Tag Archives: sanctions

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:



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.


28 U.S.C. §1927 Sanctions (Or, Be Afraid, Orly Taitz! Be Very Afraid!)

Dyslexically, She Read It As “End of Lie’n.” Hopefully, It Was That, Too.

Well, Dr. Orly Taitz and the other Birther lawyers should be afraid. Be very afraid. As the Birther lawyer Van Irion just learned in Tennessee,  the courts can do bad things to lawyers who file silly little frivolous vexatious lawsuits and then string them out. Through the sanctions allowed in 28 U.S.C. § 1927, bad little lawyers can be made to pay the legal fees of their opponents. Last night I reported on Van Irion’s problem here:


But today I want to focus on the actual provisions and applications of 28 U.S.C. § 1927.  Here is the short 53 word statute:

Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.

Now, for a brief overview:

It is becoming increasingly common for a prevailing party in federal court to seek attorneys’ fees from the losing party’s attorney under a combination of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C.  § [section]1927, and the court’s companion “inherent powers.”  Unlike Rule 11, though, “awards pursuant to section1927 may be imposed only against the offending attorney; clients may not be saddled with such awards.”

Rule 11 sanctions are tied to a signed filing, while [section] 1927 examines the attorney’s course of conduct throughout the entire litigation. Therefore, serious misconduct not necessarily involving the signing of a pleading, memorandum or motion can qualify for punishment of the attorney. Rule 11 also provides the allegedly erring attorney the “safe harbor” of a 21-day notification,  while [section] 1927 does not.

Section 1927 misconduct is cumulative in nature, while Rule 11 misconduct is not. Inasmuch as a [section] 1927 sanctions motion may come without warning and may involve monetary sanctions much more substantial than those associated with a Rule 11 motion.

Not all questionable conduct, however, is sanctionable under [section] 1927. In the 11th Circuit, it is well settled that “this section is not a ‘catch-all’ provision for sanctioning objectionable conduct by counsel.”  Section 1927 requires the touchstone of bad faith, which is more than mere negligence or lack of merit.

The 11th Circuit has held that an attorney who “knowingly or recklessly pursues a frivolous claim” acts in bad faith.  For sanctions to be appropriate, counsel must have engaged in unreasonable and vexatious conduct; this conduct must have multiplied the proceedings, and the amount of the sanction cannot exceed the costs resulting from the conduct. Sanctions are not warranted simply because counsel’s general performance or particular decision making did not rise to the highest standards of the profession.


From, The Song of the Sirens — Sanctioning Lawyers Under 28 U.S.C. 1927 (see Note 2 for full article.) we learn that:

The statute was first enacted in 1813, and was amended in 1980 specifically to add attorneys’ fees to the list of possible sanctions.  As a result of this amendment, courts have invoked this statute more frequently. The federal courts, however, evidence widely disparate views concerning the applicable standard for assessing whether an attorney has multiplied the proceedings “unreasonably and vexatiously” within the meaning of the statute. Some circuits impose a section 1927 sanction when an attorney’s conduct is merely negligent, while other circuits require a showing of reckless conduct or conduct evidencing willful bad faith.

I won’t copy and paste everything from this law review article and the other one, because there are links to all of them in the notes and pdf copies to boot for those who want to print them out. But the issue in these types of sanctions seems to be figuring out when has the attorney gone too far in his representation.  Some courts use a subjective bad faith standard, and other courts an objective unreasonableness test. The overall bad thing that the statute seeks to prevent is delays in litigation.

This is a penal statute, which is meant to punish the offending attorney. As such, there needs to be some element of bad faith – either intentional or negligently through recklessness. Simply put,  the fact that the attorney either knows or should have known that what he is doing and claiming is either without merit, or presented for the wrong reasons.

I think that under either standard, the Birther lawyers are on very thin ice. The Bad Faith Standard Courts require an intentional act of bad faith, and what else is filing a lawsuit based on Minor v. Happersett as a precedent for determining natural born citizenship while ignoring or mischaracterizing Wong Kim Ark. Sorry, but not necessary to resolve these doubts is pretty clear.

In the Unreasonableness Standard Courts, the Birther lawyers are in even worse shape, because here, mere negligence is enough to subject them to the sanctions. Here, the Courts don’t have to find that the lawyer is doing it on purpose, but can find guilt because the lawyer should have known better, whether he did or not.

