Main Menu

Collette v. Obama: transferred

Because Jerry Collette was unable to show anybody he was suing was in Pascoe County where he filed the suit, Judge Miller decided that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The case will be transferred to Leon County (Tallahassee).

Fogbow contributor neonzx was at the 15-minute hearing, where everybody made nice to everybody else. Collette may have to pay an additional filing fee.

There should be a detailed report from neonzx at the Fogbow tomorrow.

, ,

130 Responses to Collette v. Obama: transferred

  1. avatar
    bgansel9 July 10, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    Does this assume that Klayman’s case is going forward? Was there an announcement that Klayman’s case is going forward (if so, I missed it).

  2. avatar
    SueDB July 10, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    I would think he would have to refile to include the filing fee…

    To me, it looks like Mr. Klayman’s case is going backward.

  3. avatar
    bgansel9 July 10, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    So, if Klayman’s new declaratory judgment action is dismissed, that means Collette’s case goes down with it?

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 10, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    Klayman’s loss hurts Jerry’s case, but Jerry has a cause of action (negligence per se, that Klayman didn’t put forward). Both cases were doomed from the start.

    Klayman will also appeal.

    bgansel9: So, if Klayman’s new declaratory judgment action is dismissed, that means Collette’s case goes down with it?

  5. avatar
    bgansel9 July 11, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    Thanks Doc.

  6. avatar
    TheEuropean July 11, 2012 at 8:03 am #

    Doc, please excuse the post which has nothing to to with Mr. Colette (though another epic fail….)

    but I know that David Farrar reads here. Does he know already that Dr. ToothLaw Orly Taitz Esq. missed the deadline of 90 days for a writ of certiorari ? She asked for a stay but that is not enough….

    May be he wants to complain to the California bar about the non-existing professionalism of his lawyer ?

  7. avatar
    Andrew Vrba (PmG) July 11, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    Those birthers sure do like sticking forks in light sockets.

  8. avatar
    realist July 11, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    One would think a super-duper paralegal like Jerry would be able to figure out proper venue… yes/no?

    Perhaps he’ll have to add a section to his DIY birther lawsuit kit.

    Mensa mega genius Sammy Sewell is encouraging folks to just file and file these losers. I suppose he doesn’t understand things like issues being previously decided, etc., which will soon the be case with Jerry’s “novel” cause of action, negligence per se, which doesn’t apply.

  9. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 11, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    My venue argument was clear and on point. My case is a tort case. The arrow analogy isn’t mine, it’s from the Florida Court of Appeals. Here’s the quote:

    … while lawyer Tucker negligently shot his arrow into the air of Broward County,
    it did no harm and had no effect until it fell to earth in Dade. It is therefore here [in
    Dade County] that he must answer for his asserted error.

    So, why did the judge disregard this clear concept? Was the logic of it over his head to grasp? I doubt it. I say my hot potato theory makes the most sense.

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/07/another-florida-ballot-challenge-coming.html

  10. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 11, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    Sure Jerry you keep telling yourself that. If the judge thinks you’re wrong obviously you show you have no idea what you’re talking about. None of your theories make sense as I showed you on RCs show. Have you even bothered to read any of the information we gave you so you don’t make such ridiculous claims?

  11. avatar
    Northland10 July 11, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    Jerry Collette: So, why did the judge disregard this clear concept? Was the logic of it over his head to grasp?

    The judge did not grasp your concept because you are wrong. You lack the ability to tell the difference between a hot potato and a pile of dung. Cookouts must be an adventure at your place.

  12. avatar
    Scientist July 11, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    So, Jerry what is the grievous harm you might suffer by the fact that a candidate you disapprove of is on the ballot? Will it hurt your feelings? I hear violins in the background and am reaching for a handkerchief…

  13. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

    As I stated in my complaint, being governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements.

    Scientist:
    So, Jerry what is the grievous harm you might suffer by the fact that a candidate you disapprove of is on the ballot? Will it hurt your feelings? I hear violins in the background and am reaching for a handkerchief…

  14. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 11, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    If the logic this statement were true, no case would ever get overturned on appeal.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:
    If the judge thinks you’re wrong obviously you show you have no idea what you’re talking about.

  15. avatar
    Scientist July 11, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    Jerry Collette: As I stated in my complaint, being governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements.

    What a crybaby. Get over yourself….

  16. avatar
    Northland10 July 11, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    If the logic this statement were true, no case would ever get overturned on appeal.

    And no birther case has ever been overturned on appeal.

  17. avatar
    Northland10 July 11, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    As I stated in my complaint, being governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements.

    You complaint is either about an primary election that never happened or a general election which is not ripe. Therefore, your “injury” would not yet exist. Yet, Obama is the President of the United States and you failed to seek redress of your injury in a court. You are claiming injury on the next 4 years when you never attempted to redress it for the first four years.

    The evil Muslim black man has governed you for the last 4 years. Get over it.

  18. avatar
    Majority Will July 11, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

    Scientist: What a crybaby.Get over yourself….

    Hear, hear.

    Since this case was doomed from the start, it can’t get more doomed. So the “geniuses” can cackle and giggle about that while they’re wasting the court’s time and resources.

  19. avatar
    misha July 11, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Jerry Collette: My case is a tort case.

    You don’t have a tort, but Orly was a tart. [bada-bing]

  20. avatar
    misha July 11, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    Jerry Collette: As I stated in my complaint, being governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements.

    Ah, yesss. The 14th Amendment is wrong. (Apologies to W.C. Fields)

  21. avatar
    misha July 11, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    SueDB: To me, it looks like Mr. Klayman’s case is going backward.

    Yeah, he’s not suing his mother.

  22. avatar
    Rickey July 11, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    As I stated in my complaint, being governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements.

    If you were to make any headway in your lawsuit (which isn’t going to happen), your case would eventually be removed to Federal Court, because eligibility for President is a Federal question. And since your “injury” is shared by every other U.S. citizen, you do not have a concrete and particularized injury which is required to establish standing in Federal Court.

    So your lawsuit is doomed. Even if you had iron-clad evidence that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, your lawsuit would be doomed.

  23. avatar
    Rickey July 11, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    Another birther lawsuit bites the dust – Liberty Legal Foundation, Dummett, et al. v. National Democratic Party of the USA Inc., et al. was dismissed by Judge Bolton in Arizona today.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/99852053/2012-07-11-LLF-USDC-AZ-ORDER-of-Dismissal

    The judge declined to sanction the plaintiffs, but she issued the following warning to Van Irion:

    “…the Court declines to impose Rule 11 sanctions in this case, but hereby warns Mr. Irion that knowingly continuing to bring claims that have previously been dismissed may warrant sanctions in the future.”

    H/T to Patrick at Bad Fiction for the link. I was going to post this in the open thread but that thread seems to be closed.

  24. avatar
    ballantine July 11, 2012 at 11:00 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    As I stated in my complaint, being governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements.

    What is it about law that people with no understanding of the most basic concepts of law think they can win legal suits? Do these same people pretend they are brain surgeons? The problem with most pro se litigants is they seem to think they can simply make up law and they only need to find some judge to agree with them. Thus a thousand suits trying to nullify the income tax or 14th amendment by a parade of pro se morons. Thus one frivolous birther suit after another. Pro se types don’t understand that courts do not make up new Constitutional rights. On rare circumstances they have extended existing rights when one can make a compelling case for such extension. You have made no such case. And you clearly have no idea what “negligence per se” means. There is no duty for anyone to determine the President’s eligiblity under the Constitution. If there were, it would not be the basis for a “negligence per se” claim. Your claim to damages is not sufficient as a matter of law to support a negligence claim and public officials are generally exempt from negligence claims altogether. It seems your claims are about as frivolous as claims could be. I guess the birther dream that some judge will ignore the law and support their fantasy will continue. However, any judge ignoring established law in favor of such frivolous claims would be instantly over-turned on appeal. I know all this doesn’t matter all we will always have pro se birthers, tax-protesters and sovereign citizen types embarrassing themselves with frivolous claims that they are too ignorant to realize won’t even be given a passing thought by the courts.

  25. avatar
    JPotter July 11, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    Speaking of tort, and thinking of other discussions of the ills of frivolous lawsuits, here’s a great example of how damaging legal shenanigans can be. Blitz USA, based in Miami, OK, has been sued into bankruptcy, and now, into oblivion.

    Blitz was far and away the leading producer of a simple yet heavily regulated product: gas cans. Due to runaway legal shenanigans linked to persistent strains of stupidity in the general populace, litigation costs and skyrocketing product liability costs did them in.

    http://www.blitzusa.com/

    http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x136110631/Blitz-USA-to-close-plant-at-Miami-Okla

    It’s a shame. There warehouse was a hoot: 100s of 1000s of red gas cans, neatly stacked, floor to ceiling, as far as you can see. All empty of course.

    Get your cans while you can. I have 3.

  26. avatar
    Lupin July 12, 2012 at 5:40 am #

    Jerry Collette: As I stated in my complaint, being governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements.

    If this is your definition of “harm” you’re proving yourself to be a total nutcase, just as much as you announced that the Earth is flat or the Apollo mission was faked.

  27. avatar
    Reality Check July 12, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    Why are you not also suing the governor of your state? Has he provided you proof that he is a citizen of Florida and the United States? How do you know he meets the age requirement?

    Jerry Collette:
    As I stated in my complaint, being governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements.

