Tag Archives: Birther

With 2020 Foresight! The Ted Cruz Birther Lawsuit


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

NOTE: I originally published this article in June 2013, but since Ted Cruz announced his Presidency, I presume the Neo-Two Citizen Parent Birthers and some of the old crowd, too will be at it again. Sooo, I decided to dust it off and republish it. It provides my analysis of how a future Birther lawsuit challenging Ted Cruz will work out. So, without further ado:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apuzzo Order

UPDATE 1: June 26, 2013.,

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


And here is the pdf:

Apuzzo Motion For Reconsideration

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

The George Zimmerman Verdict and The New Birthers!!!


Sometimes Mobs Just Get Tunnel Vision

The Birther Think Tank  tries to stay away from partisan politics and just focus on the Birther issue. Personally,  I am about 60% conservative and 40% progressive. Maybe 55%-45%. Anyway,  if I ever did a politically oriented blog, I would have about zero readership. The conservatives would call me a commie, and the liberals would call me a Nazi. Libertarians of both sides would be trying to hunt me down to tar and feather me, or worse.

Sooo, I am reluctant to even get into the whole Trayvon Martin cluster-f*ck at this website. But I feel compelled to say something. Here’s the reason.  I often wonder why it is that we Anti-Birthers and Obots are so fascinated by the Birther mindset. The answer I come up with is that we recognize something universal about Humanity in their various mental machinations. It’s like the Cinderella fairy-tale where people relate to the whole evil step-mother archetype and the story gets told over and over.  Birtherism is fun because it skulks around the extremes of human foolishness.  But it is hardly the only example. I see the same tendencies in the over-wrought histrionics about the Zimmerman verdict.

Let me say from the outset, that I never saw this story as anything particularly special.  Without sufficient provocation or threat, Person A jumped on a Person B, broke his nose,  and started banging his head on the concrete.  Person B shoots him. I am from Texas. If somebody jumped on me, broke my nose, and started banging my head on the sidewalk, I would have shot him, too. Then when I got up, I would have shot him a few more times for good measure. Then, I would have jumped up and down on his head with both feet until the cops got there.  Because I have seen too many scary movies where some psycho serial killer comes back to life and starts killing people all over again. It would not have made any difference to me what color the sumbitch was, I would be coloring him DEAD.

That’s my opinion. But I can understand how the less Texan people among us could focus in on the whole Unarmed-Teenager vs. Gun-Toting-Grown-Up aspect of it.  And I can see a little bit of the “Zimmerman was a busy-body” argument.  I think all that disappears the second Trayvon started battering Zimmerman, but I can see how people could find those arguments germane in the beginning. However, there was a very open trial and a jury found Zimmerman innocent.  And now the reactions, from whom I will call the Trayvonites, begin looking more and more Birtherish, and even exceeding them in large degree. It is so ridiculous, I call the Travonites The New Birthers.

First, the whole Birther movement started with SUSPICIONS. Birthers started out suspecting that Obama was born in Kenya, and from those SUSPICIONS rose all the phony COLB claims, and forged long form nonsense. It has gone so far now that otherwise intelligent people believe Obama’s mother wasn’t Stanley Dunham

Similarly, the Trayvonites started off SUSPECTING racism on Zimmerman’s part. This was egged on by a Liberal Lynch Mob who see racists behind every tree.  The police and the FBI investigated Zimmerman and from all the reports in the news, he is one of the least racist people around. He dated a Black girl, and he and his wife tutored Black children. He had Black friends who liked him. But, the racist hook was set, and the tug of war to land him in the boat with some race baiting was afoot.

Then, you have the Imaginary Scenario Creations, often constructed from erroneous facts. Birthers sit around and fantasize about Obama’s mama sneaking off to Canada or Kenya or Timbuktu prior to him being born, and then Obama’s grandparents paying a clerk to fake an Hawaiian birth certificate for him. Or, the false assertion that nobody remembers Obama at Columbia.

The Trayvonites do the same thing. For example, they imagine that Zimmerman first threatened Trayvon and maybe even pulled the gun, and then it was Trayvon who fought back for his very life. Another scenario is being advanced that Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a mad homosexual rapist about to molest him.  They also keep thumping the completely false assertion that Zimmerman was told by the police to stay in his car, and if he only had obeyed the po po, then none of this would have happened. The problem with both groups’ hypothesized scenarios, and often their facts, is that while the imagined scenario is possible, the available evidence and the real facts don’t tend to support them. The State spent a great deal of time trying to prove that Zimmerman did something wrong, and the evidence just wasn’t there.

