Should a legislation be made to protect the US courts from loonies?

Disclaimer: I am not questioning birth of Obama or Obama at all. I fully understand that such questioning belongs to conspiracy tread.

I wonder how many conspiracy theory suits were filed against Bush and who was involved. Any thoughts on legal merits of the suit and negative effects of our courts if we allow them to be swept with loony conspiracy theories suits? Is it time for our legislators to make a legislation not allowing conspiracy theories lawsuit filings?


8:09-cv-82 Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by fax to: :
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:
Main Document
Original filename:C:\fakepath\Keyes et al v Obama et al ist amended complaint draft 3.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=7/15/2009] [FileNumber=8105281-0]
[98a0387ab45daee8bd4951227aa000dbe17778075f4dc3dec74aebdc1ec72ce31d65
39f69956d3216da3497f561bbbd26b8289c9d3c07fa3446efd942d253a97]]
Dr. Orly Taitz
Attorney-at-Law
Orly Taitz Law Offices
26302 La Paz, Suite 211
Mission Viejo, California 92691
Telephone: (949) 683-5411
E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION

Captain Pamela Barnett, §
Lt. Colonel Richard Norton Bauerbach §
Captain Robin D. Biron §
Colonel John D. Blair, §
Mr. David L. Bosley, §
Ms. Loretta G. Bosley, §
Captain Harry G. Butler, §
Representative Glenn Casada, Tennessee §
Jennifer Leah Clark, §
Representive Timothy Comerford, NH §
Charles Crusemire, §
Representative Cynthia Davis, Missouri § Civil Action No.:
Chief Warrant O. Thomas S. Davidson § SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx)
Wiley S. Drake, §
Matthew Michael Edwards, § TRIAL-BY-JURY
Lt. Jason Freese, § DEMANDED
Mr. Kurt C. Fuqua, §
Officer Clint Grimes, §
Julliett Ireland, §
D. Andrew Johnson, §
Israel D. Jones, §
State RepTimothy Jones, ESQ, MO §
Ambassador Alan Keyes, Ph.D., §
Commander David Fullmer LaRoque, §
Gail Lightfoot, §
MIL officer US Army Lita M. Lott, §
Major David Grant Mosby, §
MSGT Steven Kay Neuenschwander, §
State Representative Frank Niceley, TN §
Retired Senator Jerry O’Neil, Montana, §
SFC E7 Robert Lee Perry , §
Colonel Harry Riley, §
Markham Robinson, §
Sergeant Jeffrey Wayne Rosner §
MSGT Jeffrey Schwilk, §
Captain David Smithey, §
Lt. Commander John Bruce Steidel, §
Cmdr. Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth §
Thomas J Taylor, §
Representative Eric Swafford, Tennessee §
Captain Neil B. Turner, §
Richard E. Venable, §
LCDR Jeff Graham Winthrope, and §
Lt. Colonel Mark Wriggle, §
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
Barack Hussein Obama, §
Michelle L.R. Obama, §
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, §
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, §
Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and §
President of the Senate, §
Defendants. §

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to seek, above all, a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201-2202, deciding whether Defendant Barack Hussein Obama can show by clear and convincing evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America within the meaning of Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore whether he is qualified, or unqualified, for the position which he has held, de facto if not de jure since January 20, 2009

Additionally, however, the Plaintiffs herein seek injunctive relief against all four office-holding defendants to limit their powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States

3. Venue may also be proper because Plaintiffs have evidence that several addresses used by Defendants Barack Hussein Obama and/or Michelle Obama show that these two defendants are either part time residents in the Central District of California or else maintain business offices in this district, as follows:
4. Defendants Barack (aka “Barak”?) and Michael Obama appear on public records retrieved from Lexis-Nexis and other sources to have listed as permanent or part-time residents of the State of California, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, with fairly recent and publically recorded residences and/or offices at the following addresses within the Central District of California:
Name - OBAMA, BARAK
Street Address - 1619 S BENTLEY AVE
City, State, Zip - LOS ANGELES CA 90025-3586

Name - OBAMA, BARAK
Street Address - 1009 DIGITAL HWY
City, State, Zip - LOS ANGELES CA 90045


Michelle Obama
3654 Barham Blvd Q301
if Defendants Barack H. Obama and any of his co-defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering as alleged above, these Plaintiffs were injured in their business interests because they have business interests in their candidacies for President or Vice-President.
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire


July 15

Any thoughts?

justone said:

Is it time for our legislators to make a legislation not allowing conspiracy theories lawsuit filings?

