments. Before we discuss his arguments, let’s do some analogizing about tests! Back in Ye Olde Witch Hunting Days, there was a test designed to determine if a woman was witch. It was called dunking. The alleged witch would be trussed up, taken to the nearest river or pond, and tossed in. If she floated, she was a witch. If she sank, she was innocent. There was usually a rope attached, and the witches, innocent and otherwise, were pulled back up in the boat. This was a respected, and well established test dating back to the days of Babylon. Personally, I think it was more of an ancient form of the Wet T-Shirt Contest, but I believe a lot of Jungian stuff, so who knows.

Anyway, from a modern perspective, we can see that this test had absolutely nothing to do with proving whether or not the subject was a witch, and a lot more to do with Body Mass Index (BMI). A voluptuous, buxom woman, with ample hips, would be more likely to float, whereas scrawny little Girl Reporters would end up noodling catfish on the bottom. Theoretically, it would be possible to rig these tests. For example, if it was me, and a Mob of Angry Birthers said I was a witch, then I would put on my cast iron chastity belt, and slip some diving weights into my undies. I do not put this kind of thing past people in that day, either.

This may make it easier to understand what I was griping about when I wrote my “stabs.” They were in response to an Apuzzo article critical of Jack Maskell, who had written a 50 page memo for the Congressional Research Service, and Bob Quasius, a blogger at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, who relied on that memo to conclude Ted Cruz was most likely a natural born citizen. A copy of Maskell’s memo, and a pdf of it for easier reading, may be found here:


Apuzzo attacked Maskell by using logical syllogisms.  I counter-attacked Apuzzo by pointing out that syllogisms are basically useless when it is the major premises themselves that are issue. And even more useless when an author plays fast and loose with them. That was the point that I made in my first article on this:


Perhaps it is my inherent witchiness, but neither that article nor the subsequent rebuttal article sank in.  So, that is why I am trying this analogy. The Dunking Test is a lot like those Logical Syllogisms. Neither are accurate tests of the truth, and both are subject to being rigged. This was the point that I made in my articles.  That syllogisms are as unreliable in determining the TRUTH of an argument, as tossing a witch into yon pond. Take for example this perfectly logically valid syllogism:

Major Premise:   All dogs can fly
Minor Premise:   Fido is a dog
Conclusion:          Fido can fly

While this passes the logically VALID test, in that its FORM is correct, it does not pass the TRUE test. How do we know that it is not true??? We must go outside the syllogism for that. It is our experience, and our judgement which tell us that dogs can not fly. Therefore, facts outside of the syllogism itself are necessary to determine the truth. That was the point I made to Apuzzo. That his methodology was flawed, and that by using syllogisms he would be unable to shine any light whatsoever on the issue, particularly because it was the major premise itself that was the subject of contention.

In the context of determining whether citizens at birth are legally equivalent to natural born citizens, using syllogisms is like using the Dunking Test.  You will get a result, but that result doesn’t mean anything.  But Apuzzo is not keen on the whole judgement external to the syllogism thingy. He complained:

And even though Squeeky Fromm comes to Maskell’s aid, she also does not present any evidence to show that Maskell’s major premise, as reconstructed by me, would be true. What she does in place of presenting any evidence that the major premise is true is just to say that the premise does not strike her “as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” From this statement we can see that Squeeky Fromm has very little understanding of informal logic and fallacies. An informal fallacy has the exact facial appeal that she relies upon. But when its underlying truth is tested, it fails

Nope. It is Mario Apuzzo, Esq. who does not understand. As in the Fido Syllogism above, where else could one go if one finds the conclusion that Fido can fly troubling??? And not something you wish to discuss deeply with Mental Health professionals. Here, between the double lines, is what I wrote which prompted that response:


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.


Summarizing this point, to determine whether or not a syllogism is TRUE, you have to go outside the syllogism. While outside, if something looks STUPID, then the syllogism is probably neither TRUE  nor SOUND.  Sooo, Fido can fly . . . strike[s] [me]“as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” With Maskell and Quasius, there were no such vibes.  There might be disagreement from the Birthers, but once again, that is why you don’t use syllogisms in situations like this. They are about as useful as trussing Maskell up, and  chunking him into a river to see if he floats.

Now, to discuss Apuzzo’s initial rigging of Maskell’s Dunking Test. In his original article, Apuzzo characterized Maskell’s take on this as:

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.

This is the same FORM, as Apuzzo’s Bubbles the Poodle example:

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

This is  a NOT VALID form, and it is also NOT the manner in which either Maskell, or the blogger Bob Quasius presented the argument. There was no reason to ever present Maskell’s argument in that particular form, except to set up a straw man.  Maskell’s position could be accurately presented by the two proper forms above. Apuzzo simply slipped some floaties on Maskell, tossed him in the drink, and then hollered, “Witch! Witch!” when Maskell floated to the surface.

