Tag Archives: Court

Orly Taitz: Will The Judge Be Her Chum???


She Was So Busy Crowing, She Didn’t Notice Her Hands Were Stinky

In the recent Loco Motion article here, (Doing The Loco Motion!!!) we discussed Taitz’s mistake  in assuming that the default process for judgements also applies to Motions. First, keep in mind that the word CHUM has two meanings.


1. A close friend.
2. Chopped fish, fish fluids, and other material thrown overboard as angling bait.


1. Be friendly to or form a friendship with someone.
2. Use chum as bait when fishing.

Now, it is time to focus in on one of her specific requests. (In Note 2 below I copied and pasted her motion into a word processor to make it easier to read. Plus, I cleaned it up a little. I also made a pdf.)  Here are paragraphs 6 and 7 from her motion:

6.    Plaintiff, who is an attorney from the state of California, filed this case, as she was seeking to uphold constitutional freedoms, as a president for a not for profit Defend Our Freedoms foundation. She spent three years working on this case. She was also subjected to harassment and defamation as defense claimed that her actions were frivolous.

7.     Not only interests of Justice would justify granting her motion for reconsideration under the Rule 60B(2),(6), but interests of Justice would justify sanctions against the defense for the reasonable value of time Taitz wasted in court for the past three years and abuse and defamation she was subjected to due to frivolous actions by the defense.

I think that Taitz has opened a bucket of worms with this particular request. Judges have a great deal of discretion in Motions of this kind.  Judge Lamberth has made been required to make numerous Orders in this case, many dealing with Taitz’s inexplicable inability to properly redact, scratch out, or “x” out the first 5 numbers in Obama’s social security number as is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(1). A pdf copy of four Orders in this matter are found in Note 3 below.

As Judge Lamberth pointed out in his previous Order and Memorandum (Oct. 17, 2011) concerning the previous round of Taitz Motions For Reconsideration:

While district courts enjoy discretion over the decision whether to grant a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), such motions are “disfavored” and are reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.” Liberty Prop. Trust v. Republic Props. Corp., 570 F. Supp. 2d 95, 97 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Niedermeir v. Office of Baucus, 153 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28 (D.D.C. 2001)). In seeking reconsideration, a party must show that “there has been an intervening change of controlling law, that new evidence is available, or that granting the motion is necessary to correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice.” Id.

There is no new evidence, so her Motion is going nowhere. However, we may also obtain a broad hint as to how credible Judge Lamberth finds Taitz’s claims and how likely he is to be her pal, and grant her fees. In Note 1 of the above Oct. 17, 2011 Order:

1 The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipient’s residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (“Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by our field offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.”). Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.

When a court is “loath to dignify” a Plaintiff’s allegations, that does not bode well. Judge Lamberth also gives a slight clue as to how he views Taitz’s claims and professionalism in other Orders in this case. From his decision of a few weeks ago, June 7, 2013:

This Court has reminded the plaintiff of this on multiple occasions. As the Court pointed out in its July 2011 Memorandum and Order, “[t]he Court will not tolerate plaintiff’s repeated violations of this Rule.. . . There is no logical explanation [plaintiff] can provide as to why she is now wasting the Court’s time, as well as staff’s time, with these improper redactions. ”Mem. & Order 1, 3, ECF No. 30.

Moreover, as the Court has previously noted, “repeated violations of the Rules are in fact sanctionable, even sua sponte.” Id. at 2.

The Court has declined to previously impose sanctions because the defendant has not sought them. However, the Court has directed that prior improper submissions “be kept for consideration of possible sanctions against plaintiff.” Order, July 25, 2011, ECF No. 29.

Wow! Lamberth clearly found that she was wasting the Court’s time. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean he finds her either lazy or stupid. Does it??? Let’s look at his language from a July 25, 2011 Order:

Taitz v Astrue July 2011 jpeg

(Click On Image To Make Larger.)


Hmmm. I think if a Judge muses whether an attorney is “displaying her own stupidity”,  then he is unlikely to grant that same attorney fees for “the reasonable value of time Taitz wasted in court for the past three years.” Or maybe if he does, the amount of compensation will be figured at a nominal amount of maybe $1.00 per year.  To be offset against any fees awarded the defense. Finally you have these sarcastic little barbs from Lamberth’s August 30, 2011 Order:

Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before this Court in an effort to uncover “the biggest cover up in the history of this nation.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. 20 [31].

As her numerous filings with the Court demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.

But plaintiff’s unsubstantiated allegations, without more, do not persuade the Court that the requested information “would likely disclose” official misconduct, id., and thus do not affect the calculus here.

And plaintiff—for all her allegations—has produced no “evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged government impropriety might have occurred.” Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004). Her vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere “bare suspicion[s]” and thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA. Id.

As with the registration acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false pretenses—that is, by representing himself as the President’s employer. The Court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further confirming the documents’ fraudulent origins. For all of these reasons, the Court will disregard both documents as well as any arguments made in reliance on them.

The upshot is, that even if the SSA and the opposing attorneys had actually withheld some vital information from Taitz, her own hands are so filthy dirty that she will get no relief. However, I do not suspect there is any intentional wrongdoing about the rule on the part of the defendants. To wit, at a minimum:

1. Taitz did not include the mysterious Harrison Bounel as a party;

2. She has presented no substantive facts or evidence about Harrison Bounel, including his age;

3. Obama is NOT 120 years of age;

4. Harrison Bounel is not the President, and there is no pressing need to invade his privacy.

So, no. Judge Lambert is not going to be her chum. But, she may end up being his. Chop. Chop.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the beautiful and exotic Maila Nurmi, better known as Vampira. As Wiki says:

Maila Nurmi (December 11, 1922 – January 10, 2008) was a Finnish-American actress who created the campy 1950s character Vampira. She portrayed Vampira as TV’s first horror host and in the Ed Wood cult film Plan 9 from Outer Space. She is also billed as Vampira in the 1959 movie The Beat Generation where she plays a beatnik poet.