With all this in mind, here is where Dr. Orly Taitzis in genuine legal peril.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals uses the Bad Faith Standard. In a recent case they upheld $247,397.28 in attorneys’ fees and $10,808.76 in costs, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.  In Lahiri, an Indian composer tried to get rights in music he had composed for a film company in India.  Along the way the Lahiri Court cited these previous holdings:

1. attorney’s knowing and reckless introduction of inadmissible evidence was tantamount to bad faith and warranted sanctions under § 1927 and the court’s inherent power;

2. attorney’s reckless misstatements of law and fact, combined with an improper purpose, are sanctionable under the court’s inherent power;

But, let’s look at some of the things Kornarens, the Lahiri lawyer did to get sanctioned in such a heavy amount. In supporting the current  matter at bar, the Lahiri Court noted:

Unequivocally, the law of India vests a copyright in a movie score composed for compensation in the film
company; the composer has no copyright interest absent an agreement to the contrary. Had Kornarens, a self-described experienced copyright lawyer, made even a cursory investigation into the circumstances of Lahiri’s 21-year old composition of Thoda, he would have known Lahiri had no copyright interest in music he composed for hire.

On appeal, Kornarens argues he reasonably relied on an expert in Indian law, as well as his unsupported assertion that Lahiri represented he owned the Thoda copyright. The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting similar arguments. The law of India is straightforward and the IPRS decision is in English. Indeed, there is nothing legally remarkable or unique about applicable Indian law that would reasonably require expert advice. Generally, a composer who creates a film score for hire forfeits a copyright interest in his work.

Kornarens attempted to justify his untenable interpretation of Indian copyright law by misrepresenting the IPRS decision: he cited the immaterial concurring opinion as the Indian Supreme Court’s holding. He repeatedly misquoted Gee Pee Films, Pvt. Ltd. v. Pratik Chowdhury and Others, G.A. No. 2756 of 2001 and C.S. No. 356 of 2001, for the proposition that a film producer does not have a copyright interest in songs that it commissions. Gee Pee expressly involved non-film music. Kornarens inserted the parenthetical “(film company)” into a quotation from Gee Pee to support his misrepresentation the case involved Indian film music.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Kornarens’ misrepresentations of Indian law evidenced his bad faith and recklessness in pursuing Lahiri’s copyright claim.

[T]he court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Kornarens acted recklessly and in bad faith in pursuing a frivolous copyright claim for five years. Kornarens’ amended complaint asserted a contrived United States copyright claim created by registration of a 21-year old composition after his Lanham Act and unfair competition claims were placed in jeopardy by the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Dastar. Lahiri composed Thoda for a film produced in India, under an agreement with an Indian film producer for financial compensation. Pursuit of a copyright claim without inquiring whether Lahiri composed Thoda for hire would be reckless under the laws of either India or the United States. The district court did not err in its factual findings or abuse its discretion in concluding that Kornarens’ repeated misrepresentations of Indian copyright law clearly evidenced his recklessness and bad faith.

After the sanctions motion was filed and the district court’s decision was impending, Kornarens attempted to cause the judge’s recusal by retaining the judge’s former law firm to defend him against the sanctions motion. The district court’s consideration of this manipulative tactic as evidence of bad faith was not an abuse of discretion. The district court reasonably inferred that Kornarens’ intent was to have the case assigned to a new judge who would be unfamiliar with the protracted history of this litigation.

Kornarens argues that no single instance of misconduct cited by the district court justified the imposition of sanctions. Kornarens ignores the record. The district court’s bad faith finding was based on the cumulative effect of his litigation conduct for more than five years. Clear and convincing evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that Kornarens acted recklessly and in bad faith and his conduct caused unreasonably protracted and costly litigation over a frivolous copyright claim. Accordingly, sanctions were not an abuse of discretion.

Here is a pdf of the case:

9th Circuit Case (Lahiri)

and a link to it:


Remember that Dr. Orly Taitz has resurrected a case that has been dead for three years in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It would take a book to recount all the mistakes, misrepresentations, and errors that were  made in this case. So, I am not even going to try to cover them all.  But Taitz escaped 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions when that case ended.  Now, she is using an idiotic expert, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who supposedly can prove forgery of an online image, without ever having seen the original document. She has re-opened the case. Like Kornarens above, she doesn’t need to rely on an expert to know the whole forgery thing is nonsense.

I believe that Taitz has exposed herself to  28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions, and also left the door open to evidence being presented from all the other cases she has been on as proof of her bad faith in this case. Pattern evidence is usually not admissible,  but it can be used, for example, to prove there was no mistake.  But,  in this case, the defendant is Obama, who is the same defendant as in her  other cases. Even the name calling and harassment of judges would come in.

If the Defendants so move, and if this pattern evidence comes in,  Dr. Orly Taitz should look for a TSUNAMI of a sanction.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the 1934 musical, Dames. There was a little “identity” issue in one of the musical numbers, as Wiki notes:

The musical sequences in Dames were designed, staged and directed by Busby Berkeley – the Warner Bros. publicity office invented the phrase “cinematerpsichorean” to describe Berkeley’s creations.By this time, after the success of 42nd Street, Footlight Parade and Gold Diggers of 1933, Berkeley had his own unit at Warners, under his total control as supervised by producer Hal Wallis.

“I Only Have Eyes for You” – by Harry Warren (music) and Al Dubin (lyrics). At one point in this number, sung by Dick Powell to Ruby Keeler, all the girls in the chorus wear Ruby Keeler masks as they move around the stage, but in just about every shot, the real Keeler passes by the camera briefly. In 1989, this song won an ASCAP Award as the “Most Performed Feature Film Standard”.

And of course I have a youtube video of this. The hijinks start about 3:40 in:

Note 2. Boston College Law Review Article on 28 U.S.C. § 1927.  Here is a link to  The Song of the Sirens — Sanctioning Lawyers Under 28 U.S.C. 1927  by Janet Eve Josselyn.


and also a pdf of the article:

The Song of the Sirens — Sanctioning Lawyers Under 28 U.S.C. 19

Note 3. Washington and Lee Law Review Article on 28 U.S.C. § 1927.  Here is a link to When is an Attorney Unreasonable and Vexatious?


and also a pdf of the article:

When is an Attorney Unreasonable andVexatious-

Note 4:  Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review article.  Here is a link to And the Chill Goes on – Federal Civil Rights Plaintiffs Beware: Rule 11 Vis-a-Vis 28 U.S.C. 1927 and the Court’s Inherent Power by Danielle Kie Hart.


and also a pdf of the article:

And the Chill Goes on – Federal Civil Rights Plaintiffs Beware- R

Note 5:  Be afraid. Be very afraid.  This is an interesting phrase. Here is what it means, and the origin is interesting, too, as you can read at the link:

Ostensibly, a warning that something dangerous is imminent. In reality, this is usually said with comic intent. The thing being warned of is more likely to be mildly unwelcome than actually dangerous; for example, “That fierce librarian was asking about your overdue books – be afraid, be very afraid.”


Fee??? Fie!!!, Foe Fumes.

Not Knowing Jack Led To A Giant Fail

Well, Van Irion and Dummett and The Liberty Legal Foundation got some major pie in their face. The Federal judge in the Tennessee version of their Birther lawsuit assessed attorney’s fees against the Birthers for filing vexatious litigation and making frivoulous claims.

Here is an interesting part from pages 10 and 11 of the order. I have paragraphed and bolded it a little to make it easier to follow:

Finally, counsel for Plaintiffs should have reasonably concluded that Liberty Legal Foundation lacked standing to assert any claims in this case. Liberty Legal Foundation asserted associational standing based on the fact that its members, the individual Plaintiffs named in this suit, had standing. For the reasons already discussed, the Court has determined that the standing claims of the individual Plaintiffs were frivolous and wholly without merit in this case.

It follows that the associational standing claim made by Liberty Legal Foundation was equally unsupportable. Having determined that counsel for Plaintiff reasonably should have known that all Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this suit, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and without any arguable basis in law. As such, counsel for Plaintiff has multiplied the proceedings in this case unreasonably and vexatiously and should therefore be required to satisfy personally the attorneys’fees reasonably incurred by Defendants because of such conduct. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to this issue.

This particular awarding of attorney’s fees was done pursuant to a statute (28 U.S.C. § 1927) , for sanctioning vexatious litigants, or litigants who unnecessarily run up the costs of lawsuits. The Defendants had also sought the same relief under Rule 11, which is usually how Courts sanction frivolous lawsuits. However, the Defendants did not give the required 21 day notice to Van Irion and crew, so the Court could not grant relief under that rule. It is very apparent from reading the case, that the Court would have sanctioned Van Irion for that if the proper notice had been given.

It is fun to read the language in the order relating to that Rule 11 claim. From pages 3 and 4 of the Order:

In the Motion before the Court, Defendants now seek sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have brought a frivolous suit without any legal or factual support for their claims. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs claims essentially contest the citizenship of President Obama, and courts around the country have rejected claims of this kind in eighteen previously-filed suits. Defendants assert that on March 11, 2012, they addressed a Rule 11 safe harbor letter to counsel for Plaintiffs demanding that Plaintiffs withdraw their Amended Complaint in this case. Defendants argue that had counsel for Plaintiffs conducted a proper investigation before filing suit, he would have discovered that his claims lacked any merit.

Among other things, Defendants contend that Plaintiff should have known that no entity known as the National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. is associated with any of the Defendants in this case. Thus, Plaintiffs had no colorano colorable claim against this entity, and venue was not proper in this District. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs should have known that a lawsuit is not the proper means to test President Obama’s qualifications for office under Article II of the Constitution. Defendants also claim that the Tennessee party is the entity responsible for certifying the Democratic Party’s nominee to the Tennessee Secretary of State, making Plaintiffs’ claims against the DNC and its chair frivolous and unfounded.

Above all, Plaintiffs should have known that under the circumstances they lacked standing to bring this suit. Based on Plaintiffs’ failures to investigate the claims of the Amended Complaint prior to filing suit, Defendants seek an award of their attorney fees incurred as a result of filing the instant Motion as well as their various Rule 12(b) motions.

Here is a link to the entire order (Thanks to Friends of Fogbow):


And here is a pdf copy of it, in case you have problems with scribd:

Van Irion Tennessee Smack Down

This whole thing coincides with the Internet Article here yesterday about the Kentucky Anesthesiologist who said one thing in court, and then another thing to a news crew. That type of conduct is ripe for sanctions. Sanctions like these are often “judge dependent” and some judges take a more dim view of frivolous lawsuits than others. It looks like Van Irion ran into a judge who don’t put up with no crap in his courtroom

I look for Van Irion and other Birthers to say they lost on a standing technicality. They will probably fail to mention that the 21 day notice technicality probably saved them from a worse fate.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from a 1907 illustration of Jack and the Beanstalk by Peter Newell. I found it here:


Note 2. The Title. Well, for ESLs, this is a word play on Fee Fi Fo Fum, from the fable Jack and the Beanstalk. Wiki has some interesting things to say:

“Fee-fi-fo-fum” is the first line of a historical quatrain (or sometimes couplet) famous for its use in the classic English fairy tale Jack and the Beanstalk. The poem, as given in Joseph Jacobs’s rendition, is as follows:

I smell the blood of an Englishman,
Be he live, or be he dead
I’ll grind his bones to make my bread.

Earlier variants of the fairy tale Jack the Giant-Killer found in chapbooks include various renditions of the poem, recited by the giant Thunderdell:

Fee, fau, fum,
I smell the blood of an English man,
Be alive, or be he dead,
I’ll grind his bones to make my bread.

Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum.
I smell the blood of an Englishman,
Be he living, or be he dead,
I’ll grind his bones to mix my bread.

In William Shakespeare’s play King Lear, the character of Edgar exclaims:

Fie, foh, and fum,
I smell the blood of a British man.

The verse in King Lear makes use of the archaic word “fie”, used to express disapproval. This word is used repeatedly in Shakespeare’s works, King Lear himself shouting, “Fie, fie, fie! pah, pah!” and the character of Mark Antony (in Antony and Cleopatra) simply exclaiming “O fie, fie, fie!” The word “fum” has sometimes been interpreted as “fume”. Formations such as “fo” and “foh” are perhaps related to the expression “pooh!”, which is used by one the giants in Jack the Giant-Killer; such conjectures largely indicate that the phrase is of imitative origin, rooted in the sounds of flustering and anger.

Darn, me and Old Willie Shakespeare must think alike!

Note 3. The Image Easter Egg.  The word pasty means:

1. resembling paste in color; pallid; “he looked pasty and red-eyed”; “a complexion that had been pastelike was now chalky white”

2. (usually used in the plural) one of a pair of adhesive patches worn to cover the nipples of exotic dancers and striptease performers.

Note 4. Dreams Do Come True!!!  Just the other day I made this statement about Van Irion:

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.


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:


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

Here is the link to the full Complaint:


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.


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.

Stellar! Stellar! Taitz Blanches!!! (Or, Help – I Can’t Find Limine, Mississippi???)

Taitz Knew Enough About The Law To Try To Refuse Service Of The Subpoena

Here is the latest post at Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s website:

Click on Image to make it larger.

The Democrats in  Mississippi sure know how to break a dog from sucking eggs or from filing frivolous lawsuits. They have requested the opportunity to examine Attorney Orly Taitz for the purposes of determining if she has committed barratry, maintenance, and champerty for the purposes of seeking sanctions. The actual Motion is only about two and a half  pages long, with signatures and certificates of service taking up the rest:

Page 1:

(Click on Image to make it larger.)

Page 2:

(Click on Image to make it larger.)

Page 3:

(Click on Image to make it larger.)

Page 4:

(Click on Image to make it larger.)

Here is the entire 35 page filing with all the exhibits, which are just fascinating. There are screen shots of her web pages, and we find out on page 8 that she is a Natural Born Litigator. Take your time and enjoy it!!!:


Because of continued reports of malware on her site, I have not provided a link, but if you are interested, and unafraid, just google “Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.”  But here is the rest of her post, repeating the first paragraph from above:

Please, read the motion by the Democratic party. The word insane does not even begin to describe it. They want the judge to allow them to put me on the stand to testify if someone induced me to file all the law suits against Obama. They printed out 21 law suits that I filed against Obama,they are saying that I make the President suffer and they want to examine me.

Well, I will be filing my response to this and other new pleadings by the Democratic party and by the Attorney General of Mississippi (Democrat Jim Hood).

If they want testimony during April 16 hearing in Jackson MS and they claim that It is frivolous on my part to sue Obama, I will have to reciprocate and examine a few individuals under oath.

among them:1. the subject of the law suit Barack Obama. I w3ill be seeking all of his vital records show on what basis does he claim the law suit is frivolous and why doesn’t he have a valid BC or a valis SSN ID

2. Nanci Pelosi. I will seek explanation, why did she change the certificate of candidate and removed the words “eligible under the constitution”

3. AG Holder. Since they want to know if I had financial considerations, I want to know Holder’s financial considerations in not responding to my request for quo Warranto that I submitted to him in 2009 and allowing Obama to continue staying in the position of the US president without any valid identification papers

4. AG of MS Jim Hood. I would like to know, if Mr. Hood had any financial considerations in not prosecuting Obama and instead covering up for him, when he received evidence of forgery and fraud in Obama’s IDs

5. former WH counsel Bob Bauer

6. director of health Fuddy

7.registrar Onaka

here are a few that come to mind.

This ought to be very interesting. I suspect that by the time she gets caught up in this, she won’t be finding it quite so insane.  In fact, this is the kind of response that ought to be filed against the other multiple filers like John Dummett,Van Irion, CDR Kerchner, and Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Further, I don’t believe that she can simply dismiss her action on her own and avoid this unpleasantness. The judge has the discretion to grant such a Motion, and with the Defendants’ Motion in play, she may be on their hook. I hope that she is not relying on the kindness of strangers.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Vivien Leigh and Marlon Brando from Tennessee William’s A Streetcar Named Desire (1951). Leigh plays the role of Blanche DuBois, about whom you can read here:


Note 2. Blanch, the verb, means:

(of a person) Grow pale from shock, fear, or a similar emotion

– many people blanch at the suggestion
– their faces blanched with fear

Note 3. Epic Fornications in Mississippi. Found in the Easter Egg, this is a reference to the play wherein Blanche DuBois explains that their ancestral Southern plantation, Belle Reve in Laurel, Mississippi, has been “lost” due to the “epic fornications” of their ancestors.

It also refers to Orly Taitz’s f*cked up legal work in Mississippi, and the Motion In Limine, which may f*ck her over.

Note 4: Other Puns and Word-plays.

Stellar! Stellar!  This is a word-play reference to the lines from the play, Hey Stella! Hey Stella!

Stellar, of course means outstanding. So that the title means that it is outstanding that Taitz is blanching, or turning white, in fear or shock.

Help – I Can’t find Limine, Mississippi??? This particular Motion is called a Motion in Limine, and this is a reference to how Taitz misunderstands law and procedure, and is constantly asking her fans for their help. To her, In Limine might mean a physical location, not a type of legal Motion.

Note 5. Foot Notes. There are many people who read this blog who are from other countries, and some of the puns and word-plays might not be obvious to them. So that is why I put these footnotes in.