Tag Archives: Mario

He Says Apuzzo, I Say A PAZZO!!!

la bete

Apuzzo Was Pretty Sure This Wasn’t A French Poodle

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Major premise:  All M are P.

Minor premise: All S are M.

Conclusion:        All S are P.

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

                          Proper Logical Form         Apuzzo Logical Form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Also see this from Wiki:


Note 2: Pazzo, in translation:

pazzo translate

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

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

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

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

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


This also explains the Image Easter egg.

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

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

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

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

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

PDF: Brooke Paige’s complaint

PDF: Attachments to the complaint

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

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

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

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

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

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


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


The Apuzzo Brief – The Speeder’s Digest Condensed Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Indigenes means “natural born” in French.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Apuzzo Brief – Paper to Raise Whelps With

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

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

Apuzzo’s Not-So-Brief Brief

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


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

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

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


Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

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

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

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


You will just have to trust me on this one.

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

go to the dogs

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

On Viewing Mario Apuzzo As A Court Jester

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

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

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


noun /ˈləməks/
lummoxes, plural

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

* lout: an awkward stupid person

* stupid, clumsy, foolish or incompetent person.


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

1. Perplex (someone) greatly; bewilder

* – he was completely flummoxed by the question

* To confuse; to fluster; to flabbergast

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

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

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

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

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

There is more at this link:


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

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

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

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

General principles include:

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

Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo Is “Casing” The Joint???

When The Flame Returns, Oh The Stupid. . . It Burns

Luckily for us,  Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq., was overheard blabbing the plans of the next legal case he plans to mangle to a crony.  I guess the Minor v. Happersett case must have keeled over from the ill treatment he gave it, and Apuzzo needs a new case – – – one ripe and ready for the mangling. From the comments at his website we know that he is stalking the poor 1964 SCOTUS case of Schneider v. Rusk.   Apuzzo already has his duct tape, blowtorch and pliers ready to give it the business.  Here is the link to the comment:


And here is what Apuzzo blabbed to Texoma:

I agree with your interpretation of what Schneider v. Rusk meant when it said:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”

I have an essay that I will be publishing shortly which you should find very interesting. In my essay I have the following argument on what the Court meant by its statement:

“In this sentence, the Court explained that just being a “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is equivalent to being a naturalized citizen, is only a “start” and not the same as being a “natural born Citizen” because the Constitution says that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. Hence, the Court also said that after that “start,” we must move on and recognize that a “natural born Citizen” is different from a “native born” citizen in some material way. That material difference can only be that not only is a “natural born Citizen” born in the United States (making him or her “native born”), but he or she is also born to citizen parents (making him or her a “natural born Citizen”).”

It is really fun to have this information in advance, where you can read the case before Mario gets his mitts on it and mangles it beyond all recognition. Sometimes he butchers legal cases sooo badly,  a forensics unit has to come in and get DNA to identify it.  But, I digress.

In this particular case, a naturalized citizen was deprived of her citizenship because she had remained overseas for a long period of time. The Supreme Court ruled this violated her due process rights because there was no requirement that native born citizens had to live in this country or risk losing their citizenship.  The Court said that there were no differences between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens except when it came to the Presidency.  This was a very short case and the link to it is here:


What Apuzzo does, is manage to screw up the interpretation of these two simple sentences:

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.

Apuzzo contorts the meaning to read it as setting forth three distinct types of citizen:  native born, naturalized, and natural born. As he says above:

In this sentence, the Court explained that just being a “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is equivalent to being a naturalized citizen, is only a “start” and not the same as being a “natural born Citizen” because the Constitution says that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. “

Clearly the Court explained no such thing. It simply divided citizens into two categories, native born and naturalized and said the the only difference between those two classes was that only the natural born citizen, that is the native born,  is eligible to be President.  In this instance native born and natural born are being equated as the same thing by the Court. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is just trying to confuse the issue by claiming native born and naturalized person constitute one class, and then positioning  natural born citizens as a whole ‘nother separate class. He does this to play silly word games and to fool people into thinking it is the difference between those two classes that the court is discussing. It is the same sort of sophistry trick of confusing the antecedent that I discussed in A Vattel Birther Tackles The Bible:


It is pretty hard to screw up two simple sentences, and what Apuzzo needs an imaginary sentence in between them. Let’s try to line it out like Apuzzo wants us to believe:

Real Sentence Number 1: We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive.

