Tag Archives: two citizen parent

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]

Extra!!! Extra!!! Read All About It!!! Georgia Birther Plaintiff Still Swinging!!!

Stop The Presses!!!

UPDATE FROM GEORGIA:  David Farrar, a two citizen parent Birther who frequently posts comments here, is continuing his struggle in Georgia. While I disagree with his theories,  good journalism requires openness.  Here is his latest communique from the front lines, in full:

Honorable Brian Kemp
Secretary of State of Georgia
214 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
via e-mail to Vincent R. Russo Jr. ESQ
VRusso@sos.GA.gov and via Federal Express overnight delivery

Dear Sec. Kemp,

Please allow me an opportunity to disassociate myself from any and all criminal allegations made by my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, against Judge Malihi in her EMERGENCY APPEAL motion now before you. They were not only unauthorized, but unsupported.

In looking back over Judge Malihi’s recommendation, it seems apparent he may have erroneously combined the testimony and evidence submitted from all threes cases into one to arrive at his recommendation, when such is not the case. We do have a separation order signed by Judge Malihi just for that reason. We have different case numbers and we are three separate and distinct cases. This is the reason many leading jurists around the country are confused at just how the judge arrived at his recommendation given the evidence and testimony submitted, most notably, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. When he recently wrote:

“But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.”…Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

For more click here, but the point is clear: somewhere Judge Malihi assumed that Dr. Taitz had allowed candidate Obama’s birth certificate to come into evidence in our case, when it did not, as it did in the other two cases. For this reason, you should set aside Judge Malihi’s recommendation and insist candidate Obama, at the very minimum, enter a certified copy of his Official Hawaiian birth certificate, with the embossed/impressed certification seal visible, into evidence in our case.

I am sure, like Judge Malihi, Mr. Secretary, you do not condone the action of the defendant in this case. Part of the action undertaken by Mr. Jablonski, I am lead to believe, was an attempt to supply you with a copy of his client’s birth certificate on an ex parte basis, in a brazen attempt to enter this document into the court file without giving the Plaintiffs access to either the records this document was created from, nor an opportunity for the Plaintiffs to offer any rebuttal. If this is true, it would represent a patently unfair process and cause all our efforts to date for a fair hearing on the issue to be questioned. Such action, if true, only serves to demonstrate candidate Obama understood only too well the key element in this case was the submission of his birth certificate to judicial scrutiny. Without proper submission of this document into evidence, all our efforts to clearly establish candidate Obama’s presidential qualifications will have been in vain.

The purpose of this lawsuit was simply to have candidate Obama’s birth certificate properly examined and reviewed in a court of law. Sadly, it seems, candidate Obama’s has been able to bamboozle your efforts in this regard if you accept the recommendation of Judge Malihi.

My recommendation is to stand firm and insist candidate Obama’s name will be taken off the Georgia ballot until such time as he can properly submit a certified copy of his birth certificate for judicial review. This course of action will send a clear message to candidate Obama, and to anyone else who would so insult the conscience of a Georgia court in such a flagrant manner, that such action should be taken only at one’s own peril.

Moreover, Mr. Secretary, the rest of the states are closely watching Georgia to see if it can preform this much needed function of vetting presidential and vice-presidential candidates at the state level rather than at the national level through the candidates own national political party.


Mr. Secretary, you, and by extension, the great State of Georgia, are at a unique point in election history where progress can be made, not to mention good law, with determined action on your part to insist candidate Barack Obama submit a certified copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate to the court, as a minimum requirement for placing his name on Georgia’s Presidential Preference Primary ballot.

Respectfully submitted,
[David Farrar]


Waiting For The Paraclete’s Other Sandal To Drop (Or, What Is The Sound Of One Foot Stomping???)

Supposedly Tired Of Their Childishness, The Paraclete Gave His Followers The Boot

A few week ago on November 19, 2011,  Leo Donofrio, Esq., aka The Paraclete, booted his followers off his website supposedly in the hopes that only attorneys would post there and perhaps give the joint a little class.

From now on, if you want to post here, you must be licensed to practice law.  State your real name and the jurisdiction(s) you are licensed in.  NO EXCEPTIONS. The national dialogue on the legal issues discussed here has often become juvenile at best and intentionally misleading at worst.