Born as Maila Elizabeth Syrjäniemi, she claimed to be the niece of the Finnish athlete Paavo Nurmi, who began setting long-distance running world records in 1921, the year before her birth. She moved to the United States with her family when she was two years old and grew up in Ashtabula, Ohio, home to the largest Finnish-American community in the state. She and her family lived in Ashtabula until 1939, when they moved to Oregon.

She graduated from high school in Astoria, Oregon,  before arriving in Los Angeles. She modeled for Alberto Vargas, Bernard of Hollywood and Man Ray, gaining a foothold in the film industry with an uncredited role in Victor Saville’s 1947 film, If Winter Comes.

She reportedly was fired by Mae West[citation needed] from the cast of West’s Broadway play Catherine Was Great in 1944 because West feared that she was being upstaged. On Broadway, she gained much attention after appearing in the horror-themed midnight show Spook Scandals, in which she screamed, fainted, lay in a coffin and seductively lurked about a mock cemetery. She also worked as a showgirl for the Earl Carroll Theatre and as a high-kicking chorus line dancer at the Florentine Gardens along with stripper Lili St. Cyr. In the 1950s she supported herself mainly by posing for pin-up photos in men’s magazines such as Famous Models, Gala and Glamorous Models. Before landing her role as ‘Vampira’, she was working as a hat-check girl in a cloakroom on Hollywood’s Sunset Strip.

Of course, she went on to create the Vampira role, and starred in Ed Wood’s Plan Nione From Outer Space. Here is the link to the article:


Note 2. PDF and Text of Taitz’s Motion For Default:

Taitz Loco Motion



Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE               )                     Case 11-cv-402
Plaintiff,                                                           )                         
                                                                             )                     Hon. Judge Lambert     
v.                                                                          )                     Chief Judge Presiding   
Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the   )
Social Security Administration,               )
               Respondent                                       ) 




1.  On 06.13.2013 Defendant and his attorneys were served with the motion for reconsideration at hand. They were served both by mail and through the ECF.

2.    Defense did not oppose the motion.

3.     Plaintiff, Orly Taitz, ESQ requests this court to grant her motion for reconsideration and order SSA, Social Security Administration, to furnish to the plaintiff SS-5, Social Security application for SSN xxx-xx-4425, for Harrison (Harry) J. Bounel, born in 1890 under the 5USC 552 Freedom of Information Act FOIA and 120 year rule of the Social Security Administration, whereby the Social Security Administration is required to produce under 5USC552 and “120 year rule” Social Security Applications SS-5 of “extremely aged individuals” of 120 year old or older without their consent or without proof of death. As Bounel was born in 1890, he would be 123 years old if he would be alive today and his SS-5 has to be released as an SS-5 of an “extremely aged individual”.


1.     Not only the SS-5 of Bounel should be released, there has to be an award of sanctions against the defendant and his attorneys.

2.     Plaintiffs brought this case in 2010.

3.     Unbeknown to Taitz the SSA already had “120 year”, it implemented it, however the public was not made aware of the rule until 2011. Under 120 year rule, the SS-5 of “Extremely aged individuals” of 120 or older had to  be released without consent of the individual or proof of death.

4.    While Taitz did not have this information until recently, the defendant had at all times information showing that Harrison J Bounel, born in 1890 was the holder of SSN xxx-xx-4425 and that the defendant was obligated to release this  SSN under 5USC552 and “120 year rule”.

5.     Defendant and his attorney, “Department of Justice” engaged in egregious behavior and showed malice by refusing to provide the SS-5 in question and claiming privacy, even though they knew at all times that privacy did not apply. They defrauded Judge Lamberth and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit claiming defense of privacy even though they knew that privacy did not apply.

6.    Plaintiff, who is an attorney from the state of California, filed this case, as she was seeking to uphold constitutional freedoms, as a president for a not for profit Defend Our Freedoms foundation. She spent three years working on this case. She was also subjected to harassment and defamation as defense claimed that her actions were frivolous.

7.     Not only interests of Justice would justify granting her motion for reconsideration under the Rule 60B(2),(6), but interests of Justice would justify sanctions against the defense for the reasonable value of time Taitz wasted in court for the past three years and abuse and defamation she was subjected to due to frivolous actions by the defense.


1.     60(B)(2)(6) motion for reconsideration should be granted.

2.     Plaintiff should be compensated for the reasonable value of time she spent litigating this case for the past three years and for the abuse and defamation she underwent due to actions of the defense.

3.    Any and all other relief this court considers reasonable and just.

/s/ Orly Taitz



Note 3. July 25, 2011; August 30, 2011; Oct. 17, 2011; and June 7, 2013 Orders:

Taitz v. Astrue Order July 25, 2011

Taitz v. Astrue Order August 30, 2011

Taitz v. Astrue Oct. 17, 2011 Order

Taitz v. Astrue Order June 7, 2013

Note 4. Justia has the above  Taitz v. Astrue orders and motions here:


Blogger NBC has the June 7, 2013 Order here:


Ordure In The Court!!! Ordure In The Court!!! (Or, Van Irion Flings Poo)

Oblivious To The Odor, Van Irion Prattled On And On

Why is it that Birtherism just lends itself sooo readily to scatological comparisons??? Perhaps it is legal filings like this one, representing the Liberty Legal Foundation, candidate John Dummett, and others. The attorney is some cat named “Van Irion“, and he has been involved in several such eligibility suits.