Click to expand...

Not now, not ever.

There's this little thing called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

They may be loonies, they may be annoying, but they are exercising their Constitutional rights, and, in that regard, we should not only respect but protect what they do.

celticlord said:

Not now, not ever.

There's this little thing called the First Amendment:


They may be loonies, they may be annoying, but they are exercising their Constitutional rights, and, in that regard, we should not only respect but protect what they do.

Click to expand...

Let them petition the government, because the government does not have to do the monkey work of making a replay and a clerk would just staple the petition to others scribe a number and put it on the far shelf.

Courts have to pretend that they are looking at it, make hearings, etc when everyone knows that it will be turned away, as all other conspiracy theories. Meanwhile this meaningless spinning does not only cost money to taxpayer but also creates a bottle neck for others expecting a speedy procedure as it is required by the Constitution.

I am not speaking about possible distracting the President and other 4 defendants from their duties.

There should not be any laws against filing frivolous lawsuits, but at the same time a judge should be able to toss out any lawsuits based on merit.

justone said:

Let them petition the government, because the government does not have to do the monkey work of making a replay and a clerk would just staple the petition to others scribe a number and put it on the far shelf.

Courts have to pretend that they are looking at it, make hearings, etc when everyone knows that it will be turned away, as all other conspiracy theories. Meanwhile this meaningless spinning does not only cost money to taxpayer but also creates a bottle neck for others expecting a speedy procedure as it is required by the Constitution.

I am not speaking about possible distracting the President and other 4 defendants from their duties.

Click to expand...

Lawsuits are petitions for redress of grievances. This is exactly why we have courts.

Their claims of grievance may be without substance or merit, but that determination can only be made by a judge in a court of competent jurisdiction.

The importance of this right may be seen if one considers for a moment the following question: What if Dear Leader is not in fact a natural born citizen? What if these "loonies" are right and the rest of us are wrong?

celticlord said:

Lawsuits are

The importance of this right may be seen if one considers for a moment the following question: What if Dear Leader is not in fact a natural born citizen? What if these "loonies" are right and the rest of us are wrong?

Click to expand...

Let's get back to the real world. If instead of the desclaimer I ever showed any doubt and asked : ''What if Dear Leader is not in fact a natural born citizen?''

to what subforum my post would be moved and by whom?

Don't we know that only loonies can ask such a question?

justone said:

Let's get back to the real world. If instead of the desclaimer I ever showed any doubt and asked : ''What if Dear Leader is not in fact a natural born citizen?''

to what subforum my post would be moved and by whom?

Don't we know that only loonies can ask such a question?

Click to expand...

If you "know" such a thing, then your "knowledge" is slightly more lunatic than those who "know" that Dear Leader is, in fact, not a natural born citizen.

While I would not want to speculate on what actions moderators might take on such a thread, for myself, I would hope that such a question would reside either in the "Law and Order" section (here, in other words), or perhaps in the General Politics section. It is not inappropriate nor even remotely lunatic to ask such a question--indeed, such a question must be asked if we are to fairly gauge the merits of the assertion that Dear Leader is, in fact, not a natural born citizen.

Such questions are the stuff of which legal contemplation are made.

What renders those who assert Dear Leader's non-citizenship "loonies" is their complete and seemingly universal inability to provide substantive and affirmative proof for their position. The lunacy is not in the assertion, but in the dismal quality of the "evidence" presented to support it.

celticlord said:

If you "know" such a thing, then your "knowledge" is slightly more lunatic than those who "know" that Dear Leader is, in fact, not a natural born citizen.