  28. avatar
    misha July 12, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    Jerry Collette: As I stated in my complaint, being governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements.

    Newsflash: Gorbachev is not, nor ever has been, US president. And PWB is not a crime, although DWB is considered a crime by some. Obama won fairly, unlike Shrub, who stole the first election with the help of his brother.

    Where’s the outrage about that, and WMDs made from whole cloth? Where’s the outrage about loss of life and limb, so Cheney’s cronies could get their paws on oil?

    Brief aside: Russia produced Gorbachev, and we produced Reagan. Figure THAT one out.

  29. avatar
    misha July 12, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    ballantine: What is it about law that people with no understanding of the most basic concepts of law think they can win legal suits? Do these same people pretend they are brain surgeons?

    I have a paralegal cert. from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, plus a NYS optician license. I have consulted on some malpractice suits, but I know my limitations.

    These others are windbags.

  30. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    Reality Check:
    Why are you not also suing the governor of your state? Has he provided you proof that he is a citizen of Florida and the United States? How do you know he meets the age requirement?

    Since he claims to have been specifically damaged by the election of Obama, should he not also sue officials (their offices or their persons) at every level involved in certifying that election? His county election board for 2008, secretary of state, governor, the National Archives, Congress, and Chief Justice Roberts … ?

  31. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    You must have my complaint confused with Voeltz’s. My complaint includes the last election as well. I am within the FL statutes of limitations for torts.

    Northland10: You complaint is either about an primary election that never happened or a general election which is not ripe.Therefore, your “injury” would not yet exist.Yet, Obama is the President of the United States and you failed to seek redress of your injury in a court.You are claiming injury on the next 4 years when you never attempted to redress it for the first four years.

    The evil Muslim black man has governed you for the last 4 years.Get over it.

  32. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 9:02 am #

    The defendants had the option to move the case to federal court. Their time to do that has expired. I’m in FL courts.

    Rickey: If you were to make any headway in your lawsuit (which isn’t going to happen), your case would eventually be removed to Federal Court, because eligibility for President is a Federal question. And since your “injury” is shared by every other U.S. citizen, you do not have a concrete and particularized injury which is required to establish standing in Federal Court.

    So your lawsuit is doomed. Even if you had iron-clad evidence that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, your lawsuit would be doomed.

  33. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    I’m not asking the court to find a new right. I’m asking it to recognize one that always existed.

    ballantine: What is it about law that people with no understanding of the most basic concepts of law think they can win legal suits?Do these same people pretend they are brain surgeons?The problem with most pro se litigants is they seem to think they can simply make up law and they only need to find some judge to agree with them.Thus a thousand suits trying to nullify the income tax or 14th amendment by a parade of pro se morons.Thus one frivolous birther suit after another.Pro se types don’t understand that courts do not make up new Constitutional rights.On rare circumstances they have extended existing rights when one can make a compelling case for such extension.You have made no such case.And you clearly have no idea what “negligence per se” means.There is no duty for anyone to determine the President’s eligiblity under the Constitution. If there were, it would not be the basis for a “negligence per se” claim.Your claim to damages is not sufficient as a matter of law to support a negligence claim and public officials are generally exempt from negligence claims altogether.It seems your claims are about as frivolous as claims could be.I guess the birther dream that some judge will ignore the law and support their fantasy will continue.However, any judge ignoring established law in favor of such frivolous claims would be instantly over-turned on appeal.I know all this doesn’t matter all we will always have pro se birthers, tax-protesters and sovereign citizen types embarrassing themselves with frivolous claims that they are too ignorant to realize won’t even be given a passing thought by the courts.

  34. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 9:09 am #

    Plaintiffs have the right to sue or not sue the parties they choose. If defendants want to bring in other defendants they believe are also responsible, they have that option.

    The defendants have claimed that the governor and the sos are indispensable parties to my suit. I disagree. Neither the governor nor the sos will do anything until the democrats do. If the democrats are prevented from doing their part to put Obama onto the ballot, neither the governor nor the sos will do anything. Only the democrats can take the imitative. What the governor and the sos do are strictly responsive. If the democrats don’t do their step first, there will be nothing for the governor or the sos to respond to.

    JPotter: Since he claims to have been specifically damaged by the election of Obama, should he not also sue officials (their offices or their persons) at every level involved in certifying that election? His county election board for 2008, secretary of state, governor, the National Archives, Congress, and Chief Justice Roberts … ?

  35. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    Jerry Collette: I’m not asking the court to find a new right. I’m asking it to recognize one that always existed.

    You have a right to vote for the candidate of your choice. The other 20 million folks in Florida have right to vote for the candidate of THIER choice. Whether or not you have a Gifted Legal Mind and are a Mensa member, your rights do NOT trump theirs. Your arrogance is sickening.

  36. avatar
    Lupin July 12, 2012 at 9:16 am #

    Jerry Collette: I’m not asking the court to find a new right. I’m asking it to recognize one that always existed.

    You are completely mad. I suppose you’re harmless, like “Emperor Norton” (but not as entertaining), but I truly feel sorry for your loved ones.

  37. avatar
    Reality Check July 12, 2012 at 9:16 am #

    Are you sure? Doesn’t the transfer reset the clock on everything? I don’t know why the defendants would bother, however. It will be dealt in Leon County with just as the Voeltz case was.

    Jerry Collette:
    The defendants had the option to move the case to federal court. Their time to do that has expired. I’m in FL courts.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 12, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    Speaking of Voeltz, do you think Judge Lewis was right when he said that the Florida ballot challenge statute didn’t apply to the Presidential Preference Primary? I presume so since you didn’t use it.

    Jerry Collette: You must have my complaint confused with Voeltz’s. My complaint includes the last election as well. I am within the FL statutes of limitations for torts.

  39. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    Reality Check:
    Are you sure? Doesn’t the transfer reset the clock on everything?

    No. The time is counted from the time of service. No new service is required.

  40. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    I didn’t use it because I was beyond the window, plus I was looking for a way to bring cases elsewhere besides Tallahassee.

    I’m not sure if Judge Lewis was right or not. It’s debatable, and I could debate either side. As I have said many times, what the judge decides is what counts, not what we think.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Speaking of Voeltz, do you think Judge Lewis was right when he said that the Florida ballot challenge statute didn’t apply to the Presidential Preference Primary? I presume so since you didn’t use it.

  41. avatar
    ballantine July 12, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    I’m not asking the court to find a new right. I’m asking it to recognize one that always existed.

    Amateur hour. Saying a right has existed when no one in history has recognized such right is gibberish. A claim that is not supported by precedent or a good faith extention of precedent is by definition frivolous. The Constitution is not deemed to convey personal rights unless it expressly says so. Even then, under well established precedent, federal courts would not even have jurisdiction to entertain your type of claim where you cannot allege an actual injury in fact different than the general population. Dreaming some judge is going to invent new law for you is simply delusional. And, of course, no judge is going to re-write the law of negligence for you. You are lucky you are not a lawyer as judges clearly are getting annoyed by these frivolous claims that have been rejected again and again.

  42. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    I am becoming less and less sympathetic every day to people asserting “rights”. not just as regards birther idiocy, but in general. I think that the roots of much of what is wrong with society today, the general nastiness, the “I’ve got mine, so FU” mentality, the appalling concentrations of wealth and poverty, lie in the overdeference to “rights” at the expense of responsibility and the obligations that we have to each other.

  43. avatar
    misha July 12, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    Scientist: the overdeference to “rights” at the expense of responsibility and the obligations that we have to each other.

    When I joined the kibbutz, I was told we share everything, including our food.

  44. avatar
    Lupin July 12, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Scientist: I am becoming less and less sympathetic every day to people asserting “rights”. not just as regards birther idiocy, but in general. I think that the roots of much of what is wrong with society today, the general nastiness, the “I’ve got mine, so FU” mentality, the appalling concentrations of wealth and poverty, lie in the overdeference to “rights” at the expense of responsibility and the obligations that we have to each other.

    Well said! I couldn’t agree more.

    In Collette’s case, tho, I think it’s different; I do think of him as an Emperor Norton-type, the victim of a deep-seated delusion.

  45. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    Jerry Collette: What the governor and the sos do are strictly responsive.

    So you do not assert a pan-governmental conspiracy? Shadowy figured pushing and pulling levers? Trilaterals? Rosicrucians? Bilderbergs? Masons? Rothschilds? Greens? Grays? Rottweilers? The Int’l House of Zionists?

    That’s good to know. Good to know you’re not paranoid, not completely over the moon … other birthers are not so lucky.

  46. avatar
    John Reilly July 12, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    It is absolutely clear by this time in the birther debate that being governed by someone you do not like creates no right to sue. The only right you have to to vote that fellow out.

    In this country, we participate in elections, and when those are done we congratulate the winner and console the loser. President Obama is our President. He deserves our respect. In November, we get a chance to change that. If President Obama is reelected, he will be our President. The operative word is “our.” President Bush has made this point multiple times.

    If you don’t like this system, Misha suggests you may be happy on the West Bank.

    Continuing to try to undercut our President is simply un-American.

  47. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 12, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    Jerry Collette: If the logic this statement were true, no case would ever get overturned on appeal.

    I notice you didn’t answer my question Jerry, why is that? Jerry I sincerely think you are suing the wrong party. I think instead you should launch a suit against your therapist. Obviously he is taking your money and doing you no good. At least in that case you would have an actual suit based on a harm you actually suffered.

  48. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 12, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    Jerry Collette: You must have my complaint confused with Voeltz’s. My complaint includes the last election as well. I am within the FL statutes of limitations for torts.

    No we have you confused with a thinking, rational, human being.

  49. avatar
    misha July 12, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    John Reilly: If you don’t like this system, Misha suggests you may be happy on the West Bank.

    Ben Gurion, who is our George Washington, was a lifelong socialist. In 1967, he said ‘except for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the rest were scraps of real estate to be traded for diplomatic recognition.’

    They did not listen to him, and are going to pay a terrible price. The Settlers and their politicians, funded and encouraged by American evangelicals like Hagee, regard the West Bank as Lebensraum. They are fascists, egged on by evangelicals, who tell them the bible justifies stealing from Arabs.

    The Germans have been good teachers, and we have been good students.

    Misha Marinsky

  50. avatar
    Rickey July 12, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    The defendants had the option to move the case to federal court. Their time to do that has expired. I’m in FL courts.

    The 30-day time limit has been held to not be jurisdictional, so it can be waived. See generally Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr., Waiver of Defects in Removal Jurisdiction, in 34 For the Defense 12, at 2-10 (Dec. 1992).

  51. avatar
    Rickey July 12, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Jerry Collette:

    The defendants have claimed that the governor and the sos are indispensable parties to my suit. I disagree. Neither the governor nor the sos will do anything until the democrats do

    But you are claiming that you have already been harmed by Obama’s election in 2008. Wasn’t the SOS negligent in certifying Florida’s election results in 2008?

  52. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 11:56 am #

    Rickey: The 30-day time limit has been held to not be jurisdictional, so it can be waived. See generally Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr., Waiver of Defects in Removal Jurisdiction, in 34 For the Defense 12, at 2-10 (Dec. 1992).

    I don’t intend to waive it.

  53. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 12:02 pm #

    Rickey: But you are claiming that you have already been harmed by Obama’s election in 2008. Wasn’t the SOS negligent in certifying Florida’s election results in 2008?

    Possibly, but I’m not making such a claim.

  54. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    John Reilly: In this country, we participate in elections, and when those are done we congratulate the winner and console the loser. President Obama is our President. He deserves our respect. In November, we get a chance to change that. If President Obama is reelected, he will be our President. The operative word is “our.” President Bush has made this point multiple times.

    Of course, if Jerry got his way, there would only be Romney on the ballot, with a few minor party candidates. Such a North Korean-style election would be a total sham and Romney’s legitimacy would be peceived as dubious both here and around the world.

  55. avatar
    Rickey July 12, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Possibly, but I’m not making such a claim.

    If you weren’t damaged by Obama’s election in 2008, how have you been damaged? You certainly haven’t been damaged by the 2012 election.

  56. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    I didn’t say I wasn’t damaged by the 2008 election. I said I wasn’t putting in a claim against the sos for it.

    Rickey: If you weren’t damaged by Obama’s election in 2008, how have you been damaged? You certainly haven’t been damaged by the 2012 election.

  57. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I didn’t say I wasn’t damaged by the 2008 election

    What are your damages? Don’t spare me; I like a good cry….

  58. avatar
    Rickey July 12, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    I didn’t say I wasn’t damaged by the 2008 election. I said I wasn’t putting in a claim against the sos for it.

    But that is the point. The SOS certified the election and therefore bears responsibility for your alleged damages, hence the SOS is an indispensable party.

    It doesn’t really matter, though. Your lawsuit is going nowhere.

  59. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    Scientist: What are your damages?Don’t spare me; I like a good cry….

    My right to not be governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements has been violated. I am asking for nominal damages, and other remedies.

  60. avatar
    misha July 12, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

    Scientist: What are your damages?

    Collette does not have any damages, and does not have a tort.

  61. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    Jerry Collette: My right to not be governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements has been violated. I am asking for nominal damages, and other remedies.

    No it has not. Obama is eligible and you have no damages that can be remedied. Extreme paranoia is not something a court can give you damages for.

  62. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    Jerry Collette: My right to not be governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements has been violated. I am asking for nominal damages, and other remedies.

    You have no such right and no concrete damages. You sicken me. I’m not kidding, you do. By your theories I can sue you for that. And my damages are concrete.

  63. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    Scientist: You have no such right and no concrete damages. You sicken me. I’m not kidding, you do. By your theories I can sue you for that. And my damages are concrete.

    I could sue but I took an arrow to the knee.

  64. avatar
    G July 12, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    Except that you have no actual concrete evidence that he doesn’t meet the eligibility requirements. In fact, all findings, evidence and rulings to date say otherwise – eligible and NBC.

    You can’t claim rights, based on a fictional and speculative scenario. Without even getting to the rest of the problems in your “theory of rights” (which others have already addressed), that is simply cart before the horse.

    The courts are not a place to entertain gut-based speculation, NOR “fishing expeditions”. You either come in, prepared with solid evidence to back your claim and make your case (and most importantly, of sufficient quality to at least equal any existing evidence that disputes you), or you don’t have a case to bring at all. Mere frivolity and tilting at windmills; that’s all.

    You will never get to a “discovery” phase, without having solid evidendiary underpinnings to back your claim in the first place. Neither you, nor any other Birther out there has any of that at all. Just a bunch of specious and bogus arguments that fly in the face of all existing rulings and evidence, which say you are wrong. There is simply no ground beneath your feet, upon which to stand at all…

    Jerry Collette: My right to not be governed by somebody who does not meet the eligibility requirements has been violated. I am asking for nominal damages, and other remedies.

  65. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    It’s interesting how all the experts on this blog have ignored my hot potato theory.

    Jerry Collette:
    My venue argument was clear and on point. My case is a tort case. The arrow analogy isn’t mine, it’s from the Florida Court of Appeals. Here’s the quote:

    … while lawyer Tucker negligently shot his arrow into the air of Broward County,
    it did no harm and had no effect until it fell to earth in Dade. It is therefore here [in
    Dade County] that he must answer for his asserted error.

    So, why did the judge disregard this clear concept? Was the logic of it over his head to grasp? I doubt it. I say my hot potato theory makes the most sense.

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/07/another-florida-ballot-challenge-coming.html

  66. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    Jerry Collette: It’s interesting how all the experts on this blog have ignored my hot potato theory.

    You’re saying the judge only bounced it because he was cowardly? Didn’t want to commit either way? Not because he correctly corrected your choice of venue?

    Well, by that logic, you should expect to be passed all over the state until the case is irrelevant. Is this how birthers win? 😉

  67. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    Jerry Collette: It’s interesting how all the experts on this blog have ignored my hot potato theory.

    Probably because it’s one of your more inane and frankly stupid theories.

  68. avatar
    G July 12, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    Jerry, again you display your propensity to simply selectively ignore anything you don’t wish to hear. You only do yourself a disservice , by playing the role of blind monkey. I guess you are in the same self-deluded “winning” camp of living in a fantasy world of “opposite day” as your buddy, Sam Sewell.

    Re-read the thread again. The very first two comments, in response to your original “hot potato” theory, *DID* respond to that:

    Northland10: The judge did not grasp your concept because you are wrong.You lack the ability to tell the difference between a hot potato and a pile of dung. Cookouts must be an adventure at your place.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater:
    Sure Jerry you keep telling yourself that.If the judge thinks you’re wrong obviously you show you have no idea what you’re talking about. None of your theories make sense as I showed you on RCs show.Have you even bothered to read any of the information we gave you so you don’t make such ridiculous claims?

    So, as you can see, you are again, either mistaken or outright making a lie here. Which is it?

    Just because you don’t like the answers you were given, doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

    As those two replies pretty much addressed the “hot potato” theory, (from at least my perspective and as I suspect, from many others), nothing more needed to be added.

    In a nutshell again, as you seem to have problems comprehending the replies given:

    The judge did not grasp your concept because you are wrong.You lack the ability to tell the difference between a hot potato and a pile of dung.

    Again, you may not like this response, but it is a response, rejecting your “hot potato” theory as nothing more than an incorrect conclusion of self-imagined cr@p, nonetheless.

    So the only one ignoring things here, is again, you.

    BTW – both on this forum and also when you were on Reality Check radio, you “promised” to look into and check out many of the references we gave you. So far, YOU are the one who has failed to follow-up and respond back about doing so. So, who is really “ignoring” things here, Jerry….

    So, please be more careful before you dare throw out such lofty accusations, which don’t hold up. You only make yourself look bad in the process…. Although, I highly suspect that this is just another indication of your own limitations in only being able to feebly project upon others, what YOU actually do…

    Jerry Collette:
    It’s interesting how all the experts on this blog have ignored my hot potato theory.

  69. avatar
    bovril July 12, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    Poor Jerry, doesn’t even understand the words he uses

    Theory (in the context of legal issues)

    A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena

    So you see Jerry, your hot turd idea is exactly that, a turd without basis in fact, illogical, not founded on sound principles and inherently valueless.

    There, happy now you have an answer..?

  70. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    Jerry Collette: My right to not be governed by somebody who does not meet MY eligibility requirements has been violated. I am asking for nominal damages, and other remedies.

    FIFY

    The sooner you realize you have failed miserably on an asinine and puerile quest, the better. But I won’t hold my breath. Without a doubt, your BFF Sam will keep telling you that you are actually winning.

  71. avatar
    G July 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    THANK YOU!!!

    I too find it particularly annoying when folks abuse words, such as theory, and improperly conflate it with what is nothing more than a mere, unsubstantiated hypothesis…

    One of my pet peeves…

    bovril: Poor Jerry, doesn’t even understand the words he uses
    Theory (in the context of legal issues)
    A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena

  72. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    Jerry: I am still waiting to hear what your DAMAGES are. Let’s pretend you have a “right” to be governed by an eligible person and let’s pretend that someday there is a fictional ineligible one in office. What would be your DAMAGES? Do I have to explain that simple word to a Gifted Legal Mind?

  73. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 12, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    Scientist: Jerry: I am still waiting to hear what your DAMAGES are. Let’s pretend you have a “right” to be governed by an eligible person and let’s pretend that someday there is a fictional ineligible one in office. What would be your DAMAGES? Do I have to explain that simple word to a Gifted Legal Mind?

    Like I said Scientist he’s suing the wrong party it’s his therapist he should be suing.

  74. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 5:36 pm #

    G: Jerry, again you display your propensity to simply selectively ignore anything you don’t wish to hear.

    Nice deconstruction, G. If he responds, it will be to the effect that he can’t keep up with all the comments here and elsewhere, etc.

    If you can’t keep up with a discussion, why participate? With such a handicap you’re bound to step in something, whether intentionally or not.

  75. avatar
    Daniel July 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    It’s interesting how all the experts on this blog have ignored my hot potato theory.

    We also ignored the flat earth theory… do you object to that as well?

  76. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    Scientist:
    Jerry:I am still waiting to hear what your DAMAGES are.Let’s pretend you have a “right” to be governed by an eligible person and let’s pretend that someday there is a fictional ineligible one in office.What would be your DAMAGES?Do I have to explain that simple word to a Gifted Legal Mind?

    From my supplemental brief:

    At the very least, I am entitled to monetary damages in a nominal amount. As stated in 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages 15 (2012):

    Nominal damages are recoverable whenever there is a breach of a legal duty or
    the invasion of a legal right, and no actual damage results or is proved. [footnotes
    omitted]

  77. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    Jerry Collette: At the very least, I am entitled to monetary damages in a nominal amount.

    Now, Jerry, over on RC Radio you poo-poo’d the buit about monetary damages, stated you may drop it. You’re going on and on about how you were damaged, when challenged to outline your damages, you serve up a point you previously all but disowned … and a type of “damage” that is entirely dependent on recognition of your invented “right” not to be “ineligibly” represented. Which, again, the existence of which has yet to be recognized, much less the “invasion of”, as you are unable to prove Obama ineligible.

    You’ve also stated above that you’re not citing various officers for a breach of a legal duty (governor, SoS, etc), as their involvement was purely “responsive”, meaning they did their duty, it wasn’t their job to examine eligibility. Please don’t bother trying to recover the leg you’ve already amputated.

    You’re entitled to jack squat, but deserving of much more: ridicule, derision, laughter, mocking, scorn.

  78. avatar
    G July 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

    And of course, Jerry comes back here and ignores the volumes of replies to his specific question and instead only addresses an unrelated point about damages…and one which, as you already pointed out, doesn’t seem to match up well with his own previously stated positions on the topic…

    …So yeah, in Jerry’s world, if he simply “ignores” the responses, they didn’t happen… it is part of his flawed “magical thinking”…or as I refer to it, the “blind monkey” from the “See no evil, etc.” skit.

    He’s sadly proving himself to be a disingenuous person, as he choses to shroud himself in a protective cocoon of pretending in merely what he wants to believe and hiding from / ignoring anything that happens to contradict that fantasy. He is wilful in not actually dealing with the world or other people, based on what actually happens or what is actually said. I consider that to be insincere and dishonest. I had hoped for better from him, but he’s really become quite a disappointment.

    JPotter: Nice deconstruction, G. If he responds, it will be to the effect that he can’t keep up with all the comments here and elsewhere, etc.

    If you can’t keep up with a discussion, why participate? With such a handicap you’re bound to step in something, whether intentionally or not.

  79. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    Jerry Collette: From my supplemental brief:

    At the very least, I am entitled to monetary damages in a nominal amount. As stated in 22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages 15 (2012):

    O.K., Spalding.

    At the very most:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6l1QljpMo

  80. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Nominal damages are recoverable whenever there is a breach of a legal duty or
    the invasion of a legal right, and no actual damage results or is proved

    But you’re suing Obama, not the Sec of State. What legal duty does he have to you? He certainly has no duty to accept your definition of natural born citizen, when every single court and legal authority says your arguments are total, unadulterated b.s. The President is not responsible for the fact that you have swallowed a bunch of nonsense.

  81. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Majority Will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6l1QljpMo

    That linked through to a true classic: Gene Wilder as Wonka, You get nothing! Good day, sir!