With both groups, there seems to be some underlying preconception or preoccupation that provides the fertile soil for the Seeds of Suspicion. Many think the “Scary Black Man” Archetype is what lies beneath the Birther subconscious. That it wouldn’t matter who the President was, if he was Black, there would be Birthers. I personally don’t agree with that, but I do admit the possibility. Similarly,  the Trayvonites seem to be motivated by an underlying “Oppressed Black Man” Archetype.  That it doesn’t matter what Trayvon did, the mere suspicion that Zimmerman profiled him tells the whole story for them. GUILTY!  As for me, if an upset reader should wish to break my nose and bang my head into the concrete, I respectfully request that you profile me instead.

The mob mentality of the Birthers is encouraged by their active fantasy life. They seem to be living back in the 1950/1960s era where they play the role of anti-commie, anti-Marxist Patriots keeping America safe and secure. Therefore, the “Scary Black Man” Archetype plays right into their Foreign Invasion Fantasy.

The Trayvonite mob is no different. They seem to be living back in the 1950/1960s era where they play the role of Freedom Riders and civil rights pioneers rushing in to save the poor black folks from the KKK. Therefore, the “Oppressed Black Man” Archetype plays right into their Saving The Poor Black Man Fantasy.

Both groups are stupid and silly. The Commies aren’t even commies any more. If the Birthers want to keep America safe and secure, then please,  set up some Citizen Grand Juries and guillotines over on Wall Street. Pretty please. As for the Trayvonites, most harms suffered by Blacks in 2013 are self-inflicted wounds arising out of extremely poor personal choices. Like fantasizing you’re a gangsta, and going around trying to whup up on people. Here is a link to one interesting article I read today on this subject:


Both groups are encouraged to some degree by their respective parties as a means to energize the base. And I do mean base. As in ignoble and without moral virtue. Here the Democrats are far more culpable. For just one example,  Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton are both egging on all the unjustified hand wringing and p*ssing and moaning. Holder is trying to involve the DOJ in this mess, when the FBI has already cleared Zimmerman.

Hillary Clinton, who I actually like, came out with this bunch of crap: “No mother, no father, should ever have to fear for their child walking down a street in the United States of America.” Sure, but maybe if you encourage your kids not to jump on strangers, break their nose, and beat their heads against the concrete, they would be a little safer, too. Funny how that part gets left out. There are more examples here than I can list. I am sure there will be books written.

The Republicans are far behind the Democrats on this particular point for just one reason: Birtherism is so nutty and crazy that the silly crap tends to splash back up on the people who encourage it.  Then you got to send your clothes off to the dry cleaners, and the smell tends to linger. If Zimmerman had been found guilty, then the Republicans would be pushing the hell out of the story. But, he won.

Whereas, the idiotic Democratic racial sob story hooey is part and parcel of their political strategy. Which is why the race card and race baiting are so prevalent in the party. Even a harmless prank about the names of the Asiana pilots is racist to these people. Ho Le Fuk! Sum Ting Wong there!

Moving on to the next area of similarity, the Birthers are completely incapable of accepting either electoral or judicial losses. They are still trying to overturn the 2008 election, and make null and void the laws passed during Obama’s presidency.  Birther leaders stir up the Birther mob. The Trayvonites are up to the same thing.  Rev. Al Sharpton, the proud heir to the legacy of George Wallace and Lester Maddox, is in Cat Heaven over this. He is planning Trayvonpalooza’s in a hundred cities to stir up the Trayvonite mob. They want to overturn the verdict, rather than accept it. Oh Pretty Pleeeeaasse! Give us a do-over! Just ignore the JURY behind the curtain!

Both groups are lobbying like the dickens to get Washington to step in and pull a deus ex machina victory out for them. Zullo and his bunch are meeting with Very Important Officials in Washington, to get the eligibility issue before Congress. Same with the Trayvonites. Except, they are making some headway with Eric “Oblivious” Holder. He has actually set up a DOJ website to take email tips on this.

You know things are really bad in Fake Partisan Investigation Land when Attorney General Eric Zullo, I mean Sheriff Joe Holder, oh what’s his name, ERIC HOLDER makes Sheriff Joe and The Cold Case Posse look smart in comparison. Once again, the Trayvonites are way ahead on the Government Officious Inter-Meddling Event with it being so blatantly, stinking bad that Alan Dershowitz is calling for Prosecutor Angela Corey to be disbarred. I suspect (pray? hope?) calls for Holder’s resignation will begin to snowball.