While I would not want to speculate on what actions moderators might take on such a thread, for myself, I would hope that such a question would reside either in the "Law and Order" section (here, in other words), or perhaps in the General Politics section. It is not inappropriate nor even remotely lunatic to ask such a question--indeed, such a question must be asked if we are to fairly gauge the merits of the assertion that Dear Leader is, in fact, not a natural born citizen.

Such questions are the stuff of which legal contemplation are made.

What renders those who assert Dear Leader's non-citizenship "loonies" is their complete and seemingly universal inability to provide substantive and affirmative proof for their position. The lunacy is not in the assertion, but in the dismal quality of the "evidence" presented to support it.

Click to expand...

I am sorry I did not read. I asked you simple questions and I see no answer. may be you are saying something important, but until you answer the most simple quiestions it flies by ears as a redherring.

justone said:

I am sorry I did not read. I asked you simple questions and I see no answer. may be you are saying something important, but until you answer the most simple quiestions it flies by ears as a redherring.

Click to expand...

I am going to be generous and assume you simply misread my post.

You asked:

justone said:

Let's get back to the real world. If instead of the desclaimer I ever showed any doubt and asked : ''What if Dear Leader is not in fact a natural born citizen?''

to what subforum my post would be moved and by whom?

Click to expand...

To which I answered:

celticlord said:

While I would not want to speculate on what actions moderators might take on such a thread, for myself, I would hope that such a question would reside either in the "Law and Order" section (here, in other words), or perhaps in the General Politics section. It is not inappropriate nor even remotely lunatic to ask such a question--indeed, such a question must be asked if we are to fairly gauge the merits of the assertion that Dear Leader is, in fact, not a natural born citizen.

Click to expand...

You then asked:

justone said:

Don't we know that only loonies can ask such a question?

Click to expand...

To which I answered:

celticlord said:

If you "know" such a thing, then your "knowledge" is slightly more lunatic than those who "know" that Dear Leader is, in fact, not a natural born citizen.

Click to expand...

The simpler and less entertaining answer to your question is "No, we do not know that."

[Sorry, I missed. You answered my question.

But yet I cannot move further before I accept my mistake. I expected a ‘scientific’ answer, as my mind works in a different way than yours. You PC answer was not expected and it avoids the point.

So let me correct my question – did it ever happen before in the world of DPdid that a tread referring to a law suit vs. Obama filed in the way required by the law and asking the questions ‘’ What if Dear Leader is not in fact a natural born citizen? What if these "loonies" are right and the rest of us are wrong?’’ instead of hiding behind a dubious disclaimer I had to use was not moved to the place where all loonies belong, to the mental institution called “conspiracy theories’’ ? 2. and by the same movers?

Waiting for you on Military forum

justone said:

So let me correct my question – did it ever happen before in the world of DPdid that a tread referring to a law suit vs. Obama filed in the way required by the law and asking the questions ‘’ What if Dear Leader is not in fact a natural born citizen? What if these "loonies" are right and the rest of us are wrong?’’ instead of hiding behind a dubious disclaimer I had to use was not moved to the place where all loonies belong, to the mental institution called “conspiracy theories’’ ? 2. and by the same movers?

Click to expand...

I have only been a participant on this forum since January; perhaps someone more versed in the particular history of DebatePolitics can speak substantively to the historical aspect of your question--I will not address that aspect because I lack the experience within this forum to do so.

However, I reiterate my original point: the "what if" question belongs in either "Law and Order" or "General Politics." It is not a conspiracy theory question. It is not the question "Is Dear Leader a Citizen?"--that belongs in Conspiracy Theories if not down in the Basement. "What if" questions are not necessarily conspiratorial, and I would argue with anyone, including the moderators, if they were to assert otherwise. They can be difficult questions, they are sometimes frivolous questions, but they are not necessarily illegitimate questions. Hypotheticals--and questions beginning with "what if" are by the use of those two words intrinsically hypothetical--are departure points for all manner of philosophical exploration.

In other words, while I cannot say with certainty how such a question would have been handled in this forum in the past, I certainly hope and emphatically advocate that such a question not be unfairly relegated to the Conspiracy Theory forum.

celticlord said:

I have only been a participant on this forum since January; .....

In other words, while I cannot say with certainty how such a question would have been handled in this forum in the past, I certainly hope and emphatically advocate that such a question not be unfairly relegated to the Conspiracy Theory forum.

Click to expand...

Let me make my quest more politically correct. Add to it: ..... , since January.
Add to it - if you missed to post on any of them made since January, please look up the archive of the Conspiracy Theory forumsince january to see if you ever missed a single one since january.


Keep on spinning. It makes me laugh... and sadly doubt that you have ever reported to military.

justone said:

and sadly doubt that you have ever reported to military.

Click to expand...

Doubt all you like. Your doubts are your problem, not mine.

justone said:

Let me make my quest more politically correct. Add to it: ..... , since January.
Add to it - if you missed to post on any of them made since January, please look up the archive of the Conspiracy Theory forumsince january to see if you ever missed a single one since january.


Keep on spinning. It makes me laugh... and sadly doubt that you have ever reported to military.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

justone, you are bordering on questioning moderation, in-thread, which you know is against DP rules. This thread seems like a covert way to, once again, discuss the moderating/moving of threads. Knock it off and focus on the topic...which is the title of this thread and has nothing to do with DP, or this thread gets moved and you may receive consequences.

If we outlaw loonies, only congress will have loonies....
Simple as that, except for possibly the libetarian party.:2razz:

Nowhere in the tread I question, doubt or speak negatively about moderation. Mentioning moderation POSITIVLY in a side argument does not constitute breaking the rules if I am not mistaken. In fact that if Celticlord as it is expected from a military man keeping his honors answered the simple question as was asked, instead of making strawmen accents and diverting his answers to his stawmen accents, we not only could be able to move on but also we would be able to see positively, - no ‘’ seems like’’ – that I invoked an example of events on DP in a positive meaning.

I hope that clarifies the matter.

In the title I ask a question. It does not mean that I know the answer as many others who start a tread with a question do. Moreover if my question is proven to be a logical fallacy I feel I break no rules rather a tradition if I agree with the proof and continue the discussion of the merits, implication and consequences of the posted legal lawsuit filing in more a logical and consistent way rather than staying with or defending a logical fallacy.


I hope that clarifies the matter.

justone said:

In fact that if Celticlord as it is expected from a military man keeping his honors answered the simple question as was asked, instead of making strawmen accents and diverting his answers to his stawmen accents, we not only could be able to move on but also we would be able to see positively, - no ‘’ seems like’’ – that I invoked an example of events on DP in a positive meaning.

I hope that clarifies the matter.

Click to expand...

I answered all your questions directly and honestly.

Your contention that I have not done so is false.

The only straw man is your insistent mewling about not getting answers more to your liking.

However, such is the nature of debate. Sometimes people actually disagree with you, and sometimes they have substantial arguments behind their disagreement. Get over it.

celticlord said:

I answered all your questions directly and honestly.

Your contention that I have not done so is false.

The only straw man is your insistent mewling about not getting answers more to your liking.

However, such is the nature of debate. Sometimes people actually disagree with you, and sometimes they have substantial arguments behind their disagreement. Get over it.

Click to expand...

I do like when my questions are asked directly and as they are asked. But since you say that I posted words and that is my answer I have to go with what I have.

As the matter of fact, in the real world loonies who doubt Obama’s birth are treated as loonies, who interrupt orderly business. For instance here they are sent to the mental institution called the Conspiracy Theories Forum. I want to debate a legislature and/or other ways of dealing with the loonies interrupting orderly business of our Courts. Instead you want me to answer the suggestion “ what if they are not loonies”? knowing that such a suggestion has always been moved to the Conspiracy tread. As anyone can see on this page you simple want to get me and my tread in trouble, and thus win your argument. I know that such a suggestion has always been moved to the Conspiracy tread, you know that, and I know that you know, but of course you will be arguing that you don’t. Now know, if you didn’t know. So, seize such suggestions and try to play fair.

If to use the same analogy of DP, as you want such a suggestion to be seriously discussed on the law and forum tread, in the same way you want such a suggestion to be seriously taken by courts even if that results in less speedy procedures on serious matters.
It is so simple. Obviously, you are wrong.


But then in the development of the conversation I came up with another solution I tried to lead you to, asking to answer my questions directly. Like we put such loonies in the mental institution called the Conspiracy Theories forum and it works fine letting us maintain orderly business on other treads, shouldn’t Courts call psychiatrists and put the loonies in a mental institution? Loonies belong to mental institutions, - I hope you wouldn’t argue that.

This is some additional information about a series of litigations going on the same matter. I was under impression that the ruling of the judge positively ended the Cook’s case. It seems it is not so, the judge recommended to re-file the case on different venues/pleadings.


Press Release- Update on Major Cook’s case
July 19th, 2009
I was asked to provide an update and explanation in regards to Major Cook’s case. At the hearing the main point that the Judge brought forward, was the fact that since the military caved in and revoked Major Cook’s orders to go to Afghanistan, he will not be deployed from Fort Benning, GA, and Judge Land in GA no longer has jurisdiction over the case. He recommended that I refile in the Federal Court in the Middle district of Florida, where Major Cook resides and where his employer, Simtech, inc is located. The judge recommended that I file a legal action for damages, as the military has applied enormous pressure on the owner of Simtech, Larry Grise , to fire Major Cook in retaliation for him asking a question about the legitimacy of Obama for position of the Commander in Chief.
I am currently redoing the pleadings and I will refile in Florida.
Sincerely
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Sunday, Jul. 19, 2009


COOK, Stefan Frederick As of 15 July 2009

Major, Corps of Engineers, & Transportation Corps, US Army Reserve

Educational Degrees: Year Received
St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York BS Economics 1983
Fordham University, New York, New York MBA Finance/Quantitative Analysis 1988
Anna Maria College, Falmouth, Massachusetts MS Quality Management 1996

Decorations, Service Medals, and Badges:
Combat Patch
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Joint Meritorious Unit Award with one Oak Leaf Cluster
Joint Service Achievement Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster
Army Achievement Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster
Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters
National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Star device
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal


Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire

I did not have time to add a short comment in the context of the title.

The above is another proof that the guy belongs to a mental institution. What does he want? The 1st suit caused some comments in blogs and may be a few comments in the media. The 2nd suit even filed by a group, and his new suit which would be the 3rd one have not caused a whisp. And if he had enough education and could read he would see that none of the comments took him any more serious than another conspiracy nut. This is totally ridiculous. Some guy who has no record of any personal actions or sacrifices to this country, but only the record of putting his personal interests and partisan agenda before anything else tries to find a way to insult the President of the United States, the one who has only records of sacrificing his personal agenda and ambitions for the interests of this country and its people, republicans and democrats, black and whites, lefts and rights, military and civilian. This is totally sick. I don’t know who can argue that the guy does not belong to a mental institution. I am glad to see that there is practically nobody on DP. I am glad to see that at the 1st appearance on DP this guy was sent where he belonged without any hesitation or disagreements. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Courts, at last, figure out where he should belong, too. I hope it will not take too long.

justone said:

If to use the same analogy of DP, as you want such a suggestion to be seriously discussed on the law and forum tread, in the same way you want such a suggestion to be seriously taken by courts even if that results in less speedy procedures on serious matters.

Click to expand...

What I want, and what I have stated, is that the rights of citizens to petition for redress of grievance not be trampled or violated. There is no protection needed by the courts from such lawsuits. If they cannot state a credible case, the case will be dismissed for one of several reasons: lack of standing, lack of pertinent issues of law, lack of substantive claim of injury, just to name a few. From what little of the details of the particular filings I have seen, these lawsuits are properly dismissed by the courts on these or similar points.

Thus, there is no problem with these lawsuits. They are made, they fail to show proper cause, and they are dismissed. The rights of citizens are respected, and the courts have done their duty.

justone said:

It is so simple. Obviously, you are wrong.

Click to expand...

You have not shown how. Make your argument, so I can disabuse you of that notion.

justone said:

But then in the development of the conversation I came up with another solution I tried to lead you to, asking to answer my questions directly. Like we put such loonies in the mental institution called the Conspiracy Theories forum and it works fine letting us maintain orderly business on other treads, shouldn’t Courts call psychiatrists and put the loonies in a mental institution? Loonies belong to mental institutions, - I hope you wouldn’t argue that.

Click to expand...

You are bound to be disappointed--and there is, I think, a rough justice in that.

Merely alleging unrealistic claims is not evidence of mental illness, and is not grounds for incarceration in a psychiatric institution. This is not Soviet Russia, where psychiatry is a tool of the state for suppressing dissent. If your suggestion is that people filing these lawsuits should be so incarcerated, then yes, I do argue that. I say that not only is your position in error, but that your position is offensive and odious to every notion of democracy and liberty that is at the core of what it means to be "American."

You don't like these lawsuits. Too friggin' bad. Get over it. Get over yourself. Those filing these lawsuits lack reality, lack knowledge of the law, lack awareness of citizenship. What they do not lack is the right to file these lawsuits.

THAT is the Constitutional order of things. THAT is the American way. Yours is the wrong way.

celticlord said:

What I want, and what I have stated, is that the rights of citizens to petition for redress of grievance not be trampled or violated. There is no protection needed by the courts from such lawsuits. If they cannot state a credible case, the case will be dismissed for one of several reasons: lack of standing, lack of pertinent issues of law, lack of substantive claim of injury, just to name a few. From what little of the details of the particular filings I have seen, these lawsuits are properly dismissed by the courts on these or similar points.

Thus, there is no problem with these lawsuits. They are made, they fail to show proper cause, and they are dismissed. The rights of citizens are respected, and the courts have done their duty. .

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the mental problems of these particular citizens.

celticlord said:

You have not shown how. Make your argument, so I can disabuse you of that notion. .

Click to expand...

It is either the same infant tactics, - you close your eyes and say ‘’I don’t see you’’. Sure I am not here and nobody sees you. Or you are not reading my posts with a minimal attention required.

celticlord said:

You are bound to be disappointed--and there is, I think, a rough justice in that.

Merely alleging unrealistic claims is not evidence of mental illness, and is not grounds for incarceration in a psychiatric institution. This is not Soviet Russia, where psychiatry is a tool of the state for suppressing dissent. If your suggestion is that people filing these lawsuits should be so incarcerated, then yes, I do argue that. I say that not only is your position in error, but that your position is offensive and odious to every notion of democracy and liberty that is at the core of what it means to be "American."

You don't like these lawsuits. Too friggin' bad. Get over it. Get over yourself. Those filing these lawsuits lack reality, lack knowledge of the law, lack awareness of citizenship. What they do not lack is the right to file these lawsuits. .

Click to expand...

Again you are pulling the same trick. If you think actions of moderation I have been expressing my full support of and allegiance to and using as an exemplary template for my considerations can be un-American or ‘’offensive and odious to every notion of democracy and liberty that is at the core of what it means to be "American."”, have guts and honor to file a complain with the moderation. I will see if you will go any further than those loonies. Just stop getting me involved or making me the blame boy for your anti-social behavior.

celticlord said:

THAT is the Constitutional order of things. THAT is the American way. Yours is the wrong way.It is very obvious that you keep on steering me into the trouble with all possible means. .

Click to expand...

What American way? What the Constitutional order of things? What America? You have lost the sense of reality. Where have you been all this time? There is no America here. Welcome to the USSR!

You don’t like it? Too friggin' bad. PM to the Central Committee. I feel all warm and cozy, like fish in water, being back in the USSR.


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frLdjzEx4gI&feature=fvw"]YouTube - Billy Joel - Back In The USSR[/nomedia]





I 've been having a blast, like Billy.

justone said:

You are ignoring the mental problems of these particular citizens.

Click to expand...

And which mental problems have you diagnosed in these citizens, Dr. Killpatient?

justone said:

I've been having a blast, like Billy.

Click to expand...

Is that what you call suggesting that citizens exercising their constitutional rights are mental defectives? From this angle it almost seems as if you are trolling.....nah, you wouldn't be doing that, now would you?

I am sorry to say, but obviously you have reading comprehension problems. You have to learn how to read Soviet English, or you would never be able understand a thing in the reality around you. Obviously you have not understood a single thing.