Main Menu

I told you so

It was over three years ago. Mario Apuzzo had commented on several threads on this blog and on one of them, he left this message:

It is not my intent to overturn Wong Kim Ark and I do not know from where you got that notion. Your comment leads me to believe that you do not understand my “natural born Citizen” argument.

On another thread, I commented on my ongoing discussion with Mr. Apuzzo:

I keep telling Apuzzo that he has to overturn Wong.

And I did say that quite a bit back in those days. Now Vermont Superior Court Judge Robert R. Bent says the same:

Mr. Paige has tendered a scholarly article authored by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey…. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wing Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.

What the judge is saying is that the Wong decision does apply as binding precedent on his court and whatever Apuzzo thinks about the founders’ intent is academic. To prevail in court Apuzzo has to overturn Wong.

I told you so.

, ,

16 Responses to I told you so

  1. avatar
    Arthur November 16, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    “While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wing Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.”

    I imagine Mario would counter by saying that since this explication of a Supreme Court decision came from a Vermont Superior Court Judge it has no credibility. In Mario’s solipsistic world, only Mario’s ideas count. To paraphrase Justice Holmes, Mario’s mind is like the pupil of an eye: the more you shine light on it, the more it contracts.

  2. avatar
    Daniel November 16, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    Who would have thought Charlie Sheen was actually quoting Mario Apuzzo……

    “WINNING!!!”

  3. avatar
    bgansel9 November 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    But Bent CLEARLY says WING and WING is different than WONG, so… you’re wrong! :P

    (Don’t hit me!)

  4. avatar
    Keith November 17, 2012 at 1:23 am #

    bgansel9:
    But Bent CLEARLY says WING and WING is different than WONG, so… you’re wrong!

    (Don’t hit me!)

    Two Wongs do not make a White!

    Arthur Augustus Calwell (28 August 1896 – 8 July 1973) Australian politician, was a member of the Australian House of Representatives for 32 years from 1940 to 1972, Immigration Minister in the government of Ben Chifley from 1945 to 1949 and Leader of the Australian Labor Party from 1960 to 1967.

    Calwell’s remark in Parliament in 1947 that “Two Wongs don’t make a White” is widely quoted. The remark was intended as a joke, being a reference to a Chinese resident called Wong who was wrongly threatened with deportation, and a Liberal MP, Sir Thomas White.

    Calwell later wrote:

    It is important to me, at least, to set out the facts about a remark I made in the House of Representatives on December 2, 1947, which has been so often misrepresented it has become tiresome. On that day I was asked a question by Rupert Ryan, brother-in-law of Lord Casey, on the deportation of Malayan seamen, Chinese and other people who had contravened our immigration laws. I said, amongst other things, that an error may have been made in the case of two men named Wong. The Department had served a deportation notice on one of them, but it was the wrong Wong. I then said, and I quote from Hansard: ‘there are many Wongs in the Chinese community, but I have to say — and I am sure that the honorable Member for Balaclava will not mind doing so — that “two Wongs do not make a White”‘. It was a jocose remark, made partly at the expense of the member for Balaclava, who was at the time the Hon T W (later Sir Thomas) White. I expected that I would have been correctly reported, as I was in Hansard and that the initial letter ‘W’ on both the names ‘Wong’ and ‘White’ would have been written in capitals. But when the message got to Singapore, either because of some anti-Australian Asian journalist or perhaps because some Australian pressman with a chip on his shoulder, a Labor Party hater, the name of White was deliberately altered into a definition of colour, so as to read ‘two Wongs don’t make a white.’ The story has lasted to this day. I have often answered questions about it from young Chinese students at universities in Melbourne and Sydney. I notice whenever reference is made to it in newspapers or periodicals, or whenever the quotation is used anywhere, the Singapore abomination is generally repeated. Latterly the true version is being printed. There was never any intention in my mind to raise any question of colour. I have repudiated the whole story so often that I suppose there is nothing more I can do about it. But I put the facts on record in this book.[9] Calwell, Be Just and Fear Not, 109.

    In fact, Calwell did not refer in Parliament to two men called Wong. The full quotation is:

    “The [deportation] policy which I have just mentioned relates to evacuees who came to Australia during the war. This Chinese is said to have been here for twenty years, and obviously, therefore, is not a wartime evacuee. Speaking generally, I think there is some claim for him to be regarded as a resident of Australia, and I have no doubt his certificate can be extended from time to time as it has been extended in the past. An error may have been made in his case. The gentleman’s name is Wong. There are many Wongs in the Chinese community, but I have to say — and I am sure that the Honourable Member for Balaclava will not mind me doing so — that “two Wongs do not make a White”.”

  5. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 17, 2012 at 8:16 am #

    Daniel:
    Who would have thought Charlie Sheen was actually quoting Mario Apuzzo……

    “WINNING!!!”

    The difference being that Charlie Sheen can still find work, and quite frankly I’ll take the celeb with a history of addiction problems over a blustery douche bag of a lawyer, who got his degree from Cracker Jack University. Thinking of demoting him from “Wario” to “Waluigi”.

  6. avatar
    Keith November 17, 2012 at 9:07 am #

    Daniel:
    Who would have thought Charlie Sheen was actually quoting Mario Apuzzo……

    “WINNING!!!”

    I like Charlie, despite his obvious personal shortcomings. He and his brother Emilio have the distinction of belonging to a family wherein the sons are almost as good as their father as far as acting goes.

    Keifer Sutherland, on the other hand, is a much better actor than his father, who has basically just phoned in his performances ever since Klute (and maybe even M*A*S*H).

  7. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 17, 2012 at 10:37 am #

    Sorry, Keith, but I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you. Keifer has never given a performance remotely as interesting as Donald’s in Klute and, after Klute there was Don’t Look Now, a classic, Day of the Locust, Ordinary People, Eye of the Needle, Bethune, JFK (his performance as the intel expert talking about “Black Ops” is pure, weird, paranoia and the best moment in the film, for my money), and Six Degrees of Separation. I’ve seen him in lots of lousy films, but I’ve very rarely seen Donald Sutherland give a bad performance. Keifer can’t compare. The only thing Keifer really has going for him is 24, and it’s not as if, as Jack Bauer, he has to stretch as an actor. For my money, Donald not only wins hands down, but you’d be hard pressed to name a character actor who has worked at such a high level in such a number of films.

    Keith: Keifer Sutherland, on the other hand, is a much better actor than his father, who has basically just phoned in his performances ever since Klute (and maybe even M*A*S*H).

  8. avatar
    SluggoJD November 17, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    Fazil Iskander:
    Sorry, Keith, but I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you. Keifer has never given a performance remotely as interesting as Donald’s in Klute and, after Klute there was Don’t Look Now, a classic, Day of the Locust, Ordinary People, Eye of the Needle, Bethune, JFK (his performance as the intel expert talking about “Black Ops” is pure, weird, paranoia and the best moment in the film, for my money), and Six Degrees of Separation. I’ve seen him in lots of lousy films, but I’ve very rarely seen Donald Sutherland give a bad performance. Keifer can’t compare. The only thing Keifer really has going for him is 24, and it’s not as if, as Jack Bauer, he has to stretch as an actor.For my money, Donald not only wins hands down, but you’d be hard pressed to name a character actor who has worked at such a high level in such a number of films.

    Say what?

    Ordinary People all the way – a simple drama, a great film. Both Donald and Mary Tyler Moore could/should have won Oscars for their performances. JFK? Just a minor part in that one.

  9. avatar
    G November 17, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    I’ve enjoyed many performances of both Donald and Kiefer Sutherland over the years. I consider them both to be fine actors and talents to the point that I find myself more interested in seeing a show or movie if I know that either of them have a role in it.

    Fazil Iskander:
    Sorry, Keith, but I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you. Keifer has never given a performance remotely as interesting as Donald’s in Klute and, after Klute there was Don’t Look Now, a classic, Day of the Locust, Ordinary People, Eye of the Needle, Bethune, JFK (his performance as the intel expert talking about “Black Ops” is pure, weird, paranoia and the best moment in the film, for my money), and Six Degrees of Separation. I’ve seen him in lots of lousy films, but I’ve very rarely seen Donald Sutherland give a bad performance. Keifer can’t compare. The only thing Keifer really has going for him is 24, and it’s not as if, as Jack Bauer, he has to stretch as an actor.For my money, Donald not only wins hands down, but you’d be hard pressed to name a character actor who has worked at such a high level in such a number of films.

  10. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 17, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

    Yeah, I really loved his performance in Ordinary People, too, but his cameo in JFK is the height of great acting. Why? Because, in his fifteen minutes onscreen, he’s got to make the most turgid, paranoid, and weird writing sound perfectly “normal”, so that Costner’s character can seem “normal”, too. It’s a much underrated moment in a film filled with weird moments.

    Just a btw: JFK is the filmic realization of the conspiracy theories websites like this one exist to combat. It’s pretty compelling watching – well, it was for me, anyway – and it helped me “get” truthers, birthers, etc. It manages to dramatize what it feels like to know something only a select illuminati know.

    SluggoJD: Say what?

    Ordinary People all the way – a simple drama, a great film.Both Donald and Mary Tyler Moore could/should have won Oscars for their performances.JFK?Just a minor part in that one.

  11. avatar
    Fazil Iskander November 17, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    I’m with you on Donald, but Kiefer hasn’t exactly lit up the big screen. He was good in At Close Range and Three Musketeers, but I can’t think of any of his movies that come close to showing off his talent the way 24 does. But then, I haven’t followed him as closely or for as long as I have his father. So, this gives me an excuse to finally watch Flatliners

    G:
    I’ve enjoyed many performances of both Donald and Kiefer Sutherland over the years.I consider them both to be fine actors and talents to the point that I find myself more interested in seeing a show or movie if I know that either of them have a role in it.

  12. avatar
    G November 17, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    Love Flatliners! Saw it in the theater when it came out and it was one of the 1st DVDs I purchased many years ago. I even pulled it out and watched it again one late night prior to Halloween this year. That movie is a classic and Kiefer is excellent in it.

    Fazil Iskander: So, this gives me an excuse to finally watch Flatliners

  13. avatar
    Keith November 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Ooooh! I stirred up a hornets nest!

    I just think that following Klute, Donald Sutherland just plays Donald Sutherland in everything he does. I agree with you that he did a good job in JFK, but that is the out-lier that proves the rule. He CAN act, he just chooses not to.

    Keifer, on the other hand, has never failed to deliver. I loved him in Flashback with Dennis Hopper and Carol Kane.

  14. avatar
    bovril November 17, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

    Being the evil philistine I am and returning to the tragedy in multiple acts that is Mario… where is the silly little man?

    I can but assume that as is his inevitable wont after yet another legal ass kicking in Vermont he is repasting his opus of 56000 plus words explaining yet again how The Toad is right since everyone else is wrong.

  15. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    Yeah Keifer has done better on the small screen. LOVED him in Call of Duty: World at War.

  16. avatar
    bovril November 18, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    Damn, I must be psychic….. 8-)

    Lookie Look, The Toad HAS been busy copy ‘n pasting his nonsensical cack about Vermont.

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/attorney-mario-apuzzo-vermont-court.html

    http://puzo1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-vermont-court-errs-in-dismissing.html

    I am however extremely disappointed in him, 4,667 words only, which of course as always boils down to

    “WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH POOPYHEAD, I’M RIGHT YOU’RE WRONG, EVERYONE IS MEAN TO ME, HE ISN’T ISN’T ISN’T THE PRESIDENT HE’S TOO BLACK AND DEMOCRATIC’Y HE ISN’T HE ISN’T ISN’T ISN’T !!!!!!!!!”