15 Minutes, Bigots by Other Names

Wherein I talk calmly to a whiny Birther who was Fined $13,000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit

Vexatious Litigant gets fined as promised, and my response to her whinging about it

2 thoughts on “Wherein I talk calmly to a whiny Birther who was Fined $13,000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit

  1. Girlfriend, No one pays me to write. Although, I wonder if you are a paid shill, since I see you spewing the same crap I’ve seen posted to other blogs about the POTUS. Now, that I have said that, this is about a resident of the State of Washington, who was warned about sanctions should she refile her pile o’whine, and is now suffering the consequences of ignoring said warning. Ms. Jordan, is really quite fortunate, that the Judge didn’t note that she admitted to Accessing e-verify Under False Pretenses by using the “Self-Check” in her Sworn Affidavit.


  2. My first question for you is: does Jim Johnson pay you also?

    My other question for you is: Why do you defend an obvious Marxist in Democratic party clothing? That is of course the old Democratic party hasn’t been completely taken over by the Marxists and Islamists (remember the Democratic party convention and their comments on Israel—I didn’t forget them).

    The only mistake that the Washington litigant made was that this is a criminal matter and should not be tried through the civil courts. This is a mistake that all the other lawyers have made like Orly.

    Regarding Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth—Yes it’s a fraud and a bad one at that. Paul Irey and I found no less than 20 points of forgery on it, everything from the certificate number being out of sequence to the age of the “father” being wrong. The typewriter evidence is so un-defendable that even John Woodman retired three times after confronted with trying to give an explanation. By the way we did not use the PDF copy to do our analysis but a very high resolution reporter’s copy we got from one of them. The halo was also on it and that is just impossible unless all the copies came from a Photoshop file. If you Obots are trying to hang your pointy hats on the falsehoods coming out of Kevin Davidson, don’t bother, he knows nothing about scanners, Photoshop or type or typewriters—we do, Paul and I collectively have over 83 years experience in these fields.

    I want you to understand something very clearly that this is not a simple forgery case—no its really a high treason case and IF you are associated in anyway with the principles in this case you will be considered an accessory after the fact. I have included the federal statute below. If you fit into this description in any way I suggest you find another hobby and detach yourself from them before its too late.

    Sec. 3. Accessory after the fact

    Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has
    been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the
    offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or
    punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
    Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an
    accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half
    the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571)
    fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the
    punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is
    punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be
    imprisoned not more than 15 years.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 99-646, Sec. 43,
    Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3601; Pub. L. 101-647, title XXXV, Sec.
    3502, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4921; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII,
    Secs. 330011(h), 330016(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2145,

    Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 551 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch.
    321, Sec. 333, 35 Stat. 1152).
    The first paragraph is new. It is based upon authority of Skelly
    v. United States (C. C. A. Okl. 1935, 76 F. 2d 483, certiorari
    denied, 1935, 55 S. Ct. 914, 295 U.S. 757, 79 L. Ed. 1699), where
    the court defined an accessory after the fact as –
    one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another,
    receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to
    hinder the felon’s apprehension, trial, or punishment –
    and cited Jones’ Blackstone, books 3 and 4, page 2204; U.S. v.
    Hartwell (Fed. Cas. No. 15,318); Albritton v. State (32 Fla. 358,
    13 So. 955); State v. Davis (14 R. I. 281); Schleeter v.
    Commonwealth (218 Ky. 72, 290 S. W. 1075). (See also State v.
    Potter, 1942, 221 N. C. 153, 19 S. E. 2d 257; Hunter v. State,
    1935, 128 Tex. Cr. R. 191, 79 S. W. 2d 855; State v. Wells, 1940,
    195 La. 754, 197 So. 419.)
    The second paragraph is from section 551 of title 18, U.S.C.,
    1940 ed. Here only slight changes were made in phraseology.

Comments are closed.