Anyway, the Birthers filed suit in Arizona, and as Van Irion complains at ObamaReleaseYourRecords:

Rather than address the substantive issue of Obama’s eligibility, Judge Susan Bolton of the Arizona Federal court dismissed our case by claiming that the DNC’s act of sending a notice to the Arizona Secretary of State did not amount to purposefully directing activity toward Arizona. This ruling is absurd, as I discussed in last week’s message.

Here is the link where you can read the whole story:


Anyway, after the judge pushed the Birthers out of the window of her courthouse, they landed on the sidewalk below, picked themselves up, flicked the poop off themselves, and decided to appeal this to the 9th Circuit Court.  Thus, we now have before us their request  for a preliminary injunction to keep Obama’s name off the ballot in Arizona.

Here is a copy of the pdf filing for your convenience:

100% Pure Liberty Legal Foundation Poo

Let me try to give you a recap of the filing. A preliminary injunction is a request to keep somebody from doing something BEFORE you actually have a trial and judgment on the matter. One of the requirements is that you show you have a good enough legal case that you will probably win at trial. So here, the Birthers have to show the law supports their claim Obama is not eligible for the Presidency because he does not have two citizen parents.

But wait!  Haven’t the Birthers crashed and burned on this point like space rocks in a meteor shower??? Haven’t we seen them time and time again streak across the sky in a brief bright flash of light as they disintegrate in the upper atmosphere of a judge’s chamber??? Sooo, how in the world can Van Irion priss himself into the 9th Circuit and pretend he has any kind of a case???

Well, Van Irion pulls the old Minor v. Happersett trick out of the hat. First, he argues that Minor defined a natural born citizen as the child of two parents who are citizens. Then, to deal with the rest of the Minor case, where it clearly says there are some doubts from some authorities about the kids of non-citizens, and that there was no need to resolve those doubts at that time, Van Irion characterizes all that stuff as only concerning regular old everyday citizens as opposed to natural born citizens.

In other words, the same old Birther bullshit that we have been hearing for 4 years and the same old bullshit that has lost in court after court after court. And maybe I should be more polite and professional, and call it something besides bullshit. But you know, that is just what it is and frankly, I am tired of resorting to euphemisms on this stuff.  It is not good enough or smart enough to be called anything other than BULLSHIT.

Anyway, to continue, Van Irion then tries to skip past Wong Kim Ark by claiming everything in that case concerning natural born citizenship is pure dicta because Wong tweren’t  running for President. Once again, not even a clever attempt. The WKA Court determined what natural born citizenship was as a legal matter, to lay a foundation for its findings on the “jurisdiction” issue in the 14th Amendment. Which the WKA Court decided was simply being born in the United States, while not being a child of a foreign diplomat or invading soldier. Which fact about natural born citizenship was affirmed by the 14th Amendment.  And which was necessary to the finding, and therefore NOT dicta.

Then, to sneak his way around the 2009 Ankeny decision, which has been now cited with approval by subsequent state and federal courts,  Van Irion tries to go behind the Ankeny decision. He claims because the Birthers there lacked standing, the Ankeny Court had no business addressing constitutional issues. This is pretty stupid because Ankeny is an Indiana state decision and has no binding legal authority outside of Indiana, only persuasive authority.

Van Irion doesn’t even get a nice try on this one. You see, the courts which have cited Ankeny with approval, are not doing so because the decision in binding on them, but because the reasoning in the decision makes sense, and these other courts agree with the reasoning process. Van Irion fails to address the reasoning because that would raise all those troubling Wong Kim Ark findings. Plus, his argument would only apply to an action taking place in Indiana. Which this isn’t.

You can find all of Van Irion’s nonsense on pages 11-17 in the pdf above.  If you wish to read the Ankeny decision, which is based on the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, it has its own page above in the blog header under The Case The “Two Citizen Parents”  Birthers Just HATE!!!

To summarize all this, Van Irion has rolled another big wheelbarrow full of legal manure into a courthouse. I hope the judges come right out and say:

Ordure in the Court!!! Ordure in the Court!!!

and then sanctions the crap out of the whole bunch.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Ordure. A fancy word for manure.

Note 2. The Image.  This is the The Patient Job by Gerard Seghers (1591-1651).  Job is sitting on a dungheap. This was a popular  artistic theme and there are many paintings. It is based on:

Testament of Job 24-25 (excerpts from a lengthy speech)

At once, my wife drew near. Crying out with tears she said to me: “Job, Job! How long will you sit on the dung-heap outside the city, thinking ‘Only a little longer!” and awaiting hope for salvation?

CDR Kerchner Assails The Seven P’s!!!

Rather Than Shooting Albatrosses, CDR Kerchner Preferred Chasing Wild Gooses

It is obvious that CDR Kerchner never heard of the Seven P’s.  About which Wiki says:

The 7 Ps is a British Army adage:

* Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance

The 7 Ps are normally referred to as “the 7 Ps” rather than as an acronym: (i.e. PPPPPPP). Educators and trainers in military or civilian situations find it useful to first introduce the phrase “the 7 Ps”. When it is explained, the humour and shock of the mild expletive help make the adage memorable. This adage is often used in project planning, or when training for life-or-death situations.

Perhaps proper planning and preparation  is just not emphasized in the American navy, or maybe CDR Kerchner just wasn’t paying attention that day.  The reason I say this is that Kerchner has a several year history of abject piss poor performance trying to unseat President Obama.  Much of this has been due to his attorney, Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s  refusal, or inability, to stop practicing Imaginary Law. Which is what the two citizen-parents theory and Vattel stuff is.

But Mario Apuzzo, Esq. did not get his foot inside the courthouse door on this one. He did manage to sneak his 20o page Paean To Imaginary Law brief in, which may be why the Court gave him the bum’s rush out the door.  No, this failure is Kerchner’s.

As is reported at NBC’s  blog  in Sour Grapes, this was because Kerchner failed to do his homework, his Seven P’sNBC’s full Internet Article is at the link below.  Here is an excerpt.

ORYR: The Candidate’s Affidavit in PA is routinely signed under oath stating the candidate is eligible for the office they seek. Candidate Barack Obama did not sign under oath the Candidate’s Affidavit which states that he was eligible for the office he is seeking. He did not even sign it at all. The top half was filled out by a lawyer on his behalf and the bottom part with the signatures was left blank. See copy here. It was subsequently learned that a Pennsylvania statute provides an exception for presidential candidates that they do not have to complete the Candidate Affidavit, and Obama availed himself of that exception.

[NBC: In other words, under PA statute your challenge failed. Hilarious. Seems that others did their homework and totally undermined your ‘well planned’ objections… What a surprise.]

[NBC: Another Judge who did his legal duty and some disillusioned objectors who could not read. And really, the challenge would also have failed since the objectors failed to timely register to become democrat or was still registered a Republican. This is trivial to figure out to anyone, who like me, has a computer and 15 minutes to spare time to research the PA precedent rulings. Hilarious how, after 4 years of prep time, these objectors still failed so predictably. . . ]


Perhaps if CDR Kerchner had done his homework, and wasn’t delusional, he would have discovered these Seven P’s:

Pretty Positive Prior Precedents Protect Putative Presidents.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the Ancient Mariner, aka the Grey Beard Loon, from the poem, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge aka Samuel Coleridge-Taylor composer of Hiawatha’s Wedding Feast  according to some less than careful, or drunk, researchers:

The Rime of The Ancient Hiawatha

By the shores of Gitche Gumee,
By the shining Big-Sea-Water,
Met a grey beard loon a’ going.
To the wedding of the Daughter-

Daughter of the Moon, Nokomis.
Of the tribe of Albatross.
Water, water, every where! And,
Where’s the silly buckets? Lost?

Note 2. Wiki has many variations of the Seven P’s, which readers may find interesting, here:


Note 3.  Assails the Seven P’s is obviously a wordplay on Sails the Seven Seas.  As an idiom, the phrase “sails the Seven Seas” usually relates to searching or  exploring, often in an exhaustive sense.  See Sweet Dreams, by The Eurythmics:

Sweet dreams are made of these
Who am I to disagree
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody’s looking for something

On Viewing Mario Apuzzo As A Court Jester

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

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

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

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


noun /ˈləməks/
lummoxes, plural

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

* lout: an awkward stupid person

* stupid, clumsy, foolish or incompetent person.


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

1. Perplex (someone) greatly; bewilder

* – he was completely flummoxed by the question

* To confuse; to fluster; to flabbergast

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

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

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

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

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

There is more at this link:


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

The Beat Goes On (A Parody Song)

There Was Just Something Different About This Revival of "Hello, Dali!"

The Beat Goes On
A Parody Song
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

(At the sound of
The Beat Goes On
by Sonny and Cher)

The Beat goes on. . . the Beat goes on

Blood flow just ain’t getting to the brain

La da da da da     la da da da dumb

(Acapella background for the riff –
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. . . dumb de dumb dumb dumb)

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. . . dumb de dumb dumb dumb

Those Birther lawsuits keep on getting tossed
The Judges tell them they should just “Get Lost!”
Birthers cry . . . they never get a clue.
It’s always Monkey see, and Monkey do


And the Beat goes on… The Beat goes on

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. . . dumb de dumb dumb dumb

Imaginary laws are quite the rage.
The Birther lawyers constantly up-stage.
Chewing up the scenery like swine.
And every time they lose you hear them whine.


And the Beat goes on… The Beat goes on

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. . . dumb de dumb dumb dumb

Birth in Africa was once their song
But Planet Earth to Birthers, “You were wrong!”
Begging on their websites for your dime
As Birther skulls meet Brick Walls every time.


And the Beat goes on… The Beat goes on

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. . . dumb de dumb dumb dumb

And the Beat goes on Yes, the beat goes on

(repeating to fade…)

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. . . dumb de dumb dumb dumb

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Chewing Up The Scenery. This is an acting term which means:

Main Entry:  chew up the scenery
Definition: to overact, act melodramatically; also written [ chew up scenery ]
Etymology: refers to actor’s enthusiasm causing him or her to chew on the scenery
Usage: slang

Another term for somebody doing this is a “Ham” which is why I used the word swine. The word upstage means:

Divert attention from (someone) toward oneself; outshine: “they were totally upstaged by their costar.”

Note 2. The Image. A color commercial photograph of Salvador Dali by Jean-Yves Haydar for one of Dali’s less well known bodies of work, Sader Masoch et la Vénus aux Fourrures.

Note 3: The Beat Goes On. Here is a really COOL youtube version of the song with some hamming, up-staging, and scenery chewing:

Note 4: Chords and Lyrics. Here is a tabbed version of the song if you play guitar. If the C7 chords is too hard, either use a capo or use another chord like G7 which is pretty easy. I am not sure if the person who tabbed this is right on one of the notes, because where she or he has the third “1”, I think a “3” sounds better and is easier to play, too.

The Beat Goes On – Sonny and Cher (1972)
tabbed by svsmith@anet.bna.boeing.com

Main Bass riff line
^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^
|                   repeating                    |

The beat goes on… The beat goes on
Drums keep pounding ryhthym to the brain

La da da da di, La da da da da

Charleston was once the rage, uh-huh
History has turned a page, uh-huh
The mini skirts the current thing, uh-huh
Teeny bopper is our new born king, uh-huh

And the beat goes on… The beat goes on

The grocery store does supermart, uh-huh
Little girls still break their hearts, uh-huh
And men still keep on marching off to war
‘Lectrically they keep their baseball score

And the beat goes on… The beat goes on

Grandmas sit in chairs and reminisce
Boys keep chasing girls to get a kiss
And cars keep going faster all the time
Bums still cry “Hey buddy have you got a dime”


A Conundrum Of Competence, or, The Tao of Poo (Part 2 of the Birther Feud Trilogy)

Sometimes A Screwball Is Exactly What Is Called For

This is the second part of the Birther Feud Trilogy and deals with the schism between Dean Haskins of The Birther Summit, along with his supporters,  and Orly Taitz, Esq.,  the most well-known Birther attorney.  The numbers in parentheses refer to Note 1 below, which identifies the source Internet Article. The first part of this Trilogy, may be found here:


First, let us examine the basis for Haskins’ negative assessments.  He states:

At issue are two dynamics concerning Orly Taitz I believe need to be addressed—namely, a lack of understanding of the law, and a megalomaniacal persona. (6)

Haskins provides numerous examples, including this one:

Orly released a list of 22 witnesses that she has supposedly “served,” even though she never actually went to the trouble of doing what one must do to obtain proper service, so, any of those 22 who don’t actually reside in the State of Georgia have not actually been served, and have no legal reason to respond or appear. Any of them may choose to ask the judge to quash a subpoena, but that would be out of respect for the court and the legal process, and not because there is any validity to the subpoena itself. In fact, any such motion to quash would likely include the fact that the subpoena is legally invalid as a reason for it to be quashed.

Interestingly, one of the “witnesses” Orly lists is “Custodian of records Assissi [sic] school Jakarta, Indonesia;” so, not only does Orly believe that Georgia somehow has jurisdiction over Hawaii and other states (which, it doesn’t), she seems to believe that it has jurisdiction over Jakarta, Indonesia as well. Are you beginning to see the problem here? (6)

Haskins follows up in his next article with the Taitz personality issues:

This is one of the issues I have already discussed—that everything from Orly seems to come with her own flavor of spin. And then, once the spin has been made, it is blindly believed by people (who just want so badly for it to be true), and it starts getting posted around the internet. Problem is, when it turns out that it wasn’t entirely true, the only recourse Orly has is to scream “corruption!” (5)

As we have all come to expect, Orly continues to show the most debased levels of egomania, and still tries to attack others who have worked on this team as long as she has. She still has all the graciousness of a cactus loofah, and the attitude of a spoiled brat child (who is the only one who deserves your donations, and if you don’t donate, you’re an Obama operative).

So, again, when we’re on the other side of this HEARING, and it turns out I am wrong, I’ll freely admit it. However, and unfortunately for our side, I’m not wrong—so get ready to hear endless wails of “corruption.” And, I do want to make a side note here before signing off: Orly’s incompetence is, by no means, to be construed as an indictment against the other two hearings that will take place. Both of those cases have real attorneys involved, so I am hopeful that they will be able to produce positive results. It’s funny . . . I haven’t heard those other lawyers publicly proclaim ME, ME, ME even once. That alone gives me some hope about their cases.(5)

He says worse:

Believe me, I understand the principle of flinging enough poo against the wall in the belief that, eventually, something will stick; and generally, I know that, in the right situation, that can be an effective approach. Unfortunately, in this instance, it has not been; and my gut feeling is that both the Hawaii and Georgia courts have intercepted the proverbial poo before it has hit the wall, and very soon, will be tossing it at a fan. (6)

And, continuing the scatological comparison, he states:

Well, it has come to a point that some of us have stopped and tasted what is being tossed into the community trough, and realized that it doesn’t taste like meat at all. In fact, it tastes like something that the cattle have previously eaten. And, while I choose not to partake of that, I had also held my tongue “for the sake of unity,” even though most of the leaders in the movement, with whom I would converse often, would complain about the constant assaults on their palates as well. So, who was I to say anything?

Once that substance formerly known as cattle feed was viciously used as a weapon against folks who are friends of mine, and have worked very hard in this cause, I was no longer able to remain quiet, and I merely started exposing one of the main sources of that which one takes great care not to step in on the farm. (3)

Sharon, I do not write this as a personal indictment against you, but to continue exposing the single biggest problem that exists in our movement. You (and others) might wish that I would just keep my mouth shut and go away; however, I have personally invested much in this movement, so I have every right to sit at this table. The problem is, I will not sit quietly while someone slaps poop on a plate and calls it prime rib.

And, lest anyone try to use the quasi-pragmatic argument about your friend’s tenaciousness, tireless pursuit of justice, and super-human resolve, it might be useful to understand that one can expend unbelievable amounts of energy, and through sheer determination, move a mountain of manure from one spot to another, but actually do nothing beneficial for the field.

It is doubtful that anyone but the dullest among us would ever argue that there is not a vast level of incompetence involved in what we’ve witnessed in all of the dentist’s cases. While we have a contingency who strongly believes that the ineptitude is merely feigned as a brilliant ploy to keep us from ever advancing to a stage of serious discussion of the matter, I will stipulate to the pitiful legal shenanigans (which have doomed us at every step) being the result of honest incompetence, rather than a conspiratorial facade. (3)

Ouch!!! Now, with that in mind, it is my opinion that Haskins has laid a more than sufficient basis for his dual diagnosis of incompetence, a lack of understanding of the law, and a megalo-maniacal persona. But,  in a larger sense, is he correct? Is it time for Taitz to, “understand the damage she continues to inflict on our efforts . . .and stand down.”(2)

I don’t think so. First, let me state that I have always considered Orly Taitz to be the perfect Birther attorney. Her overall intelligence is beyond question. She is licensed to practice both Dentistry and Law. While some mock her for that, I am impressed that she holds two professional licenses. I am more impressed by how she accomplished those feats. English is not her first language, yet she took and passed the California Bar with not much more than a legal correspondence course. She did this while working full time and raising three children.

Now, that being said, Haskins has a valid point about a string of losses in court, and the questionable legal tactics and maneuvers. But there is a concept in law called proximate cause:

Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury.  It is also known as legal cause.

To help determine the proximate cause of an injury in Negligence or other tort cases, courts have devised the “but for” or “sine qua non” rule, which considers whether the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligent act. A finding that an injury would not have occurred but for a defendant’s act establishes that the particular act or omission is the proximate cause of the harm, but it does not necessarily establish liability since a variety of other factors can come into play in tort actions.

One can not, in good faith, accuse Orly Taitz of legal incompetence without considering this issue. Is there anything that Orly Taitz could have done differently that would have resulted in a legal victory??? The only thing I can think of is that maybe she and the other two attorneys in Georgia should have opted for the Default Judgment. but outside of that, no. There is nothing she could have done that would result in victory.

Consider that not a single Birther attorney has ever won a single victory in Court. Not a single one. Not Apuzzo. Not Donofrio. Not Hemenway.  Not Kreep. Not Hatfield.  Not Van Irion. Not any of the others. None. And, they are not any more to blame than Orly Taitz on a legal basis. Ethically and morally, I suspect many of these attorneys will spend a lot of time in Purgatory shoveling  that stuff that came out of the cows, as Haskins describes it.

But legally, are they culpable for anything outside of filing frivolous lawsuits? No. First, the two citizen parent theory is pure nonsense. No Court will ever recognize that lunacy as valid.  Second, as Haskins himself points out, Hawaiian law does not permit access to birth records to strangers.  There is no substantial evidence that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. All there has ever been are suspicions. In reality, there isn’t a Birther case. Frankly, the Birthers could resurrect Clarence Darrow and Perry Mason, and put them on the case and the results would be the same.  Except, Hamilton Burger would finally get to remove the goose egg from the  score board.

Sooo, does Haskins have a valid point about Orly Taitz embarrassing the Birthers with her antics? How do you measure that in light of the fact that the Birthers lack of any factual or legal basis for their suits.  Isn’t that embarrassing enough all by itself??? But, on the other hand, Americans do love celebrities.  Even train wrecks like Charlie Sheen get attention.  As Brendan Behan said, “There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.”

Haskins is a musician, and perhaps a musical analogy will help. Do people attend Lady Gaga concerts for her wonderful musical talents, or for the show? The pyrotechnics and the dancing strippers in S&M regalia??? Rightly or wrongly, smartly or dumbly, and morally or immorally, Orly Taitz is Birtherism’s version of Lady GaGa.

Thousands of Obots stare transfixed at her every mis-step, dissecting  her latest miscue with the same thoroughness as the National Transportation Safety Board investigating a train wreck. Meanwhile, millions of Birthers flock to her banner.  Do you think many of those people understand anything at all about Georgia courts and Indonesian citizens and Silly Subpoenas???  Taitz is the soap opera and the melodrama, whether you view her as Snidely Whiplash, or Nell Fenwick. She is the Face of Birtherism, even though Haskins  and more than any other person has kept the Birther case alive in The Court of Public Opinion. Would any of us recognize Hatfield or Van Irion if we met them on the street???

Haskins  made this observation:

This was also demonstrated in Taitz’s involvement in the Georgia Ballot Challenge hearings. The basis of the first two hearings had been underway long before she ever injected herself into the proceedings; and, once she did, the other two lawyers did everything they could to separate their cases from hers—and even symbolically left the courtroom before her “case” was heard.(2)

But isn’t this like Moe and Larry trying to disassociate themselves from Curly??? Sorry, but the three are a team. The other lawyers are just Orly, without the panache. Perhaps Haskins is right that Taitz has brought some Jerry Springer Show vibes to the Birther Movement. Or maybe those vibes were already there and she just tapped into them.  But ask the proximate cause question in reverse. Would there be as many Birthers but for Taitz?  I don’t think so.  She packs them in, and that says more about the Birthers than it does Orly Taitz. What is really scary, to continue the Jerry Springer analogy, is considering that even people who cheat on their lovers with Transvestite Midget Wrestlers get to vote.

Sooo, my advice to those who either recognize, or are coming to recognize, Birtherism as a delusional farce, is to keep on blogging, keep on commenting, and keep on trying  to tell the truth as best you can.  Fight the good fight.  And sometimes . . .  just grab a bowl of popcorn,  sit back,  and enjoy the show.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. Reference Table for Dean Haskin Quotes:

5 HAS ORLY ACTUALLY WON!!! WON!!! WON??? 1/20/2012

Note 2: Screwball: Found in the first Image above.  This word has several meanings.


1. Baseball. A pitched ball (also known as the screwgie) that curves in the direction opposite to that of a normal curve ball. Depending on the pitcher’s arm angle, the ball may also have a sinking action.
2. Slang. An eccentric, impulsively whimsical, or irrational person.

adj. Slang
Impulsively whimsical; eccentric: That screwball proposal won’t work.

Screwball also refers to a comedy genre. As Wiki says:

The screwball comedy is a principally American genre of comedy film that became popular during the Great Depression, originating in the early 1930s and thriving until the early 1940s. It is characterized by fast-paced repartee, farcical situations, escapist themes, and plot lines involving courtship and marriage. Screwball comedies often depict social classes in conflict, as in It Happened One Night (1934) and My Man Godfrey (1936). Some comic plays are also described as screwball comedies.

It has proven to be one of the most popular and enduring film genres. It first gained prominence in 1934 with It Happened One Night, which is often cited as being the first true screwball. Although many film scholars would agree that its classic period had effectively ended by 1942, elements of the genre have persisted, or have been paid homage, in contemporary film.

During the Great Depression, there was a general demand for films with a strong social class critique and hopeful, escapist-oriented themes. The screwball format arose largely as a result of the major film studios’ desire to avoid censorship by the increasingly enforced Hays Code. As such, they were routinely able to incorporate adult, risqué elements, such as pre-marital sex and adultery, into their plots.

The screwball comedy has close links with the theatrical genre of farce, and some comic plays are also described as screwball comedies. Many elements of the screwball genre can be traced back to such stage plays as Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It and A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest. Other genres with which screwball comedy is associated include slapstick, situation comedy, and romantic comedy.

Note 3. The Tao of Poo. This is a wordplay on The Tao of Pooh, as in Winnie The, which may be found here:


The reference herein is to the way that BeeEss occurs in Life, and moves in its own Way.

Note 4. Conundrum.


1. A confusing and difficult problem or question.
2. A question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.

Here, the answer to the question of Whether Taitz is Competent?, may be found in the caption of the Image: Sometimes A Screwball Is Exactly What Is Called For

Note 5. The Image above is from the 1936 Oswald Rabbit film Soft Ball Game.

Breaking News!!! 1880 Republicans “Scrubbed” Libraries of Minor v. Happersett!!!

Republican Scrub Team At The Astor Library - 1880

Oh, this is BREAKING NEWS!!! According to a very well-known Vattle Birther lawyer (my humorous term for the two citizen parent Vattel Birthers) , who wishes to remain anonymous, and will just be called Deep Threap, Republicans scrubbed libraries of the 1875 Minor Happersett decision by the United States Supreme Court prior to the presidential election of 1880!!!  Several Vattle Birther attorneys have lodged similar complaints about 2008 and the alleged scrubbing of this case which they say defines natural born citizenship by operatives of President Obama.  In the words of one Vattle Birther attorney, Leo Donofrio, Esq.:

The Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor defines those born in the US to citizen parents as natural-born citizens:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.  Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Here is a link to this excerpt:


In 1880, Chester Arthur ran for the vice-presidency as a Republican. It was well-known that his father was born in Ireland and was NOT a citizen of the United States at the time of Arthur’s birth.  As wiki says:

William Arthur’s [Chester Arthur’s father] frequent moves would later form the basis for accusations that Chester Arthur was not a native-born citizen of the United States. After Arthur was nominated for Vice President in 1880, his political opponents suggested that he might be constitutionally ineligible to hold that office. A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, apparently hired by his opponents, explored rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth. Hinman initially alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old, which would make him ineligible for the Vice Presidency under the United States Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause. When that story did not take root, Hinman spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada, but this claim also failed to gain credence.

Deep Threap, the anonymous Vattle Birther attorney, says that had people only known of the Minor v. Happersett decision 4 years earlier, the place of Arthur’s birth would not have mattered. Arthur would have been ineligible because of his father. As Deep Threap explains, the fact that nobody objected to Arthur because of his father not being a citizen is CONCLUSIVE PROOF, that America’s libraries had been scrubbed of the case.

As Deep Threap explained:

I don’t know how they did it.  How they managed to scrub all the libraries in America, all the law libraries, and all the newspaper files.  I don’t know how they managed to keep all the judges and lawyers, even the opposition lawyers and judges, quiet about Minor v. Happersett, but they did.  They must have found a way, or the American public never would have voted for Chester Arthur, and somebody would have complained that Arthur was not a natural born citizen under the decision in Minor v. Happersett.  The only other alternative is that us Vattle Birthers could be wrong about Minor v. Happersett, and that the case did not define natural born citizenship.  And that certainly couldn’t be the case. I mean, there’s no way we could ever be wrong.  No, they had to scrub all the libraries in 1880. That is the only answer that makes any sense.

As someone who has read the case, it is very easy for me to accept the possibility that the Vattle Birthers could be wrong.  All one has to do is read the COMPLETE paragraph quote from Minor v. Happersett, not the scrubbed version on Mr. Donofrio’s website:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Somehow, the Vattle Birthers keep forgetting to put in the bolded part which proves the Minor court did NOT attempt to define natural born citizenship. But, as a Girl Reporter, I must report the news as I get it.  But WAITE!!!  Here is another important part of this tale of alleged scrubbing and political favors. Guess who swore in Chester Arthur when he became President??? None other than Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, who wrote the opinion in Minor v. Happersett!!!

Yes, in this case which supposedly defined natural born citizenship, the Judge who wrote it, swore in a guy as President who had a non-citizen father, which fact was very well known.  Oh, the silly Vattle Birther world!!!  Ivory Soap ain’t the only thing floating there.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Notes 1: What did a REAL Court say about Minor v. Happersett???

The Indiana Court of Appeals 2009, Ankeny v. Governor:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

This case is provided above, in the header, as The Case The “Two-Citizen Parent” Birthers Just HATE!!!

Threap means:

Verb: To maintain obstinately against denial or contradiction; also to contend or argue against (another) with obstinacy; To contend obstinately; to be pertinacious (stubborn and obstinate.)

Noun: An obstinate decision. A pertinacious affirmation.

Bonus: Image of Ivory Soap Ad from 1898, the year of Wong Kim Ark:


No Birther Has Ever Escaped From Obotski Stall-ag 13???

PJFoggy and Dr. Conspiracy Were Feeling Pretty Cool About The Perfect Record Thingy!!!

When I moved earlier this year, it took a few days for the cable to get hooked up, sooo I connected a antenna and there is this really wonderful ME TV Channel thing where they show old timey TV shows, some of which I never heard of before, like Route 66 and now, some bald detective guy named Kojak.  Another show that was on was called Hogan’s Heroes, and is a historic comedy show about World War II and how some Allied prisoners just make complete fools of the Germans.

The guy who runs Stalag 13 is called Colonel Klink, and he is not very good at his job. The prisoners come and go as they please,  and are even friends with all the German Shepherd guard dogs. There is a tunnel, with a door that opens up outside the prison through a tree trunk with a hinged door. Colonel Hogan and his men blow up stuff like every night and slip away into town to party. But the Germans never catch on because no prisoner has ever escaped Stalag 13.The perfect record keeps the Germans from getting the Big Picture, that stuff is blowing up all around them on a regular basis.

Things are kind of like that in the Obotski world. So far, Obama and his Obotski minions have a perfect record IN COURT. They have never lost a Birther case.  Now, over three years after Obama put out his short form birth certificate, cases are still going on IN COURT.  The U.S. Supreme Court is about to decide whether or not to hear another one. If I had to bet, Birthers will lose again.  But, just like at Stalag 13, a perfect record can be deceiving.  Because what a smart and effective person would want to do is put an end to the questions concerning eligibility. If Obama and his Obotski Retinue had any sense, they would want to confront the issues, win them, and put an end to the questions.  They would not keep stalling in their “Stall-ag.”  But, that would put an end to the Obotski merriment, and  not be as much fun as winning IN COURT and getting to tease Birthers about it.

Sooo, the next time you see the Obotski teasing Dr. Taitz, or bragging about their perfect record IN COURT, just think of Colonel Hogan. And think about Obama, and how political stuff keeps blowing up around him.  Now, everybody is catching on to his ineffectiveness, his amateurish administration, and his obliviousness to the true state of affairs IN THE COUNTRY.  Meanwhile, Obama’s approval numbers are sinking  IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, and even Admiral Axelrod is using the “T” word—Titanic.  On websites across the country, the Birther versus Obotski fights are still the most contentious and debated threads.  And, there is a election coming up. But, the Obotski, like Sgt. Schultz,  know Nothing–Nothing!!!

Tee Hee!!! Tee Hee!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Obama, Behind The 8 Ball – Guilty of LACHES???

Long Form Birth Certificate In The Side Pocket

I am not a lawyer, but I have found something that Obama is definitely guilty of.  He is guilty of LACHES!!! Now, before yesterday, I had never even heard of LACHES,  but once I found it, oh does it ever seem to fit what Obama has done, or more accurately, NOT DONE over the last three years.  Because what LACHES is, is like sandbagging or hustling somebody. For example in pool, somebody might play kind of bad at first when the stakes are low, and then, when the stakes are better, run the table.

The law defines LACHES as:

The legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of “legal ambush.”

Examples: knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title.

The law encourages a speedy resolution for every dispute. Cases in law are governed by statutes of limitations, which are laws that determine how long a person has to file a lawsuit before the right to sue expires.  Laches is the equitable equivalent of statutes of limitations. However, unlike statutes of limitations, laches leaves it up to the court to determine, based on the unique facts of the case, whether a plaintiff has waited too long to seek relief.

Now, throughout the Birtherism Ordeal,  the Obotski kept bringing up “Court” as if what happened in Court had any relationship to what was going on outside Court.  Quite regularly, the Obotski would follow some obscure Birther court case, and whoop it up in the streets after winning. Winning usually consisted of having the case thrown out because of a lack of standing. While that celebration was going on, the number of people outside of court who had doubts where Obama was born kept steadily climbing higher and higher.  Or, the Obotski would argue that the short form birth certificate would have been legally sufficient in some imaginary court proceeding.

Any fool, except apparently the Obotski, could see that while Obama was winning some battle inside court, imaginary or otherwise, he was losing the war outside of court.   So, in my mind, any comparison between Birtherism and court is rather dubious to start off with. But, let’s turn the tables on them, anyway.  Let’s pretend all of Obama and the Obotski’s whining, crying, and chest-thumping about how wrong it was for Obama to have to cough up his long form birth certificate —was in that imaginary court!

Because, when we look at equitable legal stuff,  or matters of general right and wrong, we find that Obama himself may have lost the “legal” right to whine, because he waited so long to cough up the long form. Obama is no different than the person who sits back and watches somebody build a house on the wrong side of the  property line, doesn’t say anything until the house is finished, and then goes to court to get the house.

That person runs the risk of the Court saying, “Sorry, Dude, but you sat back and watched this happen. You could have stopped it at any time. Your case is dismissed!!!”

So, the next time you hear Obama, or one of the Obotski, whine about having to cough up the long form,  just tell them, “Well you know, Obama sat back and watched this happen. He could have stopped it at any time.  In Court,  Obama would be  LEGALLY guilty of  LACHES.”

Then tell them that “Google is their friend“, so they can go look up LACHES !!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

New Worlds Record! Obama Dodges Court Over Birth Certificate For The 73rd Time!!!

Regular Do, Sir; Artful Dodge!!!

Today, President Obama set a NEW WORLD’S RECORD for dodging stuff IN COURT! This is the 73rd time he has managed to escape without having to cough up his long form or bumpy birth certificate! He broke the old World’s Record of 72 times, set by himself.

Today, the Supreme Court didn’t take the Kercher case filed by Mario Apuzzo. This is not surprising since they only take 1% of cases submitted to them. Obama was an odds on favorite to break his own record.

Of course, enquiring minds want to know why he doesn’t just cough it up and save all the trouble???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter