Tag Archives: Kerchner

What’s Wrong With This Picture??? (Or, The Great Birther Bait And Switch)

Some People Swore They Saw An Extra Smiley Face In The Image

Well, I usually check out the ObamaReleaseYourRecords website every day to see what’s shaking in the Birther Universe. I have noticed lately that EVERY POST seems to have the same message buried in it, right before the Kerchner Krap  scribd stuff.  Below is a screenshot of part of that message: (Click on the Image to enlarge it.)

Here is the link to this particular example:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/america-doesnt-need-birther-in-chief.html

Outside of the advertising for Kerchner’s Art2SuperPAC  aka POOPpac did anything else in there  get your attention??? Maybe a little something that doesn’t make sense? Here, let me make it easy:

If someone has DOCUMENTED PROOF of something, why are we being directed to an AUDIO link???   Why aren’t we being directed to a DOCUMENT???  Maybe not to worry. Some guy named Breitbart Reporter Charles Johnson has an audio sooo, let’s go there. Then, when you hit the link, you get taken to this: (Click on the Image to enlarge it.)

Uh, was ist los ??? Now, we get some stuff from Breitbart Reporter Wayne Allyn Root. Huh. . . is this the old bait and switch??? Wow, there sure must be a lot of those  Breitbart Reporters running around the place.  Wait a minute. What does that little blurby thingy say???

What’s with this smoking gun WILL BE stuff??? Doesn’t WILL BE mean that it will happen sometime in the future? Not NOW? Crap, am I just being jerked around or what?  Oh wait, there is a video and an UPDATE BELOW VIDEO. Yippee!!! It’s been three weeks now since this article was first posted. Maybe they have managed to get the documentation together in the meantime???

Nope. No such luck. The first video is some radio talk show conversation between Wayne Allyn Root and Joe Pags. Blah, blah, blah, blah, and NO DOCUMENTATION.

The next two videos are of Wayne Allyn Root again, with Sean Hannity, and there is the same  blah, blah, blah,blah, and NO DOCUMENTATION. Don’t waste your time on the first two videos. The final 3:07 video tells the whole story. You wanna guess what the DOCUMENTATION is that Obama is an Indonesian citizen??? Sit down, because you may collapse in laughter, or shocked disbelief.

HUNCHES and GUT INSTINCT.

Yes, this whole stupid, frigging bunch of repetitious crap about  DOCUMENTATION comes down to Wayne Allyn Root’s HUNCHES and GUT INSTINCT that something is wrong.  Watch the whole thing below, but particularly the part at 2:05, where Root says:

I’m being honest. I don’t know. It’s a gut instinct.

Sooo,  to recap this, CDR Kerchner and the Birthers are going around telling people they have DOCUMENTATION and the documentation is just some clown’s GUT INSTINCT and HUNCH.  I still don’t know who Breitbart Reporter Charles Johnson is, and the links all go to Wayne Allyn Root stuff.  Did Wayne Allyn Root illegally usurp Charles Johnson’s identity???  Who knows?

Maybe they should have used this title:

Breitbart Reporter has a gut instinct hunch that Obama is Indonesian Citizen.

Somehow, I don’t think it would have mattered much to the Birthers if they had. It is sad to watch supposedly rational people wallow around in nonsense like this.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the wonderful and bizarre  1953 documentary film by Ed Wood, Glen or Glenda.  Wiki says, in part:

Wood’s big break came in 1953 when he was hired by producer George Weiss to make an exploitation film, I Changed My Sex, based on the life of transsexual Christine Jorgensen. After Jorgensen refused to collaborate on the film, Wood wrote a new autobiographical screenplay titled Glen or Glenda, a sincere and sympathetic study of transvestism. Wood directed and, using the alias Daniel Davis, played the titular character who has a fetish for cross-dressing and angora sweaters.[Which explains the Image Easter Egg.]

Glen or Glenda, shot in just four days for $26,000, was done in a semi-documentary style. Narration and voice-over dialog was added to generous amounts of film-library stock footage (a cost-saving trick he used in his later films).  Bela Lugosi, who was not told the film was about a transvestite, was paid $1,000 in cash for one day of filming. In a dark haunted-house set, speaking in metaphors and nursery rhymes, he played a portentous, omnipotent narrator.

The centerpiece of the film is a 15-minute fantasy sequence that illustrates Glen’s tormented state of mind. Wood utilizes a barrage of surreal, dream-like vignettes with personalized symbolism. Producer George Weiss also inserted footage of flagellation and bondage, reminiscent of the fetish films of Irving Klaw, from another production. In this sequence, Barbara is pinned beneath a large tree (in her living room), and Glen rescues her; they are married with the Devil acting as best man; a shirtless man vigorously flogs a woman reclining on a couch; lewd burlesque dancers gyrate to blaring jazz music and tear at their clothes; a woman gagged and bound to a yoke-like pole is untied by another gagged woman; a lust-crazed man roughly assaults a seductress in a flimsy negligee; an enraged Glenda rips Barbara’s blouse to shreds after she laughs at his appearance. Bela Lugosi appears in several scenes also rejecting Glenda and repeating the phrase “snips and snails and puppy-dog tails”. The film was released under several regional titles such as Transvestite, I Led Two Lives, and He or She?.

Note 2. Bait and Switch. A less than scrupulous sales tactic. Wiki explains the strategy:

Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud, most commonly used in retail sales but also applicable to other contexts. First, customers are “baited” by advertising for a product or service at a low price; second, the customers discover that the advertised good is not available and are “switched” to a costlier product.

Wiki also explains that there is a non-retail use of this tactic, for example:

Online dating sites have been known to post fake profiles as a way of enticing people to join; in some cases, employees of the site’s parent company send messages via a sockpuppet in order to encourage non-paying users to upgrade so they can message back.

Let me add to that non-retail use:

Birther websites are well known to promote new theories and put forth new facts, to reel in the unsuspecting individuals.  While either false or unsupported by evidence, these new discoveries are loudly touted across the Birther websites, and the converts get so caught up in the hoopla that they forget to critically examine the information.

Note 3. The Follow The Links Game! If you have a few minutes, start clicking on the various links in the Breitbart Reporter story above and watch how you get shuffled around to the same stuff, time and time again. It is amusing, in sad way.


PoopPac Downloads The Honey Wagon!!! (Or, Birthers Run Downhill)

CDR Kerchner Worked Tirelessly To Spread His Message

The Article II Superpac, aka PoopPac (People Opposing Obama’s Presidency PAC) made the news at ObamaReleaseYourRecords with an ad that ran in the Washington Times. The banner reads  BIGGER THAN WATERGATE.  Here is a link to the Internet Article:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-washington-times-bigger-than.html

And here is a copy of the ad:

The whole premise of the ad above relies upon the fact that Sheriff Arpaio and The Cold Case Posse’s found the long form birth certificate image to be a forgery.  Well, let’s play a little game and we’ll call it “What’s My Lie???” Let’s assume for a moment that the long form birth certificate is a forgery! Let’s try to discover what information on it would  actually be something Congress should be interested in.

In a previous Internet Article, I made a list of all the 43 pieces of information included on the long form. Here is again. Just refer to pages 3 and 4 for the list:

Obama Forgery Test

Now, let’s narrow this list down and see how many of these items, if false, would make Obama ineligible to be President.  Well, we get one whole item, which if false, would make Obama ineligible:

6a. Place of Birth (City) –  Honolulu

That’s it. If the time of Obama’s birth is false, he is still eligible. If his father isn’t Barack Obama Sr., he is still eligible. If the doctor wasn’t David Sinclair, he is still eligible. The same with every other item of information, except the place of birth. Everything else on the birth certificate could be false, forged, materially altered, erased, or created out of whole cloth, etc.,  BUT, if Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, then he is eligible.

I guess the purist might point out if Obama’s parents were both foreign diplomats, or invading soldiers, then Obama wouldn’t be eligible, but so far even the Birthers haven’t argued that. No, the only real item of potential forgery that would make Obama ineligible is his place of birth.

Sooo, has Sheriff Joe or Deputy Zullo, or any other member of the posse proven, or even alleged, that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii???  Nope. Nada. None.  In fact, they have not been able to prove to any degree whatsoever that any single one of those 43 pieces of information contained in the long form image is false, forged, materially altered, erased, or created out of whole cloth, etc.

In fact, Arpaio and Zullo admit that there is NOTHING which criminally implicates Obama in their investigation. This is from a transcript of the July 12, 2012 press conference, at pages 26 and 27 :

Female reporter: Are you insinuating that the President in any way – are you saying that the President has anything to do with this?

Zullo: I am not. I am not, ma’am. I don’t know what Mr. Obama knows about this. I, I trulydon’t.

Arpaio: I said on March one, right from the beginning; we are not accusing the President of any crime. We are strictly investigating a possible government forged document, and that’s the way we’re still going with this, we’re talking about documents.

Reporter: If that, if that’s. I, I don’t get that sir, because if this is a crime, and it’s the President’s
birth certificate, how could he not be accused of a crime? How could you not be accusing himof a crime?

Arpaio: We’re not saying that he knew about it. Did we, did I ever say that he knew about it?

Reporter: So you’re telling me he doesn’t know about this birth certificate … [unintelligible]

Arpaio: I have no idea. [Zullo and Arpaio whispering unintelligibly]

Zullo: Yeah, let me … [unintelligible] I think that’s a great question.[Several reporter talking over each other and over Zullo – unintelligible]

Zullo: [Difficult to understand due to cross-talking] Let me explain this to you; let me explain this to you, sir. Sir. I think I said it March 1st [interruption] – hang on – hang on a minute. Sir, sir; what I said in March 1st. None of us could validate with any certainty where we were born. We weren’t cognoscente of the event. Ok? For all I know, Mr. Obama’s been told this his whole life.I don’t know. It might even be he was born in Hawaii.

What we are telling you is [points to the Long Form Birth Certificate while shaking his head], that document isn’t real. That’s the difference; that’s the distinction in law. We’re talking about a forged document being used, maybe mistakenly, by Mr. Obama. But somebody knows how it got there. The Department of Health didn’t create it; didn’t create the file [points to the Long Form Birth Certificate]. Somebody else did. That mere fact means the Department of Health,that would have the only legal authority to make a copy of a document like that or even render an abstract; the only legal authority to do it did not. That’s a falsified document.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100805605/Unofficial-Transcript-of-the-Arpaio-Maricopa-County-Cold-Case-Posse-Press-Conference-July-17-2012

I like hyperbole as much as the next girl, but really now, an investigation that can’t disprove any of the 43 items of information is sooo wonderful and important as to be BIGGER THAN WATERGATE???  An investigation where the investigators admit that Obama may have indeed been born in Hawaii is supposed to have any credibility at all???  

I think it is more accurate to say the results of the investigation is browner and stinkier than the stuff the farmer in the image above is spreading on the fields.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Honey Wagon.

Wiki and Wiki Talk say:

Honey wagon” is a facetious traditional general term for “a wagon or truck for collecting and carrying excrement or manure”, such as a cesspool emptier, which serves as a sanitation system including at campgrounds and marinas.

manure spreader or muck spreader or honey wagon is an agricultural machine used to distribute manure over a field as a fertilizer. A typical (modern) manure spreader consists of a trailer towed behind a tractor with a rotating mechanism driven by the tractor’s power take off (PTO). Truck mounted manure spreaders are also common in North America.

Joseph Oppenheim, a schoolmaster in the small town, concerned that his older male students often missed school loading and spreading manure, patented a wagon that, behind the drag chain and two beaters, incorporated a steel axle with several wooden paddles attached to the shaft at an angle to throw the manure outward in a broad pattern eliminating the necessity for manual spreading. On October 18, 1899, Oppenheim began to produce his new manure spreader, incorporating the “widespread” paddle device. Neighbors soon referred to it as “Oppenheim’s new idea” and Oppenheim adopted this name for his business.

The origin of the term “honeywagon” goes way back to outhouses not just recent porta potties… thought I’d just mention that you might want to check more into why it is called this…what I was told by parents who remember Honeywagons from in the early 20th century: the name had nothing to do with the color of anything dripping from “tanks”…they said they were called that tongue-in-cheek and the Honeywagon people were “Honeydippers” since they literally had to dip the waste from the hole in the ground in the outhouse to clean/empty them when they were getting full. Like beekeepers, who sold honey kept in large pots or barrels, would do to remove the honey to put in containers for the customer using a large dipper, the other honeydippers “dipped” the “honey”/waste from the privvie (sp?) and put it in the barrels on the honeywagon (which was actually a real wagon pulled by horses) and, as they drove thru the streets of the town to do their jobs, the flies, of course, would be attracted by the “fragrance” of the “honey” and buzz the wagon like they would buzz around honey skeps and hives and trees containing honeycombs.


CDR Kerchner Assails The Seven P’s!!!

Rather Than Shooting Albatrosses, CDR Kerchner Preferred Chasing Wild Gooses

It is obvious that CDR Kerchner never heard of the Seven P’s.  About which Wiki says:

The 7 Ps is a British Army adage:

* Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance

The 7 Ps are normally referred to as “the 7 Ps” rather than as an acronym: (i.e. PPPPPPP). Educators and trainers in military or civilian situations find it useful to first introduce the phrase “the 7 Ps”. When it is explained, the humour and shock of the mild expletive help make the adage memorable. This adage is often used in project planning, or when training for life-or-death situations.

Perhaps proper planning and preparation  is just not emphasized in the American navy, or maybe CDR Kerchner just wasn’t paying attention that day.  The reason I say this is that Kerchner has a several year history of abject piss poor performance trying to unseat President Obama.  Much of this has been due to his attorney, Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s  refusal, or inability, to stop practicing Imaginary Law. Which is what the two citizen-parents theory and Vattel stuff is.

But Mario Apuzzo, Esq. did not get his foot inside the courthouse door on this one. He did manage to sneak his 20o page Paean To Imaginary Law brief in, which may be why the Court gave him the bum’s rush out the door.  No, this failure is Kerchner’s.

As is reported at NBC’s  blog  in Sour Grapes, this was because Kerchner failed to do his homework, his Seven P’sNBC’s full Internet Article is at the link below.  Here is an excerpt.

ORYR: The Candidate’s Affidavit in PA is routinely signed under oath stating the candidate is eligible for the office they seek. Candidate Barack Obama did not sign under oath the Candidate’s Affidavit which states that he was eligible for the office he is seeking. He did not even sign it at all. The top half was filled out by a lawyer on his behalf and the bottom part with the signatures was left blank. See copy here. It was subsequently learned that a Pennsylvania statute provides an exception for presidential candidates that they do not have to complete the Candidate Affidavit, and Obama availed himself of that exception.

[NBC: In other words, under PA statute your challenge failed. Hilarious. Seems that others did their homework and totally undermined your ‘well planned’ objections… What a surprise.]

[NBC: Another Judge who did his legal duty and some disillusioned objectors who could not read. And really, the challenge would also have failed since the objectors failed to timely register to become democrat or was still registered a Republican. This is trivial to figure out to anyone, who like me, has a computer and 15 minutes to spare time to research the PA precedent rulings. Hilarious how, after 4 years of prep time, these objectors still failed so predictably. . . ]

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/pa-kerchner-v-obama-sour-grapes/

Perhaps if CDR Kerchner had done his homework, and wasn’t delusional, he would have discovered these Seven P’s:

Pretty Positive Prior Precedents Protect Putative Presidents.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the Ancient Mariner, aka the Grey Beard Loon, from the poem, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge aka Samuel Coleridge-Taylor composer of Hiawatha’s Wedding Feast  according to some less than careful, or drunk, researchers:

The Rime of The Ancient Hiawatha

By the shores of Gitche Gumee,
By the shining Big-Sea-Water,
Met a grey beard loon a’ going.
To the wedding of the Daughter-

Daughter of the Moon, Nokomis.
Of the tribe of Albatross.
Water, water, every where! And,
Where’s the silly buckets? Lost?

Note 2. Wiki has many variations of the Seven P’s, which readers may find interesting, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Ps_%28military_adage%29

Note 3.  Assails the Seven P’s is obviously a wordplay on Sails the Seven Seas.  As an idiom, the phrase “sails the Seven Seas” usually relates to searching or  exploring, often in an exhaustive sense.  See Sweet Dreams, by The Eurythmics:

Sweet dreams are made of these
Who am I to disagree
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody’s looking for something


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:

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/new-handoutflier-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen-with-venn-diagram-support-art2superpac/


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:

http://german.about.com/library/blgzauberl.htm

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:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012

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. . .

Arghhh!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

whelp (hwelp, welp)
n.
1. A young offspring of a mammal, such as a dog or wolf.
2.
a. A child; a youth.
b. An impudent young fellow.
3.
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:

http://www.modelshipwrightsdatabase.com/Articles/CapstanTutorial.pdf

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:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/attorney-mario-apuzzo-of-jamesburg-nj.html

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.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/two-very-different-ballot-challenges-in-pennsylvania/

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.

lum·mox

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.

flum·mox

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunkerin%27

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!!!


CDR Kerchner Caught Pontificating In A Public Place!!!

Gig In Hand, Kerchner Was Sure To Lose On Demerits

Well, CDR Kerchner,  late of the USS Gardyloo,  held a press conference in Pennsylvania and just let it all hang out.

You got your whole Natural Law thingy, dating back “10,000 years” to the very dawn of Human Civilization!!! You got Emerich de Vattel in spades, including old Ben Franklin and others having read the book, The Law of Nations.  And why to hear Kerchner tell, that was about the dang most important book that was ever written! Dog my cats! They even went and stuck that book smack dab into the U.S. Constitution so we could punish Pirates!!!

You got your Minor v. Happersett mis-interpretation where Kerchner reads from the Law with all the swagger of Elmer Gantry visiting a cat house, while nonchalantly avoiding the not necessary to resolve these doubts verse. Wait, what was that Kerchner just read???  Something about common law nomenclature??? Oh, I must have mis-underheard it.

You even got some Constitutional law thrown in. Some stuff about needing amendments and such to change it up. But I didn’t hear nothing about the 14th Amendment and its Wong Kim Ark interpretation.  But all in all, it is a fun video.  I think I shall call it, Lions, and Tigers, and Bores. Oh My! You’ll see why:

I can’t wait to hear the press conference after Kerchner gets keelhauled by the Courts.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image.  This is Prince Ruprecht from the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.  He is holding a trident, a symbol of sea power. Tridents are also known as “gigs.” And “gigs” are also a military term for demerits. Which is what this case will be tossed out of court for – – -on de merits.  A lack thereof.

For what it is worth, here is Prince Ruprecht pontificating in public:


Swill-again’s Island – Or, How The Skipper Marooned The Vattel Birthers

CDR Kerchner, of The Derriere, Was No Match For The Constitution

This Internet Article is about CDR. Charles Kerchner, an ex-Naval officer, and  leading two citizen-parent Birther. He was also the plaintiff in the suit brought by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. challenging Obama’s eligibility in 2009. Following Friday’s refusal of the New Hampshire  Board of Elections to bounce Obama off the slate due to various unsupported claims,  the Good Commander decided to exercise his God-given right to make an ass of himself in public.  He penned the following broadside at The Post and Email:

CDR Kerchner Pounds New Hampshire Legislator About Obama’s Eligibility

Here is the link:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/11/21/cdr-kerchner-pounds-new-hampshire-legislator-about-obamas-eligibility/

And here is a brief excerpt:

To be a natural born Citizen of the United States the person must be born in the USA to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents. That is the law of nature and said laws were referred to in our founding documents. That definition comes from natural law, the legal treatise The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol. 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, U.S. law via the Supreme Court decision of Minor v Happersett (1875) which was never overturned and other SCOTUS decisions as recent as 1939, and international law. Wong Kim Ark (1898) only decided who is a born “Citizen of the U.S.” under the 14th Amendment, not who is a “natural born Citizen of the U.S.” under Article II. The words “natural born” do not appear in the 14th Amendment and only appear in the Constitution in Article II as to who can be the President, and then later per the last sentence of the 12th amendment who can be the Vice President.

In other words, the same bucket of swill being slopped out by the two citizen-parent birthers for going on three years now. (Which come to think of it, is about the same amount of time the castaways wandered around lost on Gilligan’s Island.) Kerchner’s lack of knowledge is no worse than the other Vattel Birthers, but for goodness sakes, the man is a retired naval officer. He is supposed to be smarter than the average Vattel Birther.  Anyway, let’s go over his boo-boos.

First, did he swear allegiance to the law of nature or to the U.S. Constitution??? I suspect the latter. Next, his adoration of Emerich de Vattel is misplaced. While Vattel wrote a fine book on International Law, and on laws in France, this was was not of any great import to American law, which was based on English common law.  And even if it had been, Vattel recognized that England created citizens in a different fashion than France, stating:

Section 214:  Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Next, the 1875 voting rights case of Minor v. Happersett clearly DOES NOT mandate two citizen-parents are necessary for one to be a natural born citizen.  There are numerous posts here about that case. In short, that Court recognized that some authorities included the children of foreigners born here as natural born citizens, and some didn’t.  But, that was NOT an issue they needed to decide.  Here are the five sentences which clearly state the issue was left open:

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.

Nope, no precedent there.  The issue was left open.

Kerchner then proceeds to mangle Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 SCOTUS case which solved the question left open in Minor v. Happersett,  and determined that natural born citizens were simply people born here under the jurisdiction of the United States, said jurisdiction simply consisting of NOT being the child of a diplomat or invading soldier. Which is the same thing a 14th Amendment citizen who is born here.  Because the 14th Amendment did nothing but affirm the birthright concept of natural born citizenship:

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 [exceptions].  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.”

To recap, Commander Kerchner, has a lousy command of the facts.  One could almost say Kerchner’s Grasp of Reality is sooo weak that he is unfit for command of the Vattel Birthers.  One could, except for the fact that people who have a good grasp on Reality do not become two citizen-parent Birthers in the first place.

I picture Kerchner sitting in a chair, Queeg-like, sweating and rolling some ball-bearings around in his hand, claiming he didn’t cut his own tow line, that there was a duplicate key to the ward room icebox, and that it takes two citizen-parents to be a natural born citizen.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1:  USS Constitution captures HMS Guerriere, 19 August 1812.  The Image  above is of an actual sea battle, even though I altered the real name of the enemy ship to one more appropriate for CDR Kerchner, who uses a old time sailing ship as his avatar around the Internet:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/war1812/atsea/con-guer.htm

A quarter-hour of intense gunnery by Constitution, delivered with much superior accuracy, battered Guerriere in the hull and masts. The British frigate’s mizzenmast fell over the side, crippling her ability to maneuver. Constitution then moved ahead to rake Guerriere, whose bowsprit caught in the American’s mizzen rigging. Firing continued while the two ships were thus tangled, and both sides prepared boarding parties. Marksmen in the mast tops blazed away at exposed personnel, with deadly effect. Many officers and men were thus killed, including Constitution‘s Marine lieutenant. Others, Captain Dacres among them, were wounded. As the ships separated, Guerriere‘s foremast collapsed, pulling down the mainmast with it. She was now a “defenseless hulk”, and surrendered at 7 PM, when Constitution approached to renew the action after making brief repairs to her modest damages. British casualties were more than five times those of the Americans, and Guerriere was beyond saving. Her surviving crewmen were taken off the next day, she was set afire and soon blew up. Constitution then returned to Boston with her prisoners, arriving on 30 August.

This battle, the first of several U.S. Navy victories in ship-to-ship contests, encouraged Americans and chagrined the British. Despite the rational excuse that Royal Navy frigates were not as large and powerful as their American counterparts, the real causes of these outcomes were inspired seamanship and vastly better gunnery. For the rest of the 19th Century, long after the War of 1812 was over, America’s Navy was credited with an effectiveness that went well beyond its usually modest size.

Derriere, is of course, the French word for le rear end.  Maybe this is where the rank,  Rear Admirals, come from???

Note 2:  Swill and Maroons. The Urban Dictionary defines “maroon“, which I use in the verb form:

A term of derision often uttered by Bugs Bunny when referring to an interaction with a dopey adversary. It is a mispronunciation of the word “Moron”a pushover, or one easily fooled. A dope, fool, idiot, or nincompoop. Unbelievably stupid person. Might have been derived from moron: adding an extra letter “o” to moron meaning double-moron, thus a maroon.

Swill:

1. A mixture of liquid and solid food, such as table scraps, fed to animals, especially pigs; slop.
2. Kitchen waste; garbage.
3. Nonsense; rubbish.

Note 3:  Queeg. This was the eccentric captain in a really great movie called The Caine Mutiny.

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

It quickly becomes apparent that Queeg is prone to eccentric behavior. Queeg displays an oppressive command style and is prone to unprovoked angry outbursts. From the first, he begins to make mistakes that endanger his ship. After refusing the assistance of his predecessor in command, he grounds the Caine on a muddy shoal his first time underway. He panics in a fog and nearly collides with a battleship, and passes the blame to his helmsman, starting a series of incidents that eventually results in a scripted court-martial and mental breakdown of the helmsman.

Queeg neglects to order the ship to stop turning while distracted in reprimanding a crew member for having his shirttail out, and so the Caine steams over its own towline, severing it. When called on the carpet by a superior after this incident, he refuses to acknowledge that it even happened, much less admit blame in any way (although he harbors a secret grudge against his helmsman for not warning him). His superiors are not satisfied, but allow him to retain command.

Another episode which highlights Queeg’s behaviors occurs when a quart of strawberries vanishes from the wardroom icebox. Remembering how he helped solve a mystery involving a similar theft when he was an ensign earlier in his career, Queeg attempts to recreate his former accomplishment by insisting the strawberries were pilfered by a crewmember with a duplicate key. Queeg orders every key on the ship collected, and a thorough search made. During the search, the captain is confronted with evidence that the messboys ate the strawberries. Queeg loses all enthusiasm for the search, though he orders it to continue, and it is continued in a desultory way amid public mocking of the captain.