As I pointed out in my Internet Article, The Paraclete Gives Up The Ghost, I considered this an admission of defeat by Donofrio on the Birther issues, and a turning point where he could attempt to regain some measure of legal respectability following his creation and pumping of idiotic Birther legal theories like the stupid two citizen-parent nonsense.


Well, he has posted two articles since that date, and on both of them the only comments come from Leo Donofrio himself.  Four from himself on the last post!  His latest article concerns not Birtherism, but martial law, and the suspension of certain habeas corpus rights originally found in that English common law that he once found sooo inferior to Emerich de Vattel, and French law. This also confirms my prediction that he would attempt to regain his lost credibility in the legal community.  Plus, this is great fodder for mega-fangirl Dianna Cotter and her ersatz career as a civil rights reporter.


But also, I wonder how long it will be before Donofrio opens his website back up to a newer group of  non-attorney followers. Maybe he is aiming for a better class of disciple, who unlike the Birthers, is literate and has some minimal reading comprehension skills for a change???  And, is Donofrio going to change the name of his blog from Natural Born Citizen to something less reminiscent of his forays into lunacy???  Since the Paraclete is often represented by a dove, I charitably suggest Rara Avis.

Whatever on the name, I suspect he will have to let his flock of loonies back in to have some exterior validation.   Because, the sound of one foot stomping comes across sounding very much like a tantrum.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The Paraclete is a nickname chosen by Donofrio for himself. It has religious and non-religious connotations ranging from Holy Spirit to  lawyer. Wkik says:

Paraclete means advocate or helper. In Christianity, the term most commonly refers to the Holy Spirit. Paraclete comes from the Koine Greek word παράκλητος (paráklētos, that can signify “one who consoles or comforts, one who encourages or uplifts; hence refreshes, and/or one who intercedes on our behalf as an advocate in court”).  The word for “Paraclete” is passive in form, and etymologically (originally) signified “called to one’s side”. The active form of the word, parakletor, is not found in the New Testament but is found in Septuagint in Job 16:2 in the plural, and means “comforters”, in the saying of Job regarding the “miserable comforters” who failed to rekindle his spirit in his time of distress.

“Paraclete” in Classical Greek

The term is not common in non-Jewish texts. The best known use is by Demosthenes::

Citizens of Athens, I do not doubt that you are all pretty well aware that this trial has been the center of keen partisanship and active canvassing, for you saw the people who were accosting and annoying you just now at the casting of lots. But I have to make a request which ought to be granted without asking, that you will all give less weight to private entreaty or personal influence than to the spirit of justice and to the oath which you severally swore when you entered that box. You will reflect that justice and the oath concern yourselves and the commonwealth, whereas the importunity and party spirit of advocates serve the end of those private ambitions which you are convened by the laws to thwart, not to encourage for the advantage of evil-doers. (Demosthenes On the False Embassy 19:1)

Note 2: Rara Avis. A weirdo of sorts.

  rara avis [ˈrɛərə ˈeɪvɪs]

n pl rarae aves[ˈrɛəriː ˈeɪviːz]

An unusual, uncommon, or exceptional person or thing

[Latin: rare bird]
Unusual person.  Anomaly. A rare bird.

A Cross Word For The Two Citizen-Parent Birthers

Embarrassed At Their Inability To Provide An Answer, The Birthers Just Took To Shooting Blanks

In light of the memo below, there is no longer any point whatsoever for the two citizen-parent Birthers to carry on propagating their theory. Not only does this memo debunk their theory, but it also places a burden on them to refute the legal reasoning contained therein. What that means is that in addition to providing a legal basis for their own theory, they also need to address the counter-evidence, the 50 pages of law and reasoning in this memo. So far, that burden has been met by Leo Donofrio, Esq. to the extent that he found one whole sentence in the 50 page memo to quibble about.

There never was any legal basis for the two citizen parent theory. Jerome Corsi wrote an entire book in 2008, called Obama Nation, where in 308 pages of reasons why we should not vote for Obama, there was not one mention of eligibility. The reason was simple. The two citizen-parent theory had not been invented yet. In contrast, the law contained in the memo goes back many hundreds of years. Do the math.

It is time for the two citizen-parent to put up or STFU.  Either refute the memo with law and reasoning, or just STFU. Meet legal cases with later legal cases which reverse them or STFU.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: This memo can also be found on a separate page here called Natural Born Citizenship. It is there also for easier access. Just look in the header above.

The Paraclete Jumps To Another Wrong Conclusion

Chinese Checkers Is More Difficult When You Lose Your Marbles

Well,  Leo Donofrio, Esq., aka The Paraclete, ventured out of his comfy nest made of twigs and bird droppings to attack the 53 page CRS Memo by Jack Maskell, entitled Qualifications for President and the “Natural
Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement. The Birthers are going crazy because this memo utterly destroys the two citizen-parent nonsense along with several other imaginary legal theories. The complete memo can also be found at The Birther Think Tank under Natural Born Citizenship in the Header area above.

Donofrio’s dismissal of the entire 53 page report and his entire post is presently based upon his reading of one whole sentence in the report, although we are promised additional quibbling in the future. Excerpts:

The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty.  On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens.  His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark.  His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned.  Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

But the Supreme Court never said that.  Here’s what they actually said:

“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.”  Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).


Donofrio commits at least two major errors. Let us first deal with whether or not Jack Maskell was being deceptive in his characterization. Here are excerpts from what the Supreme Court said in the Kwock Jan Fat case:

In January, 1915, Kwock Jan Fat, the petitioner, intending to leave the United States on a temporary visit to China, filed with the Commissioner of Immigration for the Port of San Francisco an application, as provided for by law, for a “preinvestigation of his claimed status as an American citizen by birth.”

He claimed that he was 18 years of age, was born at Monterey, California, was the son of Kwock Tuck Lee, then deceased, who was born in America of Chinese parents and had resided at Monterey for many years; that his mother at the time was living at Monterey, and that there were five children in the family, three girls and two boys.

But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California

It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.

It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.

Here is a link to the case:


Sooo,  the Kwock Jan Fat Court itself said:

[I]f he was born here, when [his parents] were permanently domiciled in the United States, he is a citizen, and that it was  better to err on the side of  a natural born citizen when they released him from imprisonment.

Maskell cited the Kwock Jan Fat Court as EXPLAINING:

the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….

Sorry Paraclete, but I don’t see any big difference.  The Court does not go into the citizenship of the parents. After reading what they say, one is left with the sense that it is the place of birth not the citizenship of the parents which provides the citizenship.  Else why go into “ he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States“?  Plus, “permanently domiciled in the United States” certainly leaves open the implication they were indeed Chinese nationals.  While the fact the father was native born would have probably made him a natural born citizen also, there is no other information provided to the court on that point. The Court does not go into it in their analysis.

That was an accurate summing up of the case. I would not have phrased it the same way as Maskell, but his statement is far from being deceptive. Unless of course one doesn’t like the natural born citizen language. Maybe this is just proof of what I have said all along. Two citizen-parent Birthers are reading comprehension challenged.

Now, let us deal with Donofrio’s second major error, his analysis of Kwock Jan Fat’s parents’ citizenship status. Donofrio waxes pompously:

Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.  But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents.  The Supreme Court rejected that contention.  And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue.  I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.

Well first, from above, the Kwock Jan Fat Court characterized the parents simply as permanently domiciled in the United States. The Court does not go into any kind of analysis of their citizenship status. Several statements were made by white citizens prior to Kwock’s year long trip to China.  None expressly called Kwock’s father a citizen, although they did note he was born in America and registered to vote.  No documents were presented, and this would have simply been hearsay evidence.  But this was offered simply to prove that Kwock had been born in America, not to prove the citizenship of his father.  As a legal matter, no one on the Court knew or cared what citizenship the father adhered to.  No evidence was submitted that the Father was either a diplomat or invading soldier. And that is additional evidence that the two citizen-parent stuff is nonsense.

Further, at the time of Kwock Jan Fat case, the Chinese Exclusion Act was in effect. Wiki says:

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by Chester A. Arthur on May 8, 1882, following revisions made in 1880 to the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Those revisions allowed the U.S.  to suspend immigration, and Congress subsequently acted quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, a ban that was intended to last 10 years. This law was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.

The Act also affected Asians who had already settled in the United States. Any Chinese who left the United States had to obtain certifications for reentry, and the Act made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from U.S. citizenship.After the Act’s passage, Chinese men in the U.S. had little chance of ever reuniting with their wives, or of starting families in their new homes.

Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually via a petition for habeas corpus. In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner.Except in cases of bias or negligence, these petitions were barred by an act that passed Congress in 1894 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs Lem Moon Sing (1895). In U.S. vs Ju Toy (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the port inspectors and the Secretary of Commerce had final authority on who could be admitted. Ju Toy’s petition was thus barred despite the fact that the district court found that he was an American citizen. The Supreme Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not require due process and is legally equivalent to refusing entry at a land crossing. This ruling triggered a brief boycott of U.S. goods in China.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, which permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. It also allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year. Large scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965. Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California that Chinese people were not allowed to marry whites was not repealed until 1948.

Even today, although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of Title 8 of the United States Code is headed, “Exclusion of Chinese.” It is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group.

In 2011, the US Senate passed a resolution apologising for past discriminatory actions such as this act.


The is no evidence that Kwock’s father ever applied for certification for re-entry, something required for Chinese born here even 22 years after Wong Kim Ark.  And after reference to the Chinese Exclusion Act above, it was far from certain that Kwock’s father would have automatically been presumed to be a citizen without proof of his birth place, which would default to him being deemed a Chinese national a reasonable characterization.

And, another thing that Donofrio misses, is that the dog didn’t bark.  Similarly, the Kwock Jan Fat Court didn’t engage in an analysis of the parent’s citizenship.  The Court’s characterization is simply that they were permanently domiciled in the United States. And it stopped there.  Because the two citizen-parent stuff is just imaginary Birther law. Looking back at the facts, we can engage in that analysis, but that court didn’t.  Real courts don’t do imaginary law very well. There was no reason to inquire into their citizenship status anymore than there was to in Wong Kim Ark. 

It is important to keep in mind where we are in this discussion. A 53 page memo was written which devastates the two citizen-parent theory. In response, Leo Donofrio picks out one sentence of that memo to try to destroy its credibility. That in itself is a silly enterprise, but entirely predictable. The Birthers have a history of ignoring Reality to maintain their theory. It is not surprising that they would attempt to ignore 52+ pages of well documented legal memo to keep up their delusions.

Finally, let me give the Paraclete one last kick in the seat of the pants. How dare YOU, who have made up this two citizen-parent nonsense up out of thin air accuse anyone of misrepresenting anything?  YOU, who mangles and distorts cases like Minor v. Happersett into false precedent. What makes you think that YOU, the inventor of The Donofrio Shuffle, where you substituted the words from the dissent into the majority decision, without cites, have any right to criticize anyone? Remember The Donofrio Shuffle:

How To Do The Donofrio Shuffle: You Put The Wrong Quote In, You Take The Right Quote Out; You Put The Wrong Quote In, And You Twist It All About. . .

Go, Leo. Go in peace. Go in anger. Whatever,  just go.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Chinese Checkers. There is more than one way to play. Wiki says:

In the capture variant, all sixty game pieces start out in the hexagonal field in the center of the game board. The center position is left unoccupied, so pieces form a symmetric hexagonal pattern. Color is irrelevant in this variant, so players take turns hopping any game piece over any other eligible game piece(s) on the board. The hopped-over pieces are captured (retired from the game, as in American checkers) and collected in the capturing player’s bin. Only jumping moves are allowed; the game ends when no further jumps are possible. The player with the most captured pieces is the winner.

The board is tightly packed at the start of the game; as more pieces are captured, the board frees up, often allowing multiple captures to take place in a single move.

Two or more players can compete in this game, but if there are more than six players, not everyone will get a fair turn.


The 800 Pound Gorilla In The Room

Sadly, The Helmet Was A Helluva Good Disguise To Many People

This Internet Article is about 800 pound Gorillas in the room, on several different levels.  The first level deals with the two citizen-parent Birthers and the 1875 voting rights case, Minor v. Happersett (MvH).  Just like with Breckinridge Long, (see Note 1 below) another MvH-snubbing legal scholar has come to my attention. This one is named George Collins, and in 1884, he wrote Are persons born within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens thereof ?

This was just  9 years after the putative natural born citizen precedent setting MvH case. Like Breckinridge Long, George Collins also failed to mention Minor v. Happersett, even though the whole point of his piece was that a child’s citizenship should be determined by the father’s citizenship.  Here is a link to Collins’ article:


I will go deeper into this article at a later date.

The point for now is, that if Minor v. Happersett was sooo definitive in defining citizenship, why was it that nobody knew it at the time???  This particular article was written just 9 years after the case.  This is a simple question that has been asked many times at The Birther Think Tank.  Just add one more unanswered major anomaly to the two citizen-parent Alternate Reality Universe.

But, I mentioned this Internet Article was about different levels of overlooking the obvious. I first discovered the above piece by Collins by reading Dianna Cotter’s “America’s two unconstitutional Presidents” published December 14, 2009. Miss Cotter is a reporter with the Portland Examiner.


Cotter is interesting because she is also one of the people helping to disseminate the Justiagate nonsense. For the unfamiliar, Justia, an online legal research website supposedly scrubbed links to Minor v. Happersett prior to the 2008 Presidential elections. Justia claims the mistake was a simple programming error which also affected other cases, but Dianna Cotter and Leo Donofrio are convinced this was part of a sinister plot. See for example:




But if MvH isn’t precedent, to anyone outside of Vattel Birther circles,  what’s the point??? Why go to all the effort to scrub a case that is irrelevant??? Even more importantly, how do you write an article in December 2009 where the subject author, George Collins, is a person who completely ignored the MvH case decided just 9 years before he wrote his article back in 1884- – -and then come back, as Cotter did in October 2011 and jump on the Minor v. Happersett band wagon. A reporter is supposed to have a nose for the news, and become suspicious when things don’t add up, like they do with Minor v. Happersett.

I do not know Dianna Cotter, so I don’t know why she didn’t catch this.  Maybe she just forgot the article she wrote 2 years earlier.  Maybe the question of why Collins failed to pick up on this supposedly wonderfully precedental MvH case just never occurred to her.  Perhaps all the other cases which failed to recognize MvH or all the multiple anomalies have managed to slip beneath her radar. Or maybe she just has no interest in trying to confirm her own theories.

But, reporters ask questions. It is what we do.  That 800 pound gorilla is sitting in the middle of her room and demanding a king’s ransom in bananas. Luckily for her, the two citizen-parent Birthers have plenty.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: This is the Internet Article about Breckinridge Long:


Note 2:  A quick list of anomalies can be found here:


Note 3: Ro-Man, and the Image above:

The image above is from Robot-Monster, one of the worst films of all time. Wiki says:

Robot Monster is a 1953 American science fiction film made in 3-d by Phil Tucker. It is frequently considered one of the worst films ever made.  The evil alien Ro-Man Extension XJ-9 (who is simply called “Ro-Man” by the humans) has destroyed all but eight humans on Earth with his “calcinator death ray.” The budget did not allow for a robot costume as intended so director Phil Tucker used his friend George Barrows who had his own gorilla suit to play Ro-Man. Phil Tucker added the helmet.

There is a little pun built into the Easter Egg. (Hover your mouse over the image.)Roman law is said to have been based on descent, not place of birth.  From Edward Gibbon’s book,  The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, some Roman Law:

The above account of slavery and its modifications will be found in strictest conformity with the Institutes of Justinian. Thus, in book 1st, title 3d, it is said: “The first general division of persons in respect to their rights is into freemen and slaves.” The same title, sec. 4th: “Slaves are born such, or become so. They are born such of bondwomen; they become so either by the law of nations, as by capture, or by the civil law.”

The Paraclete Gives Up The Ghost!!!

The Ghost Was Wholly Frightened By The Girl Reporter

UPDATE: On March 13, 2012 Leo Donofrio made it official and retired his blog saying:

After long consideration and discussion with my family, I am saying goodbye to this blog and the law. I am retiring my law license and will be concentrating on making films, and writing music.


Good riddance!!!

Here is my prediction from November 18, 2011, which I have re-blogged on March 14, 2012. Thanks to Patrick Colliano, from Orly’s World FaceBook Page for bringing this to my attention. What follows is the original blog:

Well, it seems that Leo Donofrio, Esq., aka The Paraclete,  has given up the ghost!!! After unrelenting pressure from The Birther Think Tank slamming his goofy and idiotic characterization and interpretation of the 1875 Minor v. Happersett case, he has changed up his website to where he will only accept comments from attorneys who use their real name.

Legally, this is known as constructive resignation.  He isn’t going to give an Official Resignation Letter, he is just not going to show up for work anymore except for maybe 1 or 2 hours per week to check his email. Here is part of what he said, and a link to his Internet Article:


I put my name and professional reputation on everything I post at this blog.  From now on, if you want to post here, you must be licensed to practice law.  State your real name and the jurisdiction(s) you are licensed in.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

The national dialogue on the legal issues discussed here has often become juvenile at best and intentionally misleading at worst.  If you tried to argue on a bar examination – or law school final – that the US Supreme Court in Ex Part Lockwood did not acknowledge Minor v. Happersett as a precedent on the definition of federal citizenship, you would fail.  Yet, all over the blogosphere anonymous propaganda pushing blatant falsehoods is rampant.  “NOT UP IN HERE!”

The practical effect of all this is to chase the two-citizen parent Birthers yahoos from the website. There are few attorneys who buy into the two citizen-parent Vattel nonsense, and probably even less who are willing to come out of the Birther Closet and admit it. My guess is that you would get more cross-dressing attorneys to show up in a bustier with stiletto heels than will show up and raise their hands and confess to believing it takes two citizen parents to be President.

Cross dressing is merely kinky, while  admitting to Birther Legal Fantasies is like publicly admitting  to being very stupid. The first may get you some new clients, and a date for Friday night, while the latter only draws pro bono clients who will call you 500 times per week to check exactly when Obama’s is getting frog-marched out of the White House and, to see if they can watch.

Donofrio is even changing his shtick from Imaginary Legal Theories 101 Two Citizen-Parents to Intermediate Stupid Legal Theories 201 – Citizen Presentments to a Grand Jury. It appears that Mr. Donofrio knows his audience well, thus saying verily unto them:

This does not mean that you may form your own grand jury lynch mobs.

Of course it doesn’t, but I suspect Mr. Donofrio is making a side investment in rope and pitchfork manufacturers just in case.

At any rate, it is good that Mr. Donofrio has taken the criticism leveled at him by The Birther Think Tank to heart. His nickname, The Paraclete, is a term which commonly refers to the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.  (Yes, that is a pun in the Image caption above.) In my opinion Poltergeist comes closer to describing Donofrio.

Well, when there’s something strange, in your neighborhood, who ya gonna call? . . . . Squeeky!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Shtick. Wiki says:

A shtick (Yiddish: שטיק) (or schtick) is a comic theme or gimmick. “Shtick” is derived from the Yiddish word shtik (שטיק), meaning “piece”; the closely related German word Stück has the same meaning. The English word “piece” itself is also sometimes used in a similar context. Another variant is “bits of business” or just “bits”; comic mannerisms such as Laurel and Hardy’s  fiddling with their ties, or one of them looking into the camera shaking his head while the other one would ramble on. A shtick can also refer to an adopted persona, usually for comedy performances, that is maintained consistently (though not necessarily exclusively) across the performer’s career.

In common usage, the word shtick has also come to mean any talent, style, habit, or other eccentricity for which a person is particularly well-known, even if not intended for comedic purposes. For example, a person who is known locally for his or her ability to eat dozens of hot dogs quickly might say that it was their shtick.

Among Orthodox Jews, “shtick” can also refer to wedding shtick, in which wedding guests entertain the bride and groom through dancing, costumes, juggling, and silliness.

There is certainly plenty of juggling and silliness going at Mr. Donofrio’s website.

Note 2: Poltergeist. Wiki says:

The word poltergeist comes from the German words poltern (“to make noise”) and Geist (“ghost”), and the term itself literally means “noisy ghost“. Most reports of poltergeist manifestations involve noises and destruction that have no immediate or verifiable cause. Poltergeist activity has often been believed to be the work of malicious ghosts. According to Alan Kardec, the founder of Spiritism, poltergeists are manifestations of disembodied spirits of low level, belonging to the sixth class of the third order. They are believed to be closely associated with the elements (fire, air, water, earth).

Hmmm. Lets see. Fire plus air equals hot air. Water plus earth equals mudNoisy. Malicious. Yeah, definitely Mr. Paraclete is a Poltergeist.

Note 3: Just for Fun: Wiki provides this report of a Poltergeist:

Lithobolia (1698)

Main article: Lithobolia

Lithobolia, or the Stone-Throwing Devil, is a pamphlet that records poltergeist activity that allegedly took place in the tavern of George and Alice Walton in 1682. Two copies of the pamphlet exist in the British Museum. The Waltons’ tavern was located in New Castle, New Hampsire, then known as the Great Island. Lithobolia was written by “R.C.,” one Richard Chamberlain, the secretary of the colony of New Hampshire. In 1666 Chamberlain was boarding at the Walton tavern and witnessed the attack. The pamphlet was later printed in London by Chamberlain in 1698. The opening reads:

“Lithobolia”, or stone throwing Devil. Being an Exact and True account (by way of Journal) of the various actions of infernal Spirits or (Devils Incarnate) Witches or both: and the great Disturbance and Amazement they gave to George Walton’s family at a place called Great Island in the county of New Hampshire in New England, chiefly in throwing about (by an Invisible hand) Stones, Bricks, and Brick-Bats of all sizes, with several other things, as Hammers, Mauls, Iron-Crows, Spits, and other Utensils, as came into their Hellish minds, and this for space of a quarter of a year.”

I wonder if it is too late for a Grand Jury on this???

Remember the Maine, Battleship!!! Remember the Wong Kim Ark???

While Wong Kim Ark's Size is Unknown, The Maine Was 212 Cubits Long and 38 Cubits Wide

This is a short, 8 page  article from the 1898 American Law Review about another Big SHIP event in 1898, CitizenSHIP.  On February 15, 1898, an American battleship called The Maine, exploded in a harbor in Cuba. This is what started the conflict known as the Spanish American War. Six weeks later on March 28, 1898, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of  Wong Kim Ark, which ended all doubts about the citizenship of children born to foreigners in the United States. This case ended the conflict over who were natural born citizens, aka citizens by birth, under the 14th Amendment.

The Vattel Birthers (whom I usually call Vattle Birthers, to tease them) don’t like this case at all, because it is the basis of Barack Obama, Mark Rubio, and Bobby Jindal being eligible to run for President or Vice-President.  The Vattle Birthers have several reasons for avoiding this case because it is clear that the Supreme Court chose the common law interpretation of the term natural born citizen,  over the international law version. For Americans, a natural born citizen is simply someone born in the United States and within its jurisdiction.

The Vattle Birthers are trying to re-write history and claim that an 1874 SCOTUS decision, Minor vs. Happersett established a different standard, one requiring two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. This is nonsense. The Minor decision made no attempt to define citizenship, and openly stated so in its decision. There are several Internet Articles here which discuss the Minor case, and as you can see from the first two sentences of the first page below, Wong Kim Ark , not Minor Happersett, is THE FIRST TIME the Supreme Court decided this issue:

The Wong Kim Ark case, decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 28, 1898,  decides, for the first time in that tribunal, the question whether a person born in the United States of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision holds, substantially, that the language used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution is declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and not of the international law doctrine, and that, therefore, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality or political status of his parents.

This is a very scholarly Birther Think Tank Internet Article about this subject, and is using a source from the exact same year as the case. Here is a link to the google book:


What all this means is that the Vattle Birthers are just plain wrong.  Wong Kim Ark was the first Supreme Court case to deal with this issue, and not Minor v. Happsett. If you are interested in reading about the Vattle Birther’s Minor v. Happesett wild goose chase, see here:


This means that Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is WRONG. This means that Leo Donofrio, Esq, is WRONG. Mr. Donofrio is particularly WRONG since he is the chief person pushing the Minor v. Happersett nonsense, and he should be ashamed of himself for accusing anybody else of trying to scrub or revise history.  This 1898 American Law Review article is PROOF of how the law was viewed back when it was fresh on everybody’s mind, and it sure wasn’t Minor v. Happersett to which they were turning.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter