Tag Archives: frivolous

Cheap Kentucky Birther Doesn’t Want To Pay To Play!!!

When It Came To His Wallet, Todd House Suddenly Knew His Rear End From A Hole In The Ground

The Obama Ballot Challenge blog reports that the Kentucky Birther,  Dr. Todd House, decided to drop his silly little DIY Birther lawsuit when the court told him he could end up paying for the other side’s lawyer.  Here is an excerpt:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)


You see, that is the thing about frivolous lawsuits. They’re only fun when you don’t have to pay for the other guy’s lawyer. The way things work with Rule 11, (See Note 2 below.) is that a party has this duty:

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a  certification by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of  existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

That is NOT a really high bar. All you have to do is have a sensible case based on a reasonable reading of the law. But Dr. House must have figured he stood to lose under this standard. Sooo, he exercised some good sense and got out while he was ahead. What this shows is that House knew darn good and well that he had filed a frivolous suit and just didn’t want to pay the price.

What a scoundrel and what a cheapskate. What was that sanctimonious crap he was spewing a few weeks ago (See Note 3 below.):

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.

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.

Yeah. Sure.  What really happened is that the little narcissist got some attention and then hauled buns before the bill came due.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Milo Winter’s illustration of Aesop’s Fable about the Miser.

A Miser had buried his gold in a secret place in his garden. Every day he went to the spot, dug up the treasure and counted it piece by piece to make sure it was all there. He made so many trips that a Thief, who had been observing him, guessed what it was the Miser had hidden, and one night quietly dug up the treasure and made off with it.

When the Miser discovered his loss, he was overcome with grief and despair. He groaned and cried and tore his hair.

A passerby heard his cries and asked what had happened.

“My gold! O my gold!” cried the Miser, wildly, “someone has robbed me!”

“Your gold! There in that hole? Why did you put it there? Why did you not keep it in the house where you could easily get it when you had to buy things?”

“Buy!” screamed the Miser angrily. “Why, I never touched the gold. I couldn’t think of spending any of it.”

The stranger picked up a large stone and threw it into the hole.

“If that is the case,” he said, “cover up that stone. It is worth just as much to you as the treasure you lost!”

MORAL: “A possession is worth no more than the use we make of it”


Note 2. Kentucky Rule 11.

Kentucky Rule 11

Note 3. Link.



Larry Klayman Indirectly Confirms He Filed Baseless Lawsuit!!! (Or, Twomblied In Florida???)

The Courtroom Looked On In Horror As Klayman Shot Himself In The Foot

Birther Uber-Attorney Larry Klayman, Esq.  indirectly confirmed that he filed a baseless lawsuit in Florida. Here are a few excerpts from the Birther blog, The Steady Drip:


Florida Dem asks for ‘discovery’ into Obama eligibility

“Appellant submitted multiple sworn affidavits setting forth the fraudulent nature of Appellee Obama’s birth certificate and other identifying documents,” said the appeal of a decision by Judge Terry Lewis, who said Obama is eligible and the case shouldn’t go forward.

“Appellee Obama conspicuously offered no evidence to the contrary and instead asked for a stay of discovery in order to avoid a proper determination of his citizenship. With only appellant’s affidavits in front of him as no contra-affidavits were put forth by appellee Obama, Judge Lewis ignored this sworn evidence and incorrectly determined that appellee Obama was a natural born citizen,” the filing explains.

It continues: “A question of fact such as this cannot be determined without the parties having been given the opportunity to take discovery. Appellant was not permitted to investigate through discovery or even observe the underlying documents that allegedly establish appellee Obama’s natural born citizenship.

“If appellee Obama was born outside of the United States then he is not a natural born citizen, or even a citizen. In addition to being born within the United States, as noted above, a natural born citizen must be born to two U.S. citizen parents. If it is shown through discovery that Barack H. Obama Sr., appellee Obama’s father, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of appellee Obama’s birth, then appellee Obama is clearly not a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution.”


Hmmm. If Klayman has never seen the underlying documents, then what basis is there for concluding they are forged? He relied in part on Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse report, which

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

Arpaio Affidavit

The problem is, that doesn’t really say much in the way of FACTS. This is a CONCLUSION. Who was defrauded out of what and how? Who prepared these documents? What information has been created, or materially altered?  The nearest thing approaching a FACT in Arpaio’s Affidavit is this tidbit:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

The problem is that even this statement is weasel-ly. The registrar’s stamp “may have been imported from another source”??? Deputy Mike Zullo’s Affidavit is similarly wishy-washy:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

This is more detailed than Arpaio’s statement, but still doesn’t provide any information on the facts supporting the conclusion that the stamp was imported in the document, who did it, or what the effect is in a legal sense. Further, neither Affidavit has anything at all to do with the subject matter claim of the suit, which is that Obama supposedly isn’t a natural born citizen.  If Klayma wishes to prove that Obama’s father was a non-citizen, than a copy of Obama’s book,  Dreams From My Father, would be sufficient as an admission by a party to the lawsuit.

The lack of relevant supporting factual information sounds like the kind of stuff discussed in the U.S. Supreme Court case on the limits of the discovery process,  Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). (While Twombly was a Federal case, most state’s rules of civil procedure track the Federal rules to varying degrees. Also, see Note 2, below.)  Here are a few excerpts from an Internet Article on the post-Twombly world:

All too often, discovery becomes “not merely an impermissible fishing expedition[, but] an effort to dredge the lake in hopes of finding a fish.” Texaco Inc. v. Sanderson, 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995).

Subsequent cases suggest that Twombly and its progeny may be a useful “preemptive” weapon for combating boilerplate toxic tort complaints at the trial court level — especially when it appears that such pleadings are intended to do little more than open the discovery floodgates so that plaintiffs can locate a potential factual basis for their claims at defendants‟ expense.

In Tanner v. International Isocyanates Institute Inc., No. 05-PWG-2341-E (N.D. Ala. filed Nov. 16, 2005), defendants successfully mounted a similar Twombly defense to secure dismissals of plaintiffs‟ fraudulent suppression and conspiracy claims in a putative class action at the pleadings stage.

In response to defendants‟ arguments that plaintiffs‟ blanket fraud allegations failed to provide enough specific facts to satisfy the heightened pleading standard in Twombly, the court dismissed plaintiffs‟ fraudulent suppression and conspiracy claims. The court deemed these claims deficient because plaintiffs failed “to identify the specific
fraudulent statements made to them that was fraudulent or misleading.” Tanner v. International Isocyanates Institute Inc., No. 05-PWG-2341-E at 44 (N.D. Ala. June 9, 2008) (order on motion to dismiss amended complaint).

The court‟s order noted, in part, that “factual allegations in a complaint must „possess enough heft‟ [and] plausibility to suggest that the pleader is entitled to relief … facts that are „merely consistent with‟ the plaintiff‟s legal theory will not suffice.” Id. at 16-17.


Here is the money quote:

Indeed, the Twombly majority expressly rejected the notion that questionable claims should be tolerated simply because they can be resolved later through discovery: “[i]t is no answer to say that a claim just shy of a plausible entitlement to relief can, if groundless, be weeded out early in the discovery process through careful case management …” Id. at 559.

Even before Twombly,  discovery fishing expeditions were considered abusive. This is from a 2001 paper on Fishing Expeditions:

The requirement that discovery must be grounded in some basis in fact survives to this day. In Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc., 203 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 302 (2000), the Tenth Circuit ruled on the propriety of “extraordinarily expansive discovery requests” that the proponent argued were “relevant to two broad, non-specific allegations” in their complaint. Id. at 1238. The Tenth Circuit, noting that the district court had found the “likely benefit of this attempted fishing expedition was speculative at best,” held that [w]hen a plaintiff first pleads its allegations in entirely indefinite terms, without in fact knowing of any specific wrongdoing by the defendant,and then bases massive discovery requests upon those nebulous allegations, in the hope of finding particular evidence of wrongdoing, that plaintiff abuses the judicial process.


So, when Larry Klayman comes right out and states that he can’t prove his case without further using the discovery process, then he is admitting that his Sheriff Joe’s and Deputy Zullo’s affidavits are insufficient to prove forgery, INDIRECTLY CONFIRMING that he has no case at all. Maybe that is the reason for this Motion from Obama’s attorneys:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

Obama’s Motion For Costs Against Klayman

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1936 courtroom drama, Disorder In The Court, starring the Three Stooges.  Of course, we have the video for you!

Note 2. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Fishing Expeditions. For anybody who is interested, here is a pdf of the Florida Rules, as of September 1, 2012.

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

Also, see this piece on “Fishing Expeditions” in Florida, as they relate to one aspect of litigation:

4th DCA Endorses Fishing Expeditions

However, Florida does offer an alternative procedure of which Klayman appears to be unaware, The Pure Bill of Discovery. However, it is unlikely he, or any other Birther, could prevail there either  based on the weakness of their case.

Florida Bar on The Pure Bill of Discovery

From that article:

Publix Supermarkets, 696 So. 2d at 1371. The Fourth District vacated the order of the trial court because the petitioner simply wanted to preserve the forklift to determine if he had a cause of action and ordered that the petition be dismissed. Id. In doing so, the court stated that a pure bill of discovery is not to be used as a fishing expedition to see if causes of action exist.

Finally, Florida seems to mirror most of the Federal Rules, but some appear in separate statutes. For example, the familiar Rule 11, is contained in F.S. §57.105:

Florida Bar on F.S.§57.105

Note 3. Other Information. For people who are interested in this kind of stuff, here is a Duke Law School Internet Article by John H. Beisner

Discovering a Better Way- The Need for Effective Civil Litigation

Paper Terrorism!!! (Or, Coming Soon To A Birther Near You!)

BEFORE: The Babylon Municipal Court Building Was An Architectural Masterpiece

AFTER: The Eastern File Rooms Collapsed From The Weight Of Frivolous Lawsuits Filed On Clay Tablets

Well, the above Images notwithstanding, the issue of Paper Terrorism is a serious one. Wiki defines Paper Terrorism as:

Paper terrorism is a neologism to refer to the use of false liens, frivolous lawsuits, bogus letters of credit, and other legal documents lacking sound factual basis as a method of harassment, especially against government officials. These methods are popular among some anti-government groups and those associated with the redemption movement. Mark Pitcavage of the ADL states that these methods were pioneered by the Posse Comitatus. Some victims of paper terrorism have been forced to declare bankruptcy.

An article by the Southern Poverty Law Center states that another tactic is filing reports with the Internal Revenue Service falsely accusing their political enemies of having unreported income. Such frivolous lawsuits also clog the court system making it more difficult to process other cases and including using challenges to the titles of property owned by government officials and others. Another method of paper terrorism is filing bankruptcy petitions against others in an effort to ruin their credit ratings.

I believe the recent foray into Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Birther lawsuits represents an attempt to emulate this activity. Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D, in an Internet Article at the ADL, provides the aims of these type of lawsuits:

Proponents of the bogus lien saw that this strategy was an extremely effective and inexpensive way to accomplish several goals at once. Bogus liens

1) acted to intimidate or coerce public officials, particularly law enforcement agents, not to enforce the laws;

2) served as damaging instruments of revenge against private and public individuals or organizations that had somehow run afoul of members of the “patriot” movement; and

3) worked to slow down or clog up the judicial system, both in the general sense of making the entire system less effective and in the more particular sense of postponing the meting out of justice against particular anti-government activists.

In the 1990s a number of leaders emerged as popularizers of the tactic of bogus liens, from Texas activist Alfred Adask to the Montana Freemen in the remote Northwest. Proponents offered for purchase or even gave away free packets of information explaining exactly how to place such liens. Occasionally examples were even downloadable over the Internet. It was not long before anti-government activists ranging from “sovereign citizens” to militia members to white supremacists to tax protesters embraced “common law liens” (to name one commonly used term) as a way to strike back against a system they disliked so much.


That was written in 1998 before the advent of the Birthers, or they would have probably been included in that group.  Compare that description with this:


The purveyors of the DIY Birther Lawsuit Kit provide this excuse for their conduct:


Pay attention to this language from above:

The multi state, multi county filing strategy of the Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit is to have individuals file their own cases, in their own counties, all over the country. The purpose of filing so many cases all over the country is to find at least one honest judge willing to allow the evidence on these important issues to be brought forth publicly.

But they give away their true intent a little further down the page:

Jerry Collette, the developer of the Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit, believes that some of the courts who dismissed, on procedural grounds, previous cases on this subject were correct; the plaintiffs had the wrong strategy. Jerry’s specialty is legal strategy. He has come up with a brand new strategy for this ballot challenge that goes straight to the key constitutional rights issues.

We believe that with this new strategy you will be far more likely to keep your case from getting dismissed. Go for it. Help us find that one honest judge, who might even be right there in your county. File your complaint in your local judicial district, using the Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit, and, after you survive the defendants’ motions to dismiss and move your case, bring our nonprofit org and our attorneys into your case.

What a Brilliant Legal Strategist is Mr. Collette!!! Let’s go file a bunch of lawsuits and see if one of them lands in front of a drunk judge!!!  How clever. How very Sun Tzuey! The Legal Quack Hall of Fame has its winner for 2012! But let’s read a little deeper.

Sooo,  some cases were dismissed on procedural grounds. . . but Enguiring Minds, like mine, want to know on what basis the other cases were dismissed??? Maybe, on THE MERITS!!!  Collette and crew leave that little fact out. But Collette, and his running buddy, Sam Sewell, sure ought to be aware of this. After all, they just got smacked down hard in Florida in their last little Birther backed lawsuit which was dismissed ON THE MERITS WITH PREJUDICE (click on the Image to make it larger):

Here is a link to the full decision:


Collette and Sewell know that the people who file these DIY Birther suits are going to get dismissed. The old term that was used to describe no-merit lawsuits that are filed in full anticipation of losing was vexatious litigation. Wiki briefly defines it as:

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A single action, even a frivolous one, is not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.

But the en masse Birther assault on the judicial system deserves the new term, Paper Terrorism. Like them, I hope they find one special judge. One special judge who will throw the book at the whole bunch of them and set them about turning big rocks into little rocks for 90 days or more.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Images. These Dramatic Re-Enactments were created by Pieter Bruegal of Bruegal & Son Painters, LLC,  of Flemburg, Belgium.

Note 2. The Florida Ballot Challenge. See this link for Sewell’s and Collette’s involvement:


For what it is worth, I predicted this was going to flop:


Note 3. State Responses To Paper Terrorism. Some states are criminalizing some aspects of paper terrorism. See this Internet Article by Christopher A. Young, Esq.:


Note 4. The Ancients Knew How To Handle Clay Tablet Terrorism:

King Gilgamesh Sentences Apuzzutti And Other Serial Scribers To Hard Labor

Precedent Evil – The MHV Virus Spreads Beyond Squirrel City!!!

The Girl Reporter Runs To Warn The World That The Minor Happersett Virus (MHV) Has Broken Out Of Squirrel City

Well, I have been writing a lot of Internet Articles lately about the Minor v. Happersett voting rights case from 1875. The two citizen parent Birthers (who I also teasingly call the Vattle Birthers, because of their reliance on Emerich de Vattel) have worked themselves into an illogical frenzy trying to make the case say things it doesn’t. Here is the language which drives the Vattle Birthers into mindless babbling insanity:

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.

Clearly, the judges in that case are NOT tackling the issue of whether children born here of foreigners are natural born citizens. The Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS case did that 23 years later in 1898. In addition to being a matter of common sense and basic reading skills, the fact that Minor v. Happersett did NOT resolve the issue is also a matter of law. The Indiana Court of Appeals stated in 2009, in a Vattle Birther suit:

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the [Minor] 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

While this should be enough for people with common sense, no one can accuse the Vattle Birthers of suffering from that particular affliction. An outfit called the Liberty Legal Foundation filed suit in federal court and state court against the National Democratic  Party, and asking the Court to affirm the definition of natural born citizenship in Minor v. Happersett. Here is the link to the lawsuit, and the idiotic language is in the second paragraph:


Here is the paragraph:

2. This Complaint does not request or require this Court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term “natural born citizen” under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentionalmisrepresentations of the Democratic Party. This Complaint requests this Court to affirm the Supreme Court’s definition of “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.162 (1875)

This so-called precedent is not a precedent and can’t be since it did not resolve the issue. To try to use it as such is both evil and stupid. It should not take the court long to drive a stake through the heart of this Precedent Evil.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note:  The title of this Internet Article is  a pun based on the Resident Evil series of movies and video games.  Squirrel City is a play on Raccoon City, which (as wiki says) is a fictional metropolis located in the Arklay Mountains of North America that succumbed to the deadly T-Virus outbreak and was consequently destroyed via a nuclear missile attack issued by the United States government. The town served a critical junction for the series’ progression as one of the main catalysts to Umbrella’s downfall as well as the entry point for some of the series’ most notable characters. Of course Squirrel also implies the Vattle Birthers are nutz. The MHV Virus is a spoof on the T-Virus.

The heroine is Alice Abernathy.  Here is a great drawing of her by GorillazFiggo and can be found at:


Alice, Resident Evil by GorillazFiggo