Tag Archives: Mario Apuzzo

Birthers Is OK People! Obama Are All Null And Void!!! (IMPORTANT UPDATE!!!)

assad 2

Long Live Syrian Electronic Army!!!

Birthers is OK People who are right Obama is not illegible for President Office! You Americans listen long time to very smart Orly Taitz lawyer and dentist person! Listen long time to Markio Apuzzo two he is LAWYER!!! Make Obama leave office like frog! All Tommyhawk Missiles fired will be null and void! All bombs will be null and void! Everything all null and void!

You IMPEACH him now from overpasses! You are to make plenty big signs! America listen to Birther people! Listen to Sheriff Apuzzo also and cowboy posse people with hats!

Long Live Syrian Electronic Army who hacks up this website with very good hack with easy to guess password!




Holy Crap!!! Apparently The Birther Think Tank was hacked two hours ago by the Syrian Electronic Army!!! I guess ” _ _ lter_ _ _ lter” wasn’t a very good password after all. I have changed it, and my email accounts to be on the safe side! I am back in control of my website and hopefully the Syrian Electronic Army will not come back. I am going to leave this post up because I am not one to let a good crisis go to waste! If the pro-Assad Syrians think that Orly Taitz is very smart, and also Mario Apuzzo, then that is certainly worth noting! I think they meant to say Sheriff Arpaio, not Sheriff Apuzzo. And eligible instead of illegible. Other than that, their grammar and sentence structure are no worse than I see from many American Birthers. I am going to add some tags to this so that other unsuspecting Americans will be alerted.

Sooo, let this post serve as a warning to everybody to make sure your passwords are not too easy to guess, or else the Syrians may come after you, too!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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.


With 2020 Foresight – The Once And Future Apuzzo!!!


Hmmm, I see Mario Apuzzo, An Old Hat, And A Huge Stack Of . . . Bird Cage Liners???

Well, I have been working my tail off on this one! I got to asking myself what would happen if Sen. Ted Cruz, or some other person who was born outside the country, ran for the presidency.  Surely if the parents weren’t both American citizens, the whole silly two citizen parents stuff would rear its goofy head again.

But exactly how would the Birthers frame the argument? And how would the Defendants respond? Reading the law review articles would help with spotting the issues, but there is nothing like getting your hands dirty to get a good handle on things. The standard responses to date would not apply across the board in this case.  For example, the Wong Kim Ark decision was based on a person who was born inside the United States. This was Obama’s situation, also.

Sooo, I pretended it was the year 2020, and Sen. Ted Cruz was running for office.  Cruz was born in Canada and became a citizen of the United States at birth. It is easy to imagine a Birther(s) signing up to run for President, as some did this last year, in an effort to pass the standing hurdle. It is also reasonable that an Emergency Petition for Injunctive Relief would be filed in an attempt to remove Cruz from the ballot.  As a method to present the scenario, I chose to write a decision as a United States District Judge denying this Injunctive Relief to the Birther. This method would present the main points of both sides, and a possible result.

For purposes of illustration,  I chose Mario Apuzzo, Esq. as the Imaginary Birther, representing himself pro se. This is because he is sooo predictable, and sooo old hat. The old hat idiom means, “seen or done many times and no longer interesting. Trite. Stale. Predictable.”  There is another meaning for those who have vulgar tongues, but I will skip that because this is mostly a G rated place.

Below is a pdf of my decision. I left out some of the things you normally find in a decision such as the procedural stuff. This was done to keep it shorter and simpler to read. I hope from the decision the reader can get a feel for how the Birther argument would be structured, and how a Defendant would respond.

This is strictly my opinion, and there are certainly other legal strategies that could be utilized by the Birthers or Defendants. I invite my readers, Obot, Anti-Birther, and Birther to submit their own thoughts via email attachment.  I will be glad to update this article with their work along with proper attribution.

While this may not seem like the height of fun,  it has to be better than a surprise visit from the Secret Service such as experienced by the readers of  other websites. Enjoy!

Apuzzo Order

UPDATE 1:  June 26, 2013.,

Well, that was quick. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. burned the Midnight Oil and made a Motion for Reconsideration. Here is the link to his website. Go to comments #168-#170:


And here is the pdf:

Apuzzo Motion For Reconsideration

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Translation By Anonymous!!! (Or, Does “S & M” Stand For “Sade & Mario”???” )


After A Wild Night Of Researching The Origins Of Natural Born Citizens, Mario’s Mind And Body Both Were A Little Unsound

OMG!!! I just read this over at the Fogbow:

FogBow Mario Quote

(Click On Image To Make It Larger.)


As I will demonstrate in my up-coming essay, the anonymous English translator inserting the “natural-born citizen” clause into Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations in 1797, which he did only eight years after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, convincingly proves that the Founders’, Framers’, and Ratifiers’ source of the definition of the “natural-born citizen” clause was Emer de Vattel and the law of nations and not William Blackstone and the English common law.

I hate to play SPOILERS for  Mario Apuzzo, Esq., but I am afraid I already know who that anonymous translator is, and why Apuzzo is careful not to disclose his name – – – It is the Marquis de Sade!!!  His non-royal name was Donatien Alphonse Francois, or Don.  Now, you may ask how I know this. Well, I am not going to say exactly how I got the following document, because there may be some kind of silly law about Interstate Transmission  Of Anonymous Letters, or some kind of NSA problem with stuff written in Klingon, but you can read it for yourself:

Anonymous Patriot Letter

(Click On Image To Make It Larger.)

Also, here is a pdf of it, in case you have problems reading the Image:

Anonymous Patriot Letter to Mario Apuzzo, Esq

You can see from this Wiki blurb that the Marquis de Sade often went under the pen name, Anonymous!

During Sade’s time of freedom, beginning in 1790, he published several of his books anonymously.

In 1801 Napoleon Bonaparte ordered the arrest of the anonymous author of Justine and Juliette. Sade was arrested at his publisher’s office and imprisoned without trial; first in the Sainte-Pélagie prison and, following allegations that he had tried to seduce young fellow prisoners there, in the harsh fortress of Bicêtre.


Now, if The Law of Nations was anonymously translated in 1797, that falls squarely within De Sade’s Anonymous Period.  Plus, it is well known that Apuzzo just luuuvvvvveees the French! He thinks they are the inspiration for our Constitution. Add that to the letter above from the anonymous Patriot, and it is clear that Apuzzo is going to try to sneak a Marquis de Sade translation of the Law of Nations past everybody.

Some people may think that this is just Fantasy, and that I am just making all this up, and that Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has a real, live legitimate source for what he is going to write. Well, I think that would be the real Fantasy!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Anonymous Authors.  Apparently, the Marquis de Sade started something by using Anonymous to publish his type of writing. Note that 12 out of 30 naughty books in the Victorian Period style are written by Anonymous or Unknown Writer. Plus, some of the names there look fake to me! Like Victoria Vane???


Plus, here is a fun website, which has mostly nice books:


Mario Apuzzo’s “Schlock And Awe” Attack Fizzles!!!

alien 2 mexico vs monsters

She Made A Mental Note To Never Date A Guy She Heard On The Radio, Unless She Ran A Background Check First

Well, I have just listened to Fogbow Foggy’s radio rebuttal to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. on Immigration Lawyer Charles Kuck’s radio show. Foggy did a fantastic job of correcting Mario Apuzzo’s numerous legal errors on the previous week’s show, such as Emer Vattel’s treatise on French law being the basis of our Constitutional requirement that President be a natural born citizen. I am sure that Mario Apuzzo is squirming mad after Foggy’s  devastating barb that  “Apuzzo thinks the right to remain silent was put there to protect mimes.” OUCH!!!

Anyway, RC Radio Blog has a link up to the show, along with more of the background:


Dr. Conspiracy has a post up with Apuzzo’s original appearance:


Kuck was apparently unprepared for Apuzzo, and seemed to take much of what he said at face value. I think that happens a lot with people who don’t know what is going on, in a legal sense. Most people, even lawyers, haven’t spent much time on the meaning of natural born citizen as it relates to the presidential requirement. It just has little application in a day to day law practice.  Here comes Apuzzo with 200 pages of schlock, and it can kind of be overpowering if you haven’t read and studied the case law.

After that initial show, Kuck got busy reading the cases, including Lynch v. Clark (1844 NY), Wong Kim Ark (USSCt. 1898), and Ankeny v. Daniels (2009 Indiana). Yep, after reading those cases, the whole two citizen parent silliness gets tossed out the door with the garbage.

Except up there in Paterson, New Jersey, and other places  where Birthers dwell in their self-imposed exile to LaLa Land.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Schlock. Free Dictionary defines the word as:

schlock also shlock (shlk) Slang

n.       Something, such as merchandise or literature, that is inferior or shoddy.

adj.   Of inferior quality; cheap or shoddy.

[Possibly from Yiddish shlak, apoplexy, stroke, wretch, evil, nuisance, from Middle High German slag, slak, stroke, from slahen, to strike, from Old High German slahan.]

Note 2. Here is a link to Kuck’s legal website:


BREAKING!!! NSA Cryptographers Stumped By Birthers!!! (Or, Butterdezillion Saves Israel???)


Deciphering Butterdezillion Communications Were Particularly Labor Intensive

This is a VERY SERIOUS Internet Article. If I disappear in the next few days, this will be the reason why! A person claiming to be a high level employee of the NSA, the National Security Agency CALLED me on my cell phone!!! Nobody would know my real person cell phone number but the NSA! And, my BFF Fabian Sheen, Esq., an attorney.  She is the only other person in the whole world who knows that the REAL ME is Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter!  and she says it wasn’t her. So the NSA guy must have found this out as part of their Prism Project.

He said the NSA was making selective disclosures of their successes to counter criticism of their widespread monitoring and data collection. If that is the case here, then I am safe. Because I am helping the NSA. But if the guy was actually Eric Snowden, then I am just an unwitting dupe and  totally screwed. So, when you read this, make a screen save and hide it somewhere in case you have to get me out of Gitmo, or  un-renditioned from some foreign hell hole. Fabia has promised to take care of my cats.

Anyway, according to Mr. X,  the NSA is having literal, real live fits with the Birthers. I made notes as we talked. He says the Birthers first popped up on their radar screens in 2008 when the words “Chinese” and “Wong Kim Ark” increased their word count level in some database thingy. On top of that, he said the name, “Vattel” was being picked up as “Patel” in aural recordings. Patel is like the “Smith” of last names in India. This gave the whole Birther thing sinister Asian overtones.

To continue, and all this is from him, he said that there was some disagreement at first between those who thought the Birther chatter was just meaningless, mindless babble, and those who thought it was just meaningless, mindless babble with secret messages hidden inside. The first problems came from the NSA Communications Analysis staff.  Mr. X said that these staff members, well trained in foreign languages, are extremely sensitive to the placement of nouns, verbs, and objects in sentence structure, whether oral or written. They are trained to take note of subtle changes in sentence structures and phrasing.

After analyzing Birther communications, several of these individuals began suffering from nervous tics, random involuntary head shaking, and various dissociative disorders wherein they would experience short, but significant breaks from reality. The syndrome was given the name, Birther Language  Induced Psychosis, or simply BLIP. The NSA was able to overcome this condition by augmenting regular staff training with a three week internship at a mental hospital.  The multi-week exposure to the inmates and mental patients acted as a sort of vaccination to boost the analysts’ tolerance levels.

Which, is where the next problem occurred. Mr. X says that the NSA has something they call Mathematical Algorithm Language Ware, or MAL Ware. This is very technical and way over my head. But, I will try to explain it the same way he explained it to me.  He said that sentences and phrases can be converted to mathematical values, and then analyzed as math, not language. Words like “if, then, therefore, conclusion, maybe, and all” get converted to symbols and then analyzed for meanings.

He said MAL Ware was able to translate almost any word in any language to these symbols, and then analyze the whole communication. But, sometimes the results came out like a bad Google language translation.  So, during the three weeks that the analysis staff was occupied getting exposed to psychotics, and people who talk to telephone poles, the NSA had to run all the Birther stuff through the MAL Ware computer program. There were some unexpected results.

For example, language from Mario Apuzzo, Esq., caused the MAL Ware machine hard drives to spin at high speeds for prolonged periods of time while producing no discernible result whatsoever.  Input from Butterdezillion produced much more malignant results. MAL Ware CPU’s began chugging down like a car does when it gets dirt in the fuel line. Then, the CPU would overheat, and melt out of its soldering. Some NSA computer technicians were  convinced the CPU chips were trying to crawl away from the Mother Board on their little legs. Further analysis discovered that unlike normal computer code, which consists of “ones” and “zeros”,  the Birther translated code was almost entirely composed of nothing! It was mostly all zeros!

This had severe national security implications, and an emergency meeting at the White House was convened.  Some advisers claimed this was part of a Chinese led hacking program, called WKA.  And, that as the bad Birther code further devolved into something called low level machine language, computers across the country would begin to melt down.

Other advisors were convinced that this was a fortuitous event, and the United States should take advantage of its higher than normal percentage  of crazy persons.  They argued that rational persons could never develop the depths of irrational thought patterns exhibited by the Birthers. Because MAL Ware could translate the irrational thought processes into mathematical code, the United States could quickly weaponize this advantage.

An uneasy truce was reached between the two sides. The NSA immediately contacted operators of the nation’s internet and communication infrastructure to route all known Birther-related communications through a special optical fiber cable network for further analysis. For reasons of national security, the IRS was instructed to slow down “patriot” and “Tea Party” 504(c) applications to reduce the load of Birther traffic on the already strained network. The website belonging to Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.  was periodically hacked by the NSA to further reduce the magnitude of the potentially destructive Birther code.

A separate computer group working inside the NSA began work combining  snippets of Apuzzo code and snippets of Butterdezillion code into a destructive computer virus called STUX.  By 2010, this code was deployed in Iran to destroy the computer driven devices in their nuclear program.  It was a success, and a potential nuclear war between Israel and Iran was temporarily avoided.

These scientists are convinced that if they can learn to comprehend the illogic contained in Butterdezillion’s writings, particularly where “in-valid” is not opposed to “valid”, but instead entirely contained within “valid”,  they can create a Super-Stux virus.  Meanwhile, the WKA group, who are convinced the Birthers are part of a secret Chinese computer infiltration plot, continue to analyze the various Birther communications for any hidden rational meanings. So far, they have struck out.

However, both groups are convinced of the potential dangers from handling the Birther material. A new NSA complex is being constructed in Utah which will house both groups, safe and apart from Washington, D.C., and other high population centers. Just in case the whole darn thing melts down.

I am pretty sure this is a true story, because it explains so many things that have happened and that are currently in the news.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. If you can’t read the signs on the wall, just click on the Image to make it larger.  As far as the Image Easter Egg, this is another word play. Rotors were utilized in early coding and de-coding machines. A roto-rooter on the other hand, is a useful device for unplugging sewer lines. Wiki has an interesting article on the early machines:


Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s Distributed Muddle!!!


Apuzzo Finally Found The Bench Which Supported Him!

I guess Mario Apuzzo, Esq. read my “A Pazzo” article. Today in his blog comments we find:

I of IISqueeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, the artsy fartsy Obot queen, has taken a stab at my Jack Maskell article. You can read her haughty prose here. https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/

She says that I have misread Minor v. Happersett because the Court said that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” I say, so what in light of the fact that the Court also said: “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.” Hence, the Court said that at common law, if you were not born in the country to citizen parents, you were an alien or foreigner. This is the same exact thing that Congress reflected in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. So Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, has proven nothing but to show that she does not understand what she reads.

Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, turns to my logical analysis of the Maskell argument. In the first part of her attempt at logic, it is quite clear that she has totally missed my point about Maskell’s first argument being invalid. I showed that Maskell’s first argument as having this invalid logical form (“natural born Citizen”=NBC; “citizen at birth”=CAB):

All NBCs are CABs.
All X’s are CABs.
Therefore, all X’s are NBC.

To show the invalidity of this argument, I wrote:

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

Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that this argument is not valid and faults me for presenting it. She misstates my presentation, even attempting to prove me wrong by showing by use of some other irrelevant logical argument why this argument is not valid. I said that this Maskell argument is not valid because it violates the rule of the undistributed middle and also is fallacious for affirming the consequent. I said that this is the argument presented by Maskell. So, what is ironic is that Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, attacks me, in her twisted and incorrect way, for the argument when what she is really doing is attacking Jack Maskell.

Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, takes a shot at the second part of my logical analysis of the Maskell argument:

All CAB’s are NBCs.
All X’s are CAB’s.
Therefore, all X’s are NBCs.

Continued . . .

June 12, 2013 at 2:40 AM

Blogger Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…

II of III explained that I took Maskell’s invalid argument (above) and made it valid through this logical form. I did this to show where Maskell’s informal fallacy is hidden. I showed how this argument is logically valid, but unsound because its major premise, All CAB’s are NBCs, is false. I explained that Maskell has not presented any evidence to prove the truth of this major premise. I presented U.S. Supreme Court case law which addressed the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” and this case law does not support Maskell’s thesis that all “citizens at birth” are “natural-born citizens.” And even though Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, 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 Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, 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.

I have demonstrated how Maskell has not proven that his adjusted major premise is true. I have also presented my evidence that shows that the adjusted major premise is false. I have therefore unmasked the informal fallacy of the adjusted Maskell major premise, i.e., that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Yet, Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that I have proven nothing. On the contrary, she is the one who just says a lot of mixed up nothing (like her art work), demonstrates how incapable she is of understanding case law, and proves how ignorant she is when it comes to logic.

June 12, 2013 at 2:42 AM


Blah. Blah. Blah. Well, once again Mario Apuzzo MISSES THE WHOLE DARN POINT of my article!!! I clearly said that I was saving a substantive refutation for later. The point of the Apuzzo/A Pazzo post was to show how Apuzzo’s use of syllogistic forms was misplaced and darn near useless when it is the major premises themselves which are at issue.

Apuzzo says the same thing but just doesn’t understand the impact of his own words. This is from his original article:

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.

Notice how Apuzzo admits that in this proper logical form, Maskell’s argument is LOGICALLY valid. In Mario’s mind, what is it that renders the conclusion UNSOUND? Is it LOGIC??? Is it Aristotle speaking from beyond the grave??? Naw. It’s just that Mario disagrees with the Major Premise. That’s it! Maskell thinks one thing, and Mario thinks something else.

BUT, that is NOT the stuff of which logical fallacies are made. It’s just a disagreement. It happens all the time. I don’t think Mario Apuzzo is wrong because he violates forms of logic. I think he is wrong because he misinterprets applicable law, bases conclusions on inappropriate legal authorities, and flatly doesn’t know what he is talking about.

I guess you could put some of that into syllogistic form, to wit:

Major Premise: People who think earlier Supreme Court cases (Minor Happersett 1875) trump subsequent cases (Wong Kim Ark 1898) are wrong;

Minor Premise: Apuzzo thinks earlier Supreme Court cases (Minor Happersett 1875) trump subsequent cases (Wong Kim Ark 1898);

Conclusion: Apuzzo is wrong.

But why go through all that??? It isn’t necessary. It is simple enough to say, “Apuzzo commits error by focusing on earlier cases to the exclusion of subsequent cases. DUH! If I did utilize syllogisms in that fashion, it would not be for illumination, but obfuscation.  That was my whole point with the earlier article.

Sooo, let me close with an Artsy Fartsy Irish Poem:

Losing To Wit

Apazzo ignores the courts’ rulings,
To busy himself with his droolings.
To Wit: he’ll keep losing,
‘Cause he keeps refusing
To listen to Squeeky Fromm’s schoolings!

Squeeky Fromm
Artsy Fartsy Girl Reporter

Note 1. Undistributed Middle/Distributed Muddle. For ESL’s, this is a word play on logical fallacies (Undistributed Middle), and confused messes (Distributed Muddle).

mud·dle (mdl)

1. A disordered condition; a mess or jumble.
2. Mental confusion.

v. mud·dled, mud·dling, mud·dles
1. To make turbid or muddy.
2. To mix confusedly; jumble.
3. To confuse or befuddle (the mind), as with alcohol. See Synonyms at confuse.
4. To mismanage or bungle.
5. To stir or mix (a drink) gently.

To think, act, or proceed in a confused or aimless manner: muddled along through my high-school years.

Note 2. The Image Caption.  The Bench also means:

World English Dictionary
bench (bɛntʃ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. a long seat for more than one person, usually lacking a back or arms
2. a plain stout worktable
3. ( sometimes capital ) the bench
a. a judge or magistrate sitting in court in a judicial capacity
b. judges or magistrates collectively

4. sport the seat on which reserve players and officials sit during a game
5. geology a flat narrow platform of land, esp one marking a former shoreline
6. a ledge in a mine or quarry from which work is carried out
7. (in a gymnasium) a low table, which may be inclined, used for various exercises
8. a platform on which dogs or other domestic animals are exhibited at shows
9. ( NZ ) a hollow on a hillside formed by sheep

Note 3. The Image Easter Egg:  Malt does more than logic will, to justify Apuzzo’s swill.

This is a word play based on two lines from  A.E. Housman, in A Shropshire Lad, XLII (#62) the one which begins, “Terence, this is stupid stuff”.  Here is an excerpt:

Oh many a peer of England brews
Livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God’s ways to man.
Ale, man, ale’s the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think:
Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world’s not.


Note 4. To Wit. The Irish Poem is based on a punning use of the legalistic phrase “To Wit” (Namely) with the general meaning “To Wit” (To Humor) being the clear winner in many arguments.

The phrase to wit, meaning namely or that is to say, is primarily used in legal texts and speech, though it sometimes spills over into other types of writing. In general, unless you’re going for a formal tone, to wit bears replacement with one of the many alternatives, such as namely, specifically, in other words, more precisely, or to clarify.

Here’s an example of to wit used in a legal context:

The indictment charged that Broadnax “did knowingly possess, in and affecting interstate commerce, a firearm, to wit: a RG Industries, Model RG 31, .38 caliber revolver, serial number 019420.”


Vermont Saps At Sea!!! (Or, A Week Case???)

Frantic, Apuzzo And Paige Show The Washington Times National Weekly Ad To An Uninterested Judge

Oh My!  Vermonter H. Brooke Paige and his putative attorney, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. nearly set a record for how quickly their Birther lawsuit seeking to keep Obama off the ballot got denied by the court. The lawsuit was filed on September 5, 2012 but did not hit the news until September 17, 2012.

Less than a week later, by Friday, September 21, 2012, Judge Robert Bent had already denied the injunction. These excerpts are from the Burlington Free Press:

H. Brooke Paige of the town of Washington had asked the Vermont Superior Court in Montpelier for an injunction to stop distribution of the ballots. Paige contends Obama is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution because his father was not an American citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

“The court has been presented with a radically insufficient basis on which to issue a temporary or even a preliminary injunction,” Judge Robert Bent wrote in a four-page ruling issued late Friday afternoon. [Sept. 21, 2012]

Bent, however, signaled that he thinks there is little evidence to support Paige’s claim that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” noting the jurists in a number of other states had reviewed that issue and rejected it.

“The myriad versions of the claim that President Obama is ineligible for office because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ have been litigated throughout the country exhaustively,” Bent wrote. “They have never succeeded, usually on standing or jurisdictional bases.”

The full story is here:


I will post a copy of the 4 page decision as soon as it is available.  I am not sure if the case in chief goes on or not.  Paige seems to think it does. All in all, this does not speak well about Apuzzo’s legal abilities. The Article II Constitutional Expert’s opinion on natural born citizenship got disrespectfully whomped upside the head before the lawsuit was even served on Defendant Obama.  Shouldn’t an expert win a case every once in a while??? Anyway, I guess Mario Apuzzo needs to update  his Curriculum Vitae:

Apuzzo CV

As far as H. Brooke Paige, I wonder if he will say to Apuzzo, “Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into!”

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1940 film, Saps At Sea, starring Laurel and Hardy. Wiki says about the film: Wiki says:

Stan and Ollie work in a horn factory, where Ollie is sent home after developing “hornophobia” and starts going crazy each time he hears horns or horn-based musical instruments. A physician (Jimmy Finlayson) is called to treat Ollie and, warning Ollie that he could develop a more serious condition, “hornomania,” he prescribes a relaxing boat trip and goat’s milk. Ollie dismisses the idea because he is afraid to sail on the ocean, but Stan prescribes an alternative: they will simply rent a boat and keep it attached to the dock, getting all the sea air they can while never actually going out to sea. When Stan’s trombone teacher arrives and Ollie hears the music and throws the teacher out, he knows he should take that advice.

Stan and Ollie rent an unseaworthy boat called Prickly Heat that is supposed to stay moored to the dock. An escaped murderer named Nick Grainger stows away on the boat to avoid being caught by the police. The goat which they have brought to provide milk chews away at the docking line and overnight the boat drifts out to sea. Nick confronts Stan and Ollie with a gun (which he affectionately names “Nick Jr”) and tells them to make him breakfast. They have no food on board, so they decide to prepare Nick a “synthetic” breakfast made up of string, soap and whatever else they can find. Nick spies on them and realizes what they are up to, and forces them to eat the fake food. Stan becomes inspired and starts to play his trombone. Ollie starts to go crazy and overcomes the criminal.

Here is a short clip, dealing with an “expert.”

Note 2. The Title. Saps is a reference to Vermont, which is famous for it’s Maple Syrup. But it also means a “sucker.” “At Sea” is an idiom which means:

(all) at sea (about something)

Figuratively, to be confused; to be lost, confused, and bewildered. (Alludes to being lost at sea.) When it comes to higher math, John is totally at sea.

The Caption, is a reference to the ridiculous ads run by CDR Kerchner, Apuzzo’s original Birther patron. The ads are full of false legal theory. You can always find them at ObamaReleaseYourRecords. Here is an example:

Bad Ad

Note 3. The Apuzzo Curriculum Vitae. This originally appeared back on April 1, 2012, here:


Recommending The Partnership Of Taitz and Apuzzo, Attorneys At Law!!!

Between The Two Of Them, Oiram And Ylro Had A Perfect Record!

Well, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq’s Birther lawsuit has just been denied certification by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  (See notes below for link.) By my calculation, he is not presently involved in any Birther lawsuit. Meantime, poor overworked Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is running around like a chicken with her head cut off. She has major hearings coming up this month in Mississippi and Indiana, and as she explains, she hasn’t got time to breath.

On top of that she has ongoing Birther cases in Texas, California, and who knows where else. And today there is BREAKINF NEWS that she filed a new one somewhere, with all kinds of paperwork going on:

Sooo, does partnering up with Mario Apuzzo, Esq., who has all this spare time on his hands, make sense or what???  He is an Article II Constitutional Expert, while she has all the clients. She has way too much to do, and he way has too little. Instead of trying to keep busy writing 200 pages briefs, Apuzzo could spend his time doing something useful like writing pleadings for Taitz.

Plus, Mario could expose Orly to some other kinds of law, like defending DWI’s and divorces and automobile accident cases. And wouldn’t it be fun to watch Dr. Taitz bring her aggressive litigation style to something other than Birther cases??? If there are any professional problems forming a partnership because of Dr. Taitz’s California law license and issues of reciprocity, then maybe she could just become “Of Counsel” to  Mr. Apuzzo.

In all sincerity, I think this would be a wonderful idea and I think the two of them should really give this suggestion some serious consideration.

Just trying to be helpful,

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a cel from DC Comic’s Superman series relating to the Bizarros. About whom Wiki says:

In the Bizarro world of “Htrae” (“Earth” spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states “Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!” In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: “Guaranteed to lose money for you”. Later, the mayor appoints Bizarro No. 1 to investigate a crime, “Because you are stupider than the entire Bizarro police force put together”. This is intended and taken as a great compliment.

The concept of “Bizarro World” is a fundamental element in “The Bizarro Jerry”, the 137th episode of American sitcom Seinfeld. In the episode, Elaine makes a new group of friends who represent inverted types of the normal Seinfeld gang. Jerry labels them a Bizarro world. These characters are kind, considerate, curious about the world around them, and good citizens. Though Elaine is initially attracted to their friendly ways, she is ultimately turned off by the formality and lack of simple camaraderie which she enjoys with her old, selfish, shortsighted group. A second reason for her leaving the Bizarro group is the fact that she is “normal” Elaine. Conceivably, her Bizarro version would be ladylike. If you look in the background of the Bizarro apartment you will see a Bizarro figure on a shelf, just as a Superman figure sits on a shelf in Jerry’s apartment. You can also see a unicycle hanging from the wall instead of a bicycle, and images of horses instead of cars.

This is a long article, and here is the link to the rest of it:


Note 2. The Image Easter Egg.  Following Bizarro Rules of Logic, the normal Earth Counterparts of Oiram and Ylro would be the most competent lawyers on Planet Earth.  Clearly, this is not the case. However, they had this little encounter with some purple spotted kryptonite, which as Wiki notes in its Kryptonite article, has some strange effects:

Purple Spotted Kryptonite: Mentioned in Streaky’s fictional story in the animated cartoon Krypto the Superdog. This phony kryptonite made Krypto chase his tail.

Obviously this constant tail chasing has caused problems for the Earth counterparts, who otherwise would have reached their full potential as attorneys.


Note 3. Links. here is a link to RC Radio’s Internet Article about the New Jersey Supreme Court turning its nose up at Apuzzo’s Reuest For Cert:


Here is the link to Orly Taitz’s BREAKINF NEWS: