Apuzzo Files- Squeeky Fromm educating Mario about syllogism

Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter is having some fun educating Mario, in a hilarious manner, about syllogisms and their value in arguments.

While Mario’s ideas have gathered no relevant acceptance beyond his own blog, and in fact where mostly rejected by the Courts in US v Wong Kim Ark and in Re: Wong Kim Ark, and other court rulings, it’s fascinating to see how Mario uses logical fallacies to support his position.

Do not fail to also read her other articles such as this one

In her Squeeky style show observes How Apuzzo:

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

and then continues to outline the fallacies in Mario’s claim

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:

Never miss a posting at Squeeky Fromm’s blog…

I always thought it to be hilarious how Mario lost his arguments to a recent female graduate from law school… Seems that he cannot earn himself the respect he so desperately seems to crave.

Foggy spilling the Beans on Mario

At Mario’s blog, Foggy is revealing how Mario got onto the show with Professor Kuck

Mr. Apuzzo said:

I will listen [to my appearance on Immigration Hour] and tell you what I think.

Fair enough. The archive hasn’t been posted yet. However, I know from past experience that you will proclaim that I lost the argument and you won it. That’s what you do.

On the other hand, the reason you were invited on the show is that Prof. Kuck’s producer, Dave, is a birther. Prof. Kuck tells me that at the end of the show today, Dave acknowledged that I am right and you are wrong about the fake imaginary “born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens” rule. I exposed your mendacity to such an extent that poor Dave is back to claiming that President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.

So while you will still claim to have bested me using logic based on your dishonest interpretations of Minor and WKA, in human terms I won, in that I got both Prof. Kuck and his birther producer Dave to agree with me.

Friday morning bright and early I’m flying out to L.A. to spend a fun weekend with about 16 other members of my Fogbow forum. Several of them are lawyers, of course. If I had messed up today, I’d be hearing about it all weekend, as you might imagine. Instead, my people seem to think I did a very good job on the radio today. You won’t agree, but I don’t seek approval from you.

Reality Check also has a new post up about my performance and how I rebutted your silly arguments from last week. I haven’t read it yet, but if you’re going to write about what I said on the show, you might want to read what he has to say first, and include a rebuttal in your explanation of why you bested me; then you can claim another victory over both of us.

You really are racking up those victories right and left. It doesn’t get any better than that, does it?

Foggy responds to Professor Kuck

Here at the Fogbow

Professor Kuck,

First, I’d like to congratulate you on becoming a national hero of the “birther” movement — the people who think President Obama is an illegal usurper who needs to be arrested immediately. Consider the stark reality:

  • Hillary Clinton (Yale Law School) desperately wanted to win the primaries in ’08, but she never suggested that President Obama was ineligible because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen;
  • Michael Mukasey was the nation’s top law enforcement officer during the entire ’08 election cycle. It was his responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution, but he never suggested that President Obama was ineligible because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen;
  • Chief Justice John Roberts has sworn in President Obama twice now, but has never suggested that President Obama was ineligible; and,
  • Courts all across this nation — federal and state courts, trial and appellate courts — beginning with Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) — have uniformly rejected the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo on your show. As the Ankeny court put it, “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
  • However, standing tall against all of these is the distinguished University of Georgia immigration law professor Charles Kuck, who, in a radio show aired just yesterday, openly advised Mr. Apuzzo — the small-time DUI practitioner who has lost every single case in which he’s raised the issue — that his legal arguments are “correct”. In fact, you said several times that his arguments are “correct”. Which means, of course, that the dozens of court decisions that have established a broad national consensus on the issue were all decided wrongly.

Read more here

Professor Kuck, Wong Kim Ark and natural-born

Yesterday, a Mario Apuzzo and Professor Charles Kuck discussed the definition of natural born. While for some mysterious reasons Professor Kuch appeared to support Mario’s poorly argued position that natural-born requires two citizen parents in clear contradiction of US v Wong Kim Ark, the good Professor does know about the case, although he refers to the plaintiff/defendant as Mr Ark.

Mimi, on the Fogbow, reminded me of a hilarious episode with Momma E

oh you never heard mario before. A classic from the Momma-E show:


A caller calls in and asks Mario & Charlie Kerchner about Wong Kim Ark and how it will affect their case, and they had never heard of it. Momma-E chimes in for awhile. In the end, they decide it was bad law.