Imaginary Implied Apuzzo Sentence: There is another distinct class of citizen called the natural born citizen.

Real Sentence Number 2: The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.

The first problem one has with the imaginary sentence is that it is well. . .uh . . . imaginary. It simply is not there. But look more closely, and you will see that Apuzzo has dug himself other holes.  First, there is no reason for the Real Sentence Number 2 to be in the case at all. The Plaintiff was not running for the Presidency. If the term natural born citizen does not refer back to the term native born, then  why is it even there?

Then, Apuzzo runs into another problem. He doesn’t have enough Imaginary Sentences. By creating his imaginary difference between native born and natural born citizens, he leaves the Court saying nothing at all about requiring two citizen parents. Sooo, you need to add another Imaginary Sentence or two to explain that.  And, since that conflicts with Wong Kim Ark, and other cases, you need a whole lot more Imaginary Sentences  to explain that.

And, if Schneider v. Rusk becomes the new Birther precedental case of the month,  replacing Minor v. Happersett,  then you still have to explain little thingies like Edward Meese,  Reagan’s attorney general writing this for the Heritage Foundation 41 years later:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President.

and, a whole host of other anomalies and inconsistencies.

These are the inherent problems that you encounter when you try to make tortured and distorted legal interpretations. Get one piece in and then all the other pieces don’t fit.  But I predict this will not stop Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.  from doing his very best to cram 100 pounds of poopy into a 5 pound bag.  He will pound the poopy with his fists, he will mash it up and roll it around in his hands, and he will jump up and down on it trying to stomp it and cram it into that bag.

And, in the end, there will be more poopy on him than there is in the bag.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The above image is Rene’ Magritte’s “The Return of the Flame.”  The figure is Fantomas, which you may read about at this link, and is also the source of the quotes below:


They also shared a boundless love for the pleasures of the cinema, avidly following the famous Fantomas series in 1913 and 1914, which had been inspired by the novel by Souvestre and Allain. Their Thursdays and Sundays were filled with the heroic deeds of this enigmatic being. Fantomas was a sinister hero without identity, totally criminal but highly popular, who in some enviable way had succeeded in becoming revered precisely because of his disgraceful deeds. There can be no doubt that this mysterious challenge to the established order and the laws of the ruling class represented a rich source of inspiration for Magritte, one which also played a role in the subject matter of some of his pictures: one thinks, for example, of such pictures as The Return of the Flame or The Threatened Assassin.

I chose this image for several reasons. First, I really love Magritte’s works. Next, The Return of the Flame works in well with the caption and it’s imagery of something being so stupid – –  – it burns.  Finally, the figure wears a tuxedo, as Apuzzo does in a photograph at his website.  Additionally, the whole concept of Surrealism is a disconnect from reality, which certainly applies to the Birthers. Curiously, the second Fantomas piece done by Magritte, which is also at the link above, is captioned:

He has turned his back upon those watching him, nor does he notice those seeking to overcome and apprehend him. He is observing musical sounds. He is functioning in another way, conducting himself with indifference towards the obvious threat posed by reality.

This also applies to Apuzzo and many other Birthers who get hung up and lost in the words, themselves, oblivious to the meanings and concepts expressed by the words.

Note 2: Casing the joint. Another play on words. Casing is a slang term which means:

1. Sl. to look over some place to figure out how to break in, what to steal, etc. (Underworld.) First of all you gotta case the joint to see where things are. You could see he was casing the joint the way he hung around.
2. Sl. to look a place over. The dog came in and cased the joint, sniffing out friends and foes. The old lady entered slowly, casing the joint for someone of her own age, and finally took a seat.

I view Apuzzo as casing (looking over) the joint in the sense of searching for legal cases to mangle and try to confirm his theories.

Note 3:  Give . . .the business.  From Urban Dictionary,  a slang term for beating somebody up, usually combined with taking the subject “out back.”

Scott wouldn’t pay his tab, so we took him out back and gave him the business.

La Bocca Della Falsita (The Mouth of Falsehoods)

I Think I Found Mario Apuzzo's Missing Hand In Here

At Mario Apuzzo’s blog, he has a picture of himself next to an image of La Bocca Della Verite, the Mouth of Truth.


I enjoy the universe of ideas and a sound mind and body.

Wiki says:

La Bocca della Verità ( “the Mouth of Truth“) is an image, carved from Pavonazzetto marble, of a man-like face, located in the portico of the church of Santa Maria in Cosmedin in Rome, Italy.  The sculpture is thought to be part of a 1st century ancient Roman fountain, or perhaps a manhole cover, portraying one of several possible pagan gods, probably  Oceanus. Most Romans believe that the ‘Bocca’ represents the ancient god of the river Tiber.

The most famous characteristic of the Mouth, however, is its role as a lie detector. Starting from the Middle Ages, it was believed that if one told a lie with one’s hand in the mouth of the sculpture, it would be bitten off. The piece was placed in the portico of the Santa Maria in Cosmedin in the 17th century. This church is also home to the supposed relics of Saint Valentine.

The Mouth of Truth is known to English-speaking audiences mostly from its appearance in the 1953 film Roman Holiday. The film also uses the Mouth of Truth as a storytelling device since both Hepburn’s and Peck’s characters are not initially truthful with each other.

I wonder if Mario Apuzzo’s depiction of the Mouth of Truth on his website is deceptive advertising due to his latest journey into Soap Opera land. Here is a brief excerpt from Mario Apuzzo:

Is Putative President Barack Obama’s Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Really Jo Ann Newman?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 15, 2011

Martha Trowbridge reports that she has uncovered the true identity of Stanley Ann Dunham, putative President Barack Obama’s mother. She writes in her latest article, Stan The Sham, and True Love, posted at her blog, Terrible Truth, on November 15, 2011, at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/stan-the-sham-and-true-love/  that Dunham’s real name is Jo Ann Newman.Why would Obama tell us that his mother’s name is Stanley Ann Dunham when it is really Jo Ann Newman, a white teenage girl from the Bronx, New York, who according to Ms. Trowbridge was Malcolm X’s teenage lover and devotee?

Is Obama telling us a lie about his mother’s true name because he wants to hide his own real identity?

Is he telling us that lie because he wanted to make himself more electable to the average American?

What would knowing that Obama’s mother’s real name is Jo Ann Newman tell us about Obama’s true identity?

And why would Obama want to hide his true identity?

You can read the rest of the nonsense at Mr. Apuzzo’s blog. (Link above.) While I love a good conspiracy theory, this one isn’t even up to the “I Had Big Foot’s Baby!” level.  The creator of this idiocy is one, Martha Trowbridge, who can’t even get her dots on the same piece of paper to connect them. I suspect there is a long scrawl of crayon in her home from her computer desk down to the floor, up to the wall, down the hall, and into the bathroom over to where the commode sits.

She supposes that Obama is actually some dude named Bari Shabazz who was the son of Malcom X, and therefore the mother must be poor Jo Ann Newman, who presumably is dead and can not defend herself from this crap.  And oh, Bari Shabazz is dead, too. And Malcom X.  And Obama’s parents and grandparents are dead, too.  They’re all dead. I would not be surprised to see lawsuits asking to dig them all up and perform DNA tests.

From the obvious lack of any discernible  brain activity, I would suspect that Martha Trowbridge was dead too, and awaiting a disconnect from life-support, except for the fact that someone keeps writing Internet Articles in her name about this crap.  A better name for her blog would be The Terrible UN-Truth.

Mr. Apuzzo is an attorney and should know better than to engage in this kind of ridiculous speculation. You can tell that it is speculation because he comes right out and asks:

So, who is Jo Ann Newman? Did she and her family and friends know Malcolm X?

The big question now is how we reconcile the name of Jo Ann Newman with the Stanley Ann Dunham life story that we have been provided. As we know, this alleged fabricated life story consists of, among many life events, a birth in Kansas; youthful years and schooling in Washington; schooling in Hawaii; a hasty marriage to and divorce from Barack Obama Sr.; a marriage to and divorce from Lolo Soetoro; a move to Indonesia; and the birth of Maya Soetoro in Indonesia.

Mr. Apuzzo, with all due respect, this is the kind of stuff you should have answered BEFORE you disseminated this garbage. I mean, you write this hit piece, and you haven’t even answered the question “So, who is Jo Ann Newman? Did she and her family and friends know Malcolm X?

And, you admit you have not figured out how you can reconcile the name of Jo Ann Newman with the life of Stanley Ann Dunham??? You mean little stuff like marriages to that Indonesian dude, and Obama living in Indonesia and Obama in Hawaii with the Dunham grandparents, and little items like that??? What in the world ever possessed you to climb aboard the Jo Ann Newman Express without checking out where it was going???

Take my advice. Get a second opinion about how sound your mind really is.  And keep your mitts out of the Mouth of Truth.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The First Image above is of Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. Wiki says:

. . .they spend the day seeing the sights, including the “Mouth of Truth”, a face carved in marble which is said to bite off the hands of liars. When Joe pulls his hand out of the mouth, it appears to be missing, causing Anya to scream. He then pops his hand out of his sleeve and laughs. (Hepburn’s shriek was not acting—Peck decided to pull a gag he had once seen Red Skelton do, and did not tell his co-star beforehand.)

The Buzz on Bari Shabazz (Pro Hic! Vice???)

Realizing The Gravity Of The Situation, Bonzo Attempted To Ditch The Open Container

Well, now some people are claiming that Obama is really somebody named Bari Shabazz or Bari’ Shabazz or whatever.  Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has a couple of Internet Articles  about this, the latest being:


Supposedly this Bari Shabazz got ticketed in a traffic accident in Honolulu in March 1982, and presented a New York driver’s license showing a birth date of October 28, 1959.  Then, Shabazz never showed up for court.  It would not surprise me in the least, if Obama was Bari Shabazz.  Not because of any big sinister plot, but because there is a very simple answer for why Obama might have a Bari Shabazz driver’s license. Because prior to August 4, 1982, Obama would have been less than 21 years old.

And, in California where Obama moved and lived after high school, the legal drinking age was 21. Obama graduated high school in 1979. So, for the remainder of 1979, all of 1980, all of 1981, and most of 1982- Obama would have needed a fake driver’s license to go out clubbing and buying booze. As a 27 year-old, who was going to clubs when she was 16, I can assure you that it is very easy to fake a driver’s license.  And a college ID.  It is done all the time.  Plus, it is best to use a fake name where nobody can call your parents if they recognize the name on the license. Let’s just say when I was a few years younger, I was unsinkable.

Here is a linky thingy to each state’s drinking age:


A birth date of October 28, 1959 would have worked from October 28, 1980 until August 4, 1982 – or almost 2 years of the underage time. The motor vehicle accident occurred on March 12, 1982, right during this very time frame when Obama would have needed a fake license. This is just my GUESS, because there isn’t enough to tie all this in to Obama at present. While it would be interesting to know if Obama used a fake license to run from a ticket, I am not expecting any big revelations from this. Just mostly some underage drinking.

But I am not holding my breath. (Or blowing it into the BAC either.)

Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The image above is from Modern Drunkard Magazine:


Note 2:   Pro Hic! Vice is a pun on pro hoc vice about Wiki says:

Pro hac vice (pronounced “pro hack vee-chay”), Latin: “for this occasion” or “for this event”, (literally, “for this turn”) is a legal term usually referring to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction but has been allowed to participate in a particular case in that jurisdiction.

or, the way I see it, pro hic! vice  could mean “for the vice of drinking.”

The Case of the Sleeping Case (A Whimsy)

She Left The Bar Thinking Of A Minor Happenstance???

The Case of the Sleeping Case
A Pot Boiler by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

It was a dark and stormy night. Inside the dimly lit speak easy, two shadowy figures defied the rules and spoke hard. Leo “the Dip” was sweating bullets, and Mario “the Mangler” obsessively policed the brass. “I’m worried,” said Leo. “There’s a paper trail a mile wide and a hundred and thirty six years long. How are we ever going to convince these mugs that a case that has been on ice all these years is The One???”

“Leave da doity bizzness to me,” said the Mangler, in his thick New Joisey accent. “I’ll cover it up in French. Nobody talks French no more, not even the French,” the Mangler said as he called out to the bartender, “Laisse tomber les filles.” (Which means, “Please fill up the tumbler.”)

“It takes a lot of gall to use France, doesn’t it, and don’t the judges come right out and say they aren’t messing with this citizenship stuff?” the Dip asked.

“Judges smudges,” said the Mangler off-handedly, as he loaded up his BAC Calculator App and began talking to himself. “I know what I’m thinking. Did I have six shots or only five?” Well, to tell me the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a Sailor Venus, and has three different kinds of alcohol in it, and would blow my mind clean off, I gotta ask myself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do I, punk?”

“Yo, Mario, snap out of it!”  the Dip exclaimed, and continued.  “I’m serious here, man. This Minor Happersett case isn’t even about citizenship. It’s a voting rights case. It’s sat there un-noticed and un-loved for 136 plus years now. Nobody has ever cited it for a definition of natural born citizenship. We could be skating on thin ethical ice. And are you down with using the losing sides of Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark for our arguments? What if somebody catches that? What if some palooka asks about Chester Arthur???  How his father wasn’t a citizen and he became president just 5 years after Minor Happersett? Or finds out that the same judge who wrote the decision is the one who swore him in???”

“You worry too much,” answered the Mangler. “Nobody we want to convince is going to go back to 1844 or 1898 to read the loser’s arguments, or the dissent in Wong Kim Ark.  Chester Arthur? These saps don’t know from Adam about Chester Arthur. Plus, we can find some speeches and letters to fluff it out with and make it look legal. Anybody who takes the time to read this dribble isn’t going to believe what we’re saying in da foist place. Hey, mebbe that would be a good name for my website, The Foist Place, ya know where you foist stuff off on people?  No, I probably need sumptin simple, like ‘A Place To Ask Questions About This Crap,’ you know sumptin like that. I bet I can get it up and running by April, maybe even March. . .”

“Would you just forget about the damn website for a minute, and let’s talk how we approach this. I mean I don’t want to get sanctioned or anything. We could ruin our reputations and end up having to do public defender work on Dee Wees (DWIs) for a living,” the Dip lamented.

“Hey, don’t knock Dee Wees!” The Mangler interjected. “They help pay the bills. I’m writing the tab tonight  off my taxes as research on one of my cases. And don’t worry I have two backup plans. First, if we get busted out, we just say it is Satire about the Legal System. I mean who could take this crap we’re writing seriously?”

“What’s the second backup plan?”  Leo inquired.

Well, I have been to the courthouse and the flag in the courtroom has a fringe on it. That means it’s a Maritime Court!!! And they can’t sanction a lawyer in a Maritime Court unless he is an officer on active duty. So, we’re covered,” explained the Mangler. “And, being in Maritime Court, I have the perfect client to shepherd this through.”

Meanwhile, in the next booth, a young girl, slender as a reed, sat quietly like a cattail on a hot tin roof, afraid to move or all the fuzzy white stuff would fly every where. She sipped on her drink, a White Russian, and silently cursed her Blackberry, as the spell checker repeatedly returned Hasenpfeffer, and tried to sell her a download of a Bugs Bunny cartoon.  Maybe it wasn’t Minnie Hasenpfeffer she had overheard, maybe it was Minor Happenstance??? No matter. She would figure it out soon enough. What she heard from the two swells enraged her sense of decency. No moral fiber, she thought, in French, either of them.“Poupée de sire, poupée de son” (Which means the poop flows down from the father to the son,  just like citizenship in France.)

She pulled her fedora lower over her face, and hid in its soft felt embrace. She snuggled into her trench coat, and thought of that famous poem, “

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil’s might, Beware my power… Green Lantern’s light!

Well, green wasn’t her favorite color. Maybe black. Or Black and purple? In the fall orange delighted her with it earthy pumpkiny tones. And, she didn’t have a lantern. Just a flashlight. The kind with the big battery. Oh well, never mind. She would find something to make it work.

She waited until the two Wise Guys left, and then winked at a stranger, flashed a brief glimpse of her shapely gams, and her tab was picked up.  But not her. She left the bar, and entered the night. And then, maybe it was inspiration, or maybe that fourth White Russian had loosened up her axons,  or maybe it was just that stupid Megalodon movie she had watched a few weeks earlier about the giant dinosaur shark, whichevah!  But it came to her. The Girl Reporter found a Rhyme to go with her Reason. . .a rhyme which she pledged to repeat daily,  in front of her computer screen:

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil’s might, Beware my power… the MegaBite!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Notes: The above story is fiction and satire and is protected by something, I am sure. Maybe the First Amendment??? Any resemblance to persons living or dead or committed under 72 Hour Mental Evaluation Orders is purely coincidental.

That being said, there are people known as Vattle Birthers (my humorous name for two citizen parent Birthers, or Vattel Birthers). There really is an 1875 SCOTUS case, Minor v. Happersett which is now being promoted as a case which defines the term natural born citizen.  The Case really has been sleeping for 136 years, masquerading all this time as a  historical Women’s Voting Rights case and is still cited for the proposition that the Constitution does not confer the right to vote. The case is NOT cited anywhere for defining citizenship or resolving questions about who is a natural born citizen. Such a characterization is a blatant falsehood. There are many Internet Articles here which discuss how this case is no such thing. And even if it was what the Vattle Birthers try to claim it was, it would still be trumped by the 1898 Won Kim Ark case which was decided 23 years later.

Vex-illogical Arguments: As far as the fringe on the flag comment: Yes, there really are people who believe that “gold fringe” on a flag means all kinds of strange things.  Here is a fair representation of the belief culled together from several comments on the Internet:

The gold fringes on three edges of the flag means that it is the Admiralty flag. The flag you fly represents the jurisdiction you are under. Anyone saying otherwise is either lying or trying to miss lead you and put you back to sleep. The admiralty flag represent maritime law (international law) so when you surrender to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea or subjecting yourself to their jurisdiction in some way you are then trapped in that system. If you have done your homework, gotten up from your stupor, turned off the ball game, tuned out the media brainwash news and educated yourself you will know how to successfully challenge jurisdiction. The Admiralty flag is in every court house in the US. But they are federal enclaves and do not represent US law. Entering in to such a court is entering in to a foreign jurisdiction where they trick you in to becoming subordinate to their jurisdiction.

A gold fringe flag. That is an American Flag with a golden rim around it then know that youre in a military court being court marshalled under military laws. You will have no rights and can be executed immediately after a speedy trial!!!

This is what happens when idiots pretend to be lawyers.  The Gold Fringe idiots and the sincere Vattle Birther idiots are cut from the same cloth. You can read more about this and many other Idiot Legal Arguments at:


As one court tell the Idiots:

As to the physical composition of the flag in the courtroom, the General Services Administration and the Administrative Office of the Courts supply furnishings for the courtroom.  Defendants should address any complaints about the form of the courtroom flag to the General Services Administration.” Moeller v. D’Arrigo (ED Va 1995) 163 FRD 489

and as another tells them:

 Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman. McCann v. Greenway (WD Mo 1997) 952 F.Supp 647

Vexillology is the scholarly study of flags.

Whimsy means:

1. a capricious idea or notion
2. light or fanciful humour
3. something quaint or unusual

A Sailor Venus is a drink made thusly :

120 ml white wine
15 ml Galliano® herbal liqueur
30 ml white rum
20 ml lemon juice
Shake and strain to pousse cafe glass. Garnish with a peel of lemon.

This is also a veiled reference to an 1814 case, The Venus, which the Vattle Birthers frequently misrepresent.  Perhaps too many Sailor Venus’s are the reason???

A Potboiler is a book, painting, or recording produced merely to make the writer or artist a living. (Something I have been accused of.  Making a living. And so it goes on, for this is how [I] must make a living.)