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.)

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/kentucky-obama-ballot-challenge-dropped-amid-threats

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”

http://whisperingbooks.com/Show_Page/?book=Aesops_Fables&story=Miser

Note 2. Kentucky Rule 11.

Kentucky Rule 11

Note 3. Link.

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/stupid-kentucky-birther-denies-being-a-stupid-birther-or-more-ky-puh-lease/

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.

L. TODD HOUSE, M.D.

Louisville 40204 –

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120906/OPINION02/309060005/

http://www.courier-journal.com/comments/article/20120906/OPINION02/309060005/Reader-Letters-Not-birther

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:

http://assemblyman-eph.blogspot.com/2009/03/vintage-circus-photos.html

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.

http://www.adl.org/mwd/privlien.asp

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:

http://doityourselfballotchallenge.org/

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

http://doityourselfballotchallenge.org/why.html

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:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint

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:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/07/strategyupdate-for-florida-ballot.html

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

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/florida-birthers-roll-out-the-big-legal-gun-or-sam-sewell-cant-count-to-2/

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.:

http://hennepin.timberlakepublishing.com/article.asp?article=1148

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

King Gilgamesh Sentences Apuzzutti And Other Serial Scribers To Hard Labor

Birther Anesthesiologist Blows It!!! (Or, Amicus Curare Brief Needed???)

Civilized People Would Not Touch A Birther Lawsuit With A Ten Foot Pole

Well, as reported at Dr. Conspiracy’s website, the Kentucky Anesthesiologist Todd House admitted that he is lied on his lawsuit when he claimed Obama was foreign born!!!

However, in an interview with a local newspaper, the Courier-Journal in Louisville, House admitted that he doesn’t actually believe this to be true.

House said in the interview that he doesn’t believe Obama was born in Kenya but said that the president has not proved he was born in the United States.

“I think really, the claim is, we don’t know where he was born,” House said. “The Kenyan birth issue was placed in the restraining order because it is one of several possibilities and no one really knows the truth.

Here is the link to the full story:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/08/birther-lies-in-kentucky-court-filing/

Now here is what it says on page 6 of the lawsuit:

Here is the link to the full Complaint:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102577890/HvO-Complaint-Aug-2012

And here is what the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedures No. 11, provides for when a person lies in their pleadings:

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.

If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

http://www.louisvillelaw.com/civil_rules/cr11.htm

I am sure that Mr. House’s blatant lie will be communicated to the court by the Defendants or by way of an Amicus Curiae brief. But this ought to show what a slim connection exists between Birthers and truth. Some people might think that the twin causes of action are a form of “alternative pleading”. I disagree.

Alternative pleading would permit House to claim that Obama is foreign born and thus ineligible, but if he isn’t foreign born, then the fact that his father was not a citizen also makes him ineligible. That would be permissible. But House can not just make up a fact, that Obama is foreign born, that he admits not believing, and then try to claim alternative pleading.

The fact that this is a DIY type lawsuit, and is based on grounds which have been repeatedly thrown out of the courts, and that Todd House is a well-educated professional person, works against him being given slack by the courts. I hope the judge throws the book at him.

This whole mess is just another example of paper terrorism by the Birthers. More on this point later.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image, Curare, and Blowguns. This is a primitive form of anesthesia. Wiki says,

Curare was used as a paralyzing poison by South American indigenous people. The prey was shot by arrows or blowgun darts dipped in curare, leading to asphyxiation owing to the inability of the victim’s respiratory muscles to contract. The word curare is derived from wurari, from the Carib language of the Macusi Indians of Guyana.

The best known and historically most important (because of its medical applications) toxin is d-tubocurarine. It was isolated from the crude drug — from a museum sample of curare — in 1935 by Harold King (1887–1956) of London, working in Sir Henry Dale’s laboratory. He also established its chemical structure. It was introduced into anesthesia in the early 1940s as a muscle relaxant for surgery. Curare is active — toxic or muscle-relaxing, depending on the intended use — only by an injection or a direct wound contamination by poisoned dart or arrow.

It is harmless if taken orally because curare compounds are too large and highly charged to pass through the lining of the digestive tract to be absorbed into the blood. For this reason, native tribes are able to eat curare-poisoned prey safely. In medicine, curare has been superseded by a number of curare-like agents, such as rocuronium, which have a similar pharmacodynamic profile but fewer side effects.

The U2 spy-plane pilot Gary Powers, when shot down in 1960 on his flight over the Soviet Union, was wearing a silver-dollar charm that concealed a curare-tipped needle.

Note 2. The Easter Egg.  The Kentucky Headhunters are a band.  Here is one of their youtube videos:

Note 3. Amicus Curare. A word play on Amicus Curiae, a friend of court filing.  An amicus curiae is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it.

Note 4. Alternative Pleading. Wiki says:

A pleading in the alternative sets forth multiple claims or defenses either hypothetically or alternatively, such that if one of the claims or defenses are held invalid or insufficient, the other claims or defenses should still have to be answered.

One example, submitting an injury complaint alleging that the harm to the defendant caused by the plaintiff was so outrageous that it must have either been intended as a malicious attack or, if not, must have been due to gross negligence.