Both sets of mobs want to change the laws. The Birthers don’t like all that 14th Amendment stuff, because well, you know just anybody who is born here gets to be a citizen, and maybe even a natural born citizen if they are honest enough to admit it. Which most aren’t. Currently,the Trayvonites are fixated on the Florida Stand Your Ground law, even though that defense was not used at the trial. There is an interesting article at Wiki on Stand Your Ground Laws:


From that  link we find, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the “no duty to retreat” maxim, that “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife”. I would submit that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the case of Mr. Head vs. Mr. Concrete!, either.  The law is colorblind, and had Zimmerman been black, and Trayvon white, I expect the verdict would have been the same.

However, both Birthers and Trayvonites seem convinced that when the outcome is not what they wish, it must be the law that is wrong. Because it sure can’t be them or their expectations that are messed up. I would not be surprised to see the Trayvonites attempt to replace the jury trial with Trial By Press. They have already made a darn good start.

Both groups have their martyrs. For the Birthers, one of them is poor old Terry Lakin, who chose to deploy not to Afghanistan, and spent six months in Leavenworth. Trayvon has become the poster child of innocent victims of gun violence. I suspect both groups would like the Post Office to honor their man with a first class postage stamp. Maybe it can be part of the Cowards and Batterers series???

And, both groups have their nutty signs. The Birthers have their idiotic “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” signs,  when the darn thing is plastered  all over the Internet. Not to be outdone in stupidity, the First Baptist Church University Park, in CHICAGO, of all places, has, “It Is Safe To Kill Black People In Amerikkka.” What a complete frigging joke. Yeah, killing black folks is pretty safe in CHICAGO. But it ain’t the KKK. It’s other young black thugs. See the ChicagoNow article linked above.

Speaking about killing people, there are numerous Birthers who openly contemplate assassination, The Secret Service has paid quite a few of them a visit. Some are locked up. Most of us here are in complete agreement with that, and we feel little sorrow for those folks, or the Walter Fitzpatricks and Darren Huffs. We are not afraid to criticize them for any violent tendencies, even though most of it is only Keyboard Commandoing. That sort of stuff is just plain wrong.

Here, the Trayvonites imitate and exceed the Birthers. Death threats are common against Zimmerman and his family. There is even violence in some cities, something neither the Tea Party nor Birthers have ever resulted to. Yet, I have seen no investigations into the Trayvonites whatsoever. Where is Operation Vigilant Eagle when you really need it?

Finally, and this is only finally to keep this article from becoming way too long, there is all the idiotic Plea de’ Hyperbole that gets thrown around in the complete disregard of the legal and factual underpinnings. How many times have we seen a Birther come out with:

But if being born in the United States is all it takes, then the son of Osama Bin Laden can be President!!!

Oh Noes! Quelle Horreur! Meanwhile, the Trayvonites are just as silly. The Guardian, not just some random Birther nut, actually ran:

Open Season On Black Boys After A Verdict Like This!!!

I suspect someone there at the Guardian must have had his head banged against some concrete, or suffered some other form of Traumatic Brain Injury. I could fill this website up with the other over-the-top statements I have seen on this subject. Which is why this whole article is  relevant. The Birthers jump straight to the Parade of Horribles and ignore all the intermediate steps like elections, and judicial hearings. The Trayvonites do the same. Poor little black kids with a handful of Skittles will be shot down in the street like dogs by hordes of psychotic creepy ass crackers. And let’s just ignore that whole intermediate jumping on somebody and beating them thingie, OK! Rah, rah, siss boom CRAP!

The delusional and mob mentality qualities of Birtherism do not stop with that issue alone.  Nor do  hysterical conspiracy theories built on groundless suspicions.  Part of the inherent fun in reporting on Birthers, and laughing at them, is the morbid joy of gawking at obvious fools and charlatans. And rejoicing that we aren’t that stupid and mendacious. Sometimes we all need to take a little personal inventory to make sure that is still true.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Wayne Allyn Root Needs To Crawl Back In His Hole!!!

Wayne Root Gets Nailed

Wayne Suddenly Found Himself In A Box, With No Wiggle Room

The Barackryphal Blog has so thoroughly discredited Birther Wayne Allyn Root, that he ought to be ashamed to show his face. Except maybe in New York City, where he might have a chance to be mayor. Meanwhile, you got to read this:

Friday, July 12, 2013

Wayne Allyn Root’s Columbia Conspiracism, Part 1

Wayne Allyn Root, who was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Vice President in 2008*, has continued to occasionally pop up on the Birther radar in the last four years, typically espousing arguments and accusations that Barack Obama’s Columbia University education is somehow…suspicious. Root, who graduated from Columbia in 1983 like Obama, has floated multiple theories, while being seemingly reluctant to commit to any one. But is this suspicion about Obama something that Root has always felt? Or did it only appear, suddenly, right before the 2008 election?


This question get answered in spades, with more than 10 examples of Root’s statements before becoming an active Birther. And the best part of all, is that this is just Part 1!!! I can hardly wait for the sequel!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Christopher Lee playing Dracula in the 1968 Hammer film, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave.

Birther Wayne Allyn Root: Failing His Way To Repress???

Wayne Allen Rasputin 2

He Discovered That Failure Wasn’t Quite The Joy It Was Cracked Up To Be!

Hmmm, what an interesting story! It seems that BIRTHER Wayne Allyn Root is upset that he is being called a Birther. So upset that he is trying to force a retraction from Nevada Blogger Jon Ralston. Here are a few excerpts from the story:

Wayne Allyn Root is upset.

Root, scheduled this weekend to be an “honored guest” with the No. 3 man in the House, Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Joe Heck, has demanded I retract the “libelous” claim that he is a birther. I raised the issue in advance of House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy’s trip to Las Vegas on Saturday to appear at a major GOP event.

Root, through his lawyer, who has an interesting history of his own (I’ll get to that), says he is not a birther, even has declared himself not to be one, so I must correct the record. Or else, I suppose.

Well, I don’t like being called an obnoxious jerk, but some people may think so and they have every right to say so. Root and his lawyer may not understand the concept of the First Amendment, commentary on public figures and protected political speech, but I do.

Besides, I think someone who claims the president of the United States was a foreign-exchange student is a birther. If Root and his lawyer need a dictionary to define what “foreign” means, let me be of service.

My guess is Root doesn’t like the birther label because he believes it might hurt his future failed political ambitions. (He has already run for vice president on the Libertarian ticket.


There is a lot more information at the link and you ought to check it out. After providing the foundation for his claim that Root is a Birther, Ralston pretty much tells him to FOAD.  What surprises me is how Mr. Root fails to take his own advice regarding failure, something he seems a little obsessed with.  In addition to his 1996 book, The Joy of Failure, Mr. Root put out an article and a youtube video called Failing Your Way to Success.

rasputin wayne

Here is the link:


And here is an interesting little blurb from that article:

A college classmate of Barack Obama at Columbia University (Class of ’83), Wayne is now the face and voice of Libertarian-conservative politics in the mainstream national media- with thousands of media appearances since the 2008 election. In each of those appearances he is a dynamic and passionate fighter on behalf of small business owners, taxpayers, entrepreneurship, capitalism, free markets, and dramatically lower taxes to reward the heroes of the business world- financial risk takers.

But isn’t that what Mr. Root claims to have forgotten??? That Obama was his classmate??? It seems that he also forgot this  youtube video:

Because if he had remembered it, then he would simply own up to his past Birther babblings. That way, he could genuinely engage in failing his way to success, as opposed to failing in his attempts to repress those who remind him.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Christopher Lee from the 1966 Hammer Film, Rasputin The Mad Monk. Here is a link to a great article on the film, and some more stills from the movie. This is a FANTASTIC website, and I can’t wait to go back there and browse around some more:


Note 2.  The Birther Think Tank did an article on Mr. Root back on August 28, 2012, where we linked to this youtube video of him on Sean Hannity’s show:

Here is the link to the original article:


Aye! There’s The Scrub!!! (Or, Great Deign In The Morning???)

pears soap2

She Wasn’t Sure She Could Ever Clean All The Birther Out From Between His Ears

Well, for Part Two of the ongoing scrubbing of Birther Wayne Madsen, the Guardian goes ahead and deigns to run with the NSA story it had pulled only a few hours ago. See the link in Note 1 below for Part One, which occurred between yesterday and earlier today.

From The Privacy Surgeon blog we find this excerpt:

By Simon Davies


Update: Sunday June 30, 2013. 17.03 GMT

Following a rather turbulent sequence of events in the reporting of this blog by the Observer and Guardian newspapers, coverage can now be found in the Guardian story here.


A former contractor to the US National Security Agency (NSA) has told the Privacy Surgeon that communications intelligence arrangements between the US and Europe are much more “complex, murky and far reaching” than the public has been led to believe.

wayne-madsenWayne Madsen, formerly a lieutenant with the US Navy, first started working for the NSA in 1985, and over twelve years held a number of sensitive contract positions that exposed him to technical and operational aspects of the agency. He maintains a close relationship with the intelligence community.

Madsen spoke to the Privacy Surgeon yesterday to express his concern about the “half story” being conveyed by EU politicians about the extent of NSA activities in the region.

Here is the link to the full article:


The Guardian, which had pulled the story ( as a result of Madsen’s silly Birther theories in my opinion) subsequently ran the story without mentioning Wayne Madsen at all. Here is the link to the new Madsen-less Guardian story.


If you are a glutton for detail, you can compare the new story to the old story (see Note 1 below) to catch the exact manner in which Madsen was scrubbed. Or, if you have better things to do, you can just compare these few paragraphs:

Original Guardian Story:

Wayne Madsen, a former US navy lieutenant who first worked for the NSA in 1985 and over the next 12 years held several sensitive positions within the agency, names Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as having secret deals with the US.

Madsen said the countries had “formal second and third party status” under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.

In an interview published last night on the PrivacySurgeon.org blog, Madsen, who has been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues, said he had decided to speak out after becoming concerned about the “half story” told by EU politicians regarding the extent of the NSA’s activities in Europe.

New Guardian Story:

However, Simon Davies, an intelligence expert and project director at the London School of Economics who writes the Privacy Surgeon blog, suggested the NSA‘s role had been given a sharper focus following amendments to the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa).

In an interview published in full last night on Davies’ blog, former NSA director General Michael Hayden said: “The changes made to Fisa in 2008 were far more dramatic – far more far-reaching than anything President Bush authorised me to do.”

Davies told the Observer that confirmation of the secret agreements showed there was a need for the EU to investigate.

“It’s clear that the European parliament must intervene at this point through a public inquiry,” Davies said. “MEPs should put the interests of their citizens above party politics and create meaningful reforms.”

Meanwhile, Madsen is sure that it is the NSA which got him the boot. From his website:


Information that is already in the public domain can still be spiked and censored: Like this article on European Union countries complaining about NSA surveillance while they assist NSA is conducting that very same surveillance. This article in The Guardian was taken down because the surveillance powers are becoming uncomfortable in the sunshine.

madsen raw

(Click On Image To Make It Larger.)


Now, all we need is the NSA to provide us the details of communications back and forth between the Guardian staff and we will have the absolute  truth of it. But you know, Madsen and the Birthers have overlooked a much simpler explanation. To wit, some clever Obots and Anti-Birthers simply got him scrubbed the same way we got Justia to scrub all those Minor v. Happersett links!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Kudos to Little Green Footballs blog for breaking this story. A link to that website can be found in our story about this topic published earlier in the day:


Note 2. The Title and The Image. The line, “Aye There’s The Rub!” comes from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the big To be or not to be soliloquy scene. Hamlet was Danish, which explains the Great Deign pun. Wayne Madsen’s father was also Danish.

The Image is from a Pears Soap ad. Which also explains the mouseover Easter Egg about “Oh, Pears!” You know au pairs. Nannies who . . .And she’s bathing the kid. . . Oh, I will just be quiet now.

Sheriff Mark Kessler – Schrodinger’s Birther???

barney 2

It Flashed In And Out Of Existence So Quickly, The Physicists Were Uncertain If It Was A Strange Moron Or A Hoggs Birthon???

A potential new Birther was spotted just the other day in rural Pennsylvania, but now it is harder to find than Ed Hale’s Bigfoots. It went by the name of Sheriff Mark Kessler of Frackville, Pennsylvania. It was thought to be a Birther on June 10, 2013. Here is a link to the ORYR videos:


On that day Kessler was a Birther. He planned on going to Washington with Mark Zullo and participating in a parade or march. By Tuesday June 12, 2013 Kessler was putting this on his Facebook page:

Friends , Thank you for all your support , I have removed myself from the brither deal !!!, Im am also pulling my support from oath keepers, and cspoa, because of this STATEMENT

A more complete account can be found at the Native And Natural Born Citizenship Explored blog:


It looks like Kessler bought into Birtherism enthusiastically after being let in on secret Cold Case Posse information from Zullo. Here is what he related:

here’s what I was told, VIA cold case possie , 1) bozo isn’t American nor was he born in Hawaii, 2) they believe he’s Saudi , 3) their not his real parents, 4) Russia is involved, 5) it wasn’t an accident he’s president, 6) bill ayers and the weather underground are involved, 7) Kenya played a roll, Hawaii state officials did the birth certificate, he has several other names , not just the ones the public knows about, 9) he don’t exsist in the usa until the age of 5…..10) WERE ALL F*CKED

Then Kessler got all excited about marching on Washington, and started promoting it with a new twist. The marchees, at least the LEOs would be armed. Zullo and the Cold Case Posse, limited to one bullet by Arizona law (OK, I’m making that part up.) wanted no part of this and told Kessler so.

Moving to a higher energy state, Kessler then haz a mad, but iz not a tiny one resulting in the message above. I am not sure if Kessler is still a Birther, or not. Supposedly his Facebook page is coming and going, and messages are being deleted. Frankly, I can’t keep up with it all. Here is the link to his FaceBook page, for all the amateur physicists who might want to win a Nobel Prize or something:


Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Quantum Physics and Schrodinger’s Cat: From wiki:


Schrödinger’s cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.

Note 2. Names of Sub Atomic Particles. The Mesons have some interesting names, and Strange Moron and Hoggs Birthon aren’t that  far out of line. See here:


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.

BREAKING!!! Orly Taitz Audited By IRS???

Morris Dancers Thames at Richmond.1000

Poor Ethelbert Had Previously Told The Exchequer That He Owned A Horse,  So He Put On His Brave Face And . . .

OMG!!! Was Orly Taitz audited??? One of my Flying Monkey sources sent me this letter from Orly to the IRS. I am not sure it is the real thing, but it sure seems genuine. To be on the safe side, I redacted out Taitz’s identifying information on the letter. I will report and you can decide if it is satz or ersatz:

Taitz IRS Response

(Click On Image To Make It Larger)

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a picture of English Morris dancers. There is an excellent article at wiki:


As far as a relationship to this Internet Article, wiki notes:

Many sides also have a beast: a dancer in a costume made to look like a real or mythical animal. Beasts mainly interact with the audience, particularly children. In some groups this dancer is called the hobby.

You didn’t think I was just picking gratuitous silly pictures, did you???

Note 2. The Exchequer. As mentioned in the Image caption. Once again, wiki says in part:

History of the Exchequer in England and Wales

At an early stage in England (certainly by 1176, the 23rd year of the Reign of Henry II which is the date of the Dialogue concerning the Exchequer, the Exchequer was split into two components: the purely administrative Exchequer of Receipt, which collected revenue, and the judicial Exchequer of Pleas, a court concerned with the King’s revenue.

According to the Dialogue concerning the Exchequer, an early medieval work describing the practice of the Exchequer, the Exchequer itself referred to the cloth laid across a large table, 10 feet by 5 feet (with a lip around the edge “4 fingers high”), upon which counters were placed representing various values. The name referred to the resemblance of the table to a chess board (French: échiquier).

The term “Exchequer” then came to refer to the twice yearly meetings held at Easter and Michaelmas, at which government financial business was transacted and an audit held of sheriffs’ returns.

Under Henry I, the procedure adopted for the audit involved the Treasurer drawing up a summons to be sent to each Sheriff, which he was required to answer. The Treasurer called on each Sheriff to give an account of the income in his shire due from royal demesne lands and from the county farm. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then questioned him concerning debts owed by private individuals.[citation needed] The results of the audit were recorded in a series of records known as the Pipe Rolls. Until the 19th century, the records of the Exchequer were kept in the “Pell Office”, adjacent to Westminster Hall. The office was so named after the skins (i.e., pelts) from which the rolls were made.


Note 3. Hobby Income vs. Business Income. One of the factors tending to indicate the above letter may be genuine is the statement that Taitz’s law practice has been determined to be a hobby. This would prevent her from using losses to offset other income.  That should be of legitimate concern to her due to the nature of her conduct, which appears to be predominantly personal in nature. She is often a pro se plaintiff, that is one who represents herself.

As the IRS states, in part:

Business or Hobby? Answer Has Implications for Deductions

FS-2007-18, April 2007

The Internal Revenue Service reminds taxpayers to follow appropriate guidelines when determining whether an activity is a business or a hobby, an activity not engaged in for profit.

In order to educate taxpayers regarding their filing obligations, this fact sheet, the eleventh in a series, explains the rules for determining if an activity qualifies as a business and what limitations apply if the activity is not a business. Incorrect deduction of hobby expenses account for a portion of the overstated adjustments, deductions, exemptions and credits that add up to $30 billion per year in unpaid taxes, according to IRS estimates.

In general, taxpayers may deduct ordinary and necessary expenses for conducting a trade or business. An ordinary expense is an expense that is common and accepted in the taxpayer’s trade or business. A necessary expense is one that is appropriate for the business. Generally, an activity qualifies as a business if it is carried on with the reasonable expectation of earning a profit.

In order to make this determination, taxpayers should consider the following factors:

  • Does the time and effort put into the activity indicate an intention to make a profit?
  • Does the taxpayer depend on income from the activity?
  • If there are losses, are they due to circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control or did they occur in the start-up phase of the business?
  • Has the taxpayer changed methods of operation to improve profitability?
  • Does the taxpayer or his/her advisors have the knowledge needed to carry on the activity as a successful business?
  • Has the taxpayer made a profit in similar activities in the past?
  • Does the activity make a profit in some years?
  • Can the taxpayer expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity?

The IRS presumes that an activity is carried on for profit if it makes a profit during at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year — at least two of the last seven years for activities that consist primarily of breeding, showing, training or racing horses.

If an activity is not for profit, losses from that activity may not be used to offset other income. An activity produces a loss when related expenses exceed income. The limit on not-for-profit losses applies to individuals, partnerships, estates, trusts, and S corporations. It does not apply to corporations other than S corporations.

Here is a link to the full document:


Stupid Kentucky Birther Denies Being A Stupid Birther!!! (Or, More KY Puh-lease!)

Poor Bobbo Couldn’t Understand Why People Thought He Was A Clown Instead Of An Airship Pilot

DIY Kentucky Birther Todd House wrote a letter to the Gannett Courier Journal editor a few weeks ago (9-5-2012) where he denied being a “Birther.”  Here it is in its entirety, with a link below where you can view it along with the numerous comments. After reading this, you should go to the website, and peruse the comments:

I am not a “birther.” I am a constitutionalist.

The Constitution either means what it says or is relegated to the dustbin of history. The U.S. Supreme Court has the imperative duty to resolve the issue of “natural born citizen” once and for all. This is an intellectual, legal and historical question that is very pertinent today.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that only a “natural born citizen” is eligible for the office of the presidency. Unfortunately, there is no definition of the term in that document. But the reasons for this unique requirement were and still are well understood.

And that is the rub, for it requires some study of the history of the founding and the political philosophy of the founders, subsequent precedent and familiarity with U.S. and world history to comprehend the seriousness of this issue and, only then, arrive at an informed opinion. Regrettably, few seem to have done their homework. But even those who have disagree, inviting robust debate that all should embrace in a free society. But, for an ultimate resolution, the U.S. Supreme Court must decide it. Ergo, my suit challenging President Obama’s eligibility for the ballot in Kentucky. According to notes and letters written by the framers of the Constitution itself, U.S. jurisprudence and precedent, one must be born in the country of two parents who are its citizens to be a natural born citizen. So, even assuming that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, his father was never a U.S. citizen and therefore he is NOT a natural born citizen and ineligible for the office of president of the United States.

Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars share sober opinion on both sides of this debate. It is, then, plainly clear that the U.S. Supreme Court should be presented this case so that a final answer can be had. My effort intends just and only that.

Political expediency should not subject such a critical and ultimate constitutional question to callous and cynical pejorative. Let’s debate, not disparage.


Louisville 40204 –



What a crock of crap! Where is the basis for this statement:

According to notes and letters written by the framers of the Constitution itself, U.S. jurisprudence and precedent, one must be born in the country of two parents who are its citizens to be a natural born citizen.

I am not aware of any such notes and letters UNLESS one has already decided on the meaning of the term natural born citizen. If you already believe that being an NBC requires two citizen parents, then every time you see the term you can find justification for your belief.  BUT, if you approach the words with an attitude of “Gee, what did the Founding Fathers mean by natural born citizen???”, then you become free to understand the REAL definition, which is found in Section III of Wong Kim Ark (1898):

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

and what does “born in the allegiance” mean??? Further down in Section V:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory,[wild Indian exception omitted].

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

Darn, that is sure hard to understand.  For persons born in the United States, their parents must not fall into the two exceptions.  And then we find this HUGE FRIGGIN LIE:

Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars share sober opinion on both sides of this debate.

No they don’t.  Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars just read Wong Kim Ark and see pretty quickly what the words mean. Even reasonably intelligent non-lawyers get it. The only people on the other side of this issue are stupid Birthers.  Birthers who can’t or won’t understand the few paragraphs from the case. That is why the Birthers keep on getting bounced out of courts across the country on their asses. That is why their cases are called frivolous, and why they are being assessed legal costs for wasting everybody’s time.

This statement is cute, too:

It is, then, plainly clear that the U.S. Supreme Court should be presented this case so that a final answer can be had.

Uh, the Supreme Court has done told us way back in 1898 what the answer was for people born inside the United States.  See above. What part of that don’t you get??? Then we get the “Don’t tease me even though I’m stupid” plea from Mr. House:

Political expediency should not subject such a critical and ultimate constitutional question to callous and cynical pejorative. Let’s debate, not disparage.

Where’s the fun in that??? If you are so darned STUPID that you can’t understand those few paragraphs from Wong Kim Ark after four years, then you all deserve cynical pejorative disparaging you get, and more. No, Mr. House, you aren’t a constitutionalist. You’re just a stupid Birther.

Pull your head out of your rear end.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. The real caption on the photograph is “Billy” Winslow touring in his airship Barnum & Bailey Show 1910. You can find it, and other interesting photographs here:


Mississippi Court Does NOT Put Orly Taitz Out Of Her Misery!!!

How art thou out of breath when thou hast breath to say to me that thou art out of breath? Is the news good or bad, answer to that.

Well, what a strange day!  I don’t mind admitting I guessed wrong about what would happen in the Mississippi Birther lawsuit. A few hours ago I predicted that Judge Henry T. Wingate would go ahead dismiss the whole mess and send Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. packing. But he didn’t. First, he denied her Motion to Remand, which would have sent the suit back to state court. Because Taitz made a Federal RICO claim, the Defendants have the right to be heard in federal court as opposed to state court.

In short, Taitz screwed herself by filing this Amended Complaint, posted by Jack Ryan of the Fogbow:



Ironically, some part of the RICO/Amended Complaint thing came about because Taitz wanted to add in Defendants from certain websites, like Fogbow, who teased her and were a thorn in her side:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

Judge Wingate gave her three weeks to properly serve the remaining Defendants in the case. At that time, the Defendants would have time to answer the Complaint.  Then, the Court would hear the Defendants’ Motions For Judgment on the Pleadings, which will result in dismissal. Oh For Goodness Sake has the first hand reports from Fogbow secret agents:


In Update 1 to that article, we find:

Taitz is going to try to serve other defendants (those she has named) but the judge also reminded her that she might be multiplying the litigation and could be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927. I’m not sure Taitz heard or understood any of that.

This is the same statute which recently resulted in Birther attorney Van Irion being socked for more than $20,000.00 in costs. And the Court was being nice in that one by cutting back his exposure to some degree.  I warned Taitz about this possibility in an earlier Internet Article:


This is what sets up the terrible damned-if-she-does and damned-if-she-doesn’t scenario. If Taitz serves the other Defendants with what is obviously a frivolous Complaint, she only increases the potential financial costs to herself. If she doesn’t serve them, then she risks getting dismissed as soon as the Defendants Motions are heard.

I would not be surprised to see her file another Amended Complaint, this time without the Federal RICO claim.  If it flies, this would take her out of federal court, and away from the 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927  penalties. If not, the attempt to get away could even raise the costs. The Court could have put her out of her misery today, but chose not to.

Is that a good thing???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1924 film, The Silent Flapper.


As Wiki notes:

The film was made in the wake of the tremendous hit Flaming Youth. Originally intended to reunite the cast and crew of Flaming Youth, not everyone was available. The film was made as a comedy with dramatic undertones, while Flaming Youth had been a drama with comic aspects. To cash in on the popularity of Colleen’s “flapper” character, the word “flapper” made it into the title. An additional draw was that the film showed a lot of skin.[1] Sydney Chaplin was, of course, Charlie’s older half-brother. The film was generally well-received as good light entertainment: “…you have been entertained and not caused to think too much.”[2] The film did not match the popularity of Flaming Youth.(An accounting of the earnings of Colleen’s pictures dated December 31, 1928 lists to total earnings,of Flaming Youth ($798,777 by 1928). The Perfect Flapper earned $531,008.56.[3]

Note 2. Flap-Flapper

Flap means:

A state of agitation; a panic
– they’re in a flap over who’s going to take Henry’s lectures

Flapper means:

1. (in the 1920s) A fashionable young woman intent on enjoying herself and flouting conventional standards of behavior

2. A thing that flaps, esp. a movable seal inside a toilet tank
– flush the tank to make sure that the flapper is not dropping