That was my point. That was also what I said in my first rebuttal response to Apuzzo:


In his latest article, Mario Apuzzo tangentially deals with these criticisms:

Squeeky Fromm tries to persuade that she successfully addressed my criticisms of Congressional Attorney Jack Maskell’s thesis (his major premise) that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”  From her article we can see that she is starting to understand the world of logic a little better. But she does not admit the blunder that she made with the first part of my logical presentation in which I expose why to argue, that since all “natural born Citizen” are “citizens at birth,” and since Barack Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born Citizen,” is logically invalid.  We have to recognize this argument and show that it is invalid because it is one of the means by which Maskell arrives at his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

Second, Squeeky Fromm, underplays the second part of my logical analysis where I show, by converting Maskell’s invalid argument into a valid argument, that Maskell’s second argument is unsound because the major premises is false.  Maskell’s second argument can only be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens,” and since Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born citizen.”  Maskell’s major premise in this argument would be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Squeeky Fromm fails to understand the importance of the maneuver of taking someone’s invalid argument and making [it] valid. It is done to show that if the argument is to succeed, then its premises must be true. And it is here that I have shown that Maskell’s major premise is false and therefore also his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”

Huh??? Well, if you can wave your hands and, “PRESTO CHANGE O!!!” make the syllogism VALID, why did you ever present the INVALID form??? Because we have already established that the TRUTH of a syllogism comes from outside the syllogism, because the TRUTH of the premises comes from outside the syllogism. Let’s go grab Bubbles, and see how this works:

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

Is Bubbles a poodle??? Who knows. The FORM of the syllogism is INVALID, but that does not mean the conclusion is false. That just means that you can’t get to the truth of the conclusion through the argument. Somebody has to outside, in the yard, and check Bubbles. Who may or may not be a poodle.

Now, let’s do an Apuzzo Abracadabra, and make the form VALID:

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

Now, the FORM is VALID, but is the conclusion TRUE??? Who knows? Is Bubbles a poodle? Perhaps Bubbles is a cat. The point is, you still have to go outside the syllogism to check whether or not the premises are true. Now, as a matter of Advanced Syllogisms,  I will tell you, that even if both premises are TRUEish, and the form VALID, the conclusion could be false. Here is a picture of Bubbles, the poodle. She is on the right:


[Robert Byrn (Sir Kay, The Seneschal) and Mimi Berry (Bubbles, Hand-maiden to Queen Morgan Le Fay) in the 1943 revivial of A Connecticut Yankee. Creator: Valente, Alfredo — Photographer. Created Date 1943.

Because, a poodle is also a lackey, or a servile person.  So, some poodles are dogs. Some aren’t. This isn’t just nitpicking. Syllogisms come in flavors, or moods. About 256 of them, t0 be precise. Out of that 256 possible moods, only 19 forms are considered VALID. Personally, I haven’t counted them.



The relevance here is, that there is a very good chance a premise on the Ted Cruz issue would come out as, Some Citizens-at-Birth are natural born citizens. The law is not a real good place for logical FORMS. One reason is that classifications change. Another is that words are often subjective in meaning, or admit to having more than one meaning. For example, is naturalization a statute to be viewed separate and distinct from the Article II natural born citizen characterization, or is naturalization more properly viewed as a process,  complete with citizenship tests. In the law, lines are seldom hard and fast. This is why you have judges and juries. Somebody has to look at laws and decide what the words mean, and how they are to be applied, and to what facts they should be applied.

That was my point to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Regarding Ted Cruz, the question of whether or not he is a natural born citizen, is open. Most people, myself included, think this will resolve in his favor. But it will not be resolved from presumption and the making of syllogistic premises. It will be decided by going to the law, and trying to decide the meanings of the words, and the intent behind them. If he wishes to be relevant in that process, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. needs to forget Aristotle, and start reading up on case law and statutory construction.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Alfredo Mendoza, a former water skiing champion.

Alfredo Mendoza was the premier male water skier in the world during the early 1950s and he turned his tournament successes into a professional career as a skiing star at Florida’s Cypress Gardens. Mendoza first learned to water ski at Lake Tequesquitengo southwest of Mexico City in 1949. His fascination with the sport, coupled with his viewing of a film of show skiing at Cypress Gardens, convinced him to change from his earlier ambition of becoming a bullfighter. Mendoza captured the jumping and overall gold medals at the 1953 World Championships in Toronto, Canada. He repeated as jumping and overall champion at the world meet in Beirut, Lebanon two years later and added the slalom gold medal to his victory string.