  82. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    I stated that I would consider disavowing actual damages, not nominal ones, which are typically less than $20, and often as little as $1.

    I’m not saying the government officials did their duty. I’m saying I’m not making any claims against them, nor are they indispensable parties.

    JPotter: Now, Jerry, over on RC Radio you poo-poo’d the buit about monetary damages, stated you may drop it. You’re going on and on about how you were damaged, when challenged to outline your damages, you serve up a point you previously all but disowned … and a type of “damage” that is entirely dependent on recognition of your invented “right” not to be “ineligibly” represented. Which, again, the existence of which has yet to be recognized, much less the “invasion of”, as you are unable to prove Obama ineligible.

    You’ve also stated above that you’re not citing various officers for a breach of a legal duty (governor, SoS, etc), as their involvement was purely “responsive”, meaning they did their duty, it wasn’t their job to examine eligibility. Please don’t bother trying to recover the leg you’ve already amputated.

    You’re entitled to jack squat, but deserving of much more: ridicule, derision, laughter, mocking, scorn.

  83. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I stated that I would consider disavowing actual damages, not nominal ones, which are typically less than $20, and often as little as $1.I’m not saying the government officials did their duty. I’m saying I’m not making any claims against them, nor are they indispensable parties.

    So then you have nominal damages, and are merely chasing a symbol? You’re effectively seeking an apology for events that created the impression in your mind that you have been ineligibly represented? Jerry, again, the outside world is not obligated to the maintenance of your headspace. That’s your lawn to mow.

    Or allow to grow wild … which is your right, until it becomes a burden on whatever neighbors you may have. When it comes to this case, Jerry, you have lots of neighbors.

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 12, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    Regarding the Hudson case, the court said:

    Actions must be brought in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.

    In that case the allegation is that plaintiffs provided security services in the country where the suit was filed, and did so in alleged breach of a non-compete agreement. The cause of action happened in the county where the suit was filed. Something very specific HAPPENED in Miami-Dade county.

    In fact the Court was quite specific in explaining itself:

    For venue purposes, a breach of contract action accrues where the contract was breached or, in other words, where the defendant failed to perform the covenant that was allegedly breached.

    The “arrow” analogy sounds nice to some dumb birther who hadn’t read the case, but I fail to see your excuse. The Florida Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of the venue from a breach of contract. Your cause of action is not a contract and it did not happen in the county where you filed the suit. The facts in Hudson are very different from your case. You deluded yourself. Not having jurisdiction, the judge had no choice but to transfer the case. But hey, appeal it and let the court explain it to you; you don’t have to take my word.

    Your harm is just as diffuse as the location of your cause of action, which is why your suit will be dismissed in Leon County.

    You (and 100 other birthers) can blame the judge, but integrity demands you blame yourself.

    Jerry Collette: My venue argument was clear and on point. My case is a tort case. The arrow analogy isn’t mine, it’s from the Florida Court of Appeals. Here’s the quote:

    … while lawyer Tucker negligently shot his arrow into the air of Broward County,
    it did no harm and had no effect until it fell to earth in Dade. It is therefore here [in
    Dade County] that he must answer for his asserted error.

    So, why did the judge disregard this clear concept? Was the logic of it over his head to grasp? I doubt it. I say my hot potato theory makes the most sense.

  85. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I stated that I would consider disavowing actual damages, not nominal ones, which are typically less than $20, and often as little as $1.I’m not saying the government officials did their duty. I’m saying I’m not making any claims against them, nor are they indispensable parties.

    That means as much as my disavowing a place in the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.

  86. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    JPotter: That linked through to a true classic:Gene Wilder as Wonka, You get nothing! Good day, sir!

    Actually . . .

    “You get nothing! YOU LOSE! Good day, sir!”

    😀

  87. avatar
    Jerry Collette July 12, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    Doc, it was the Tucker case I quoted, where the arrow analogy was stated and it was a tort case, attorney malpractice.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Regarding the Hudson case, the court said:

    In that case the allegation is that plaintiffs provided security services in the country where the suit was filed, and did so in alleged breach of a non-compete agreement. The cause of action happened in the county where the suit was filed. Something very specific HAPPENED in Miami-Dade county.

    In fact the Court was quite specific in explaining itself:

    The “arrow” analogy sounds nice to some dumb birther who hadn’t read the case, but I fail to see your excuse. The Florida Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of the venue from a breach of contract. Your cause of action is not a contract and it did not happen in the county where you filed the suit.The facts in Hudson are very different from your case. You deluded yourself. Not having jurisdiction, the judge had no choice but to transfer the case. But hey, appeal it and let the court explain it to you; you don’t have to take my word.

    Your harm is just as diffuse as the location of your cause of action, which is why your suit will be dismissed in Leon County.

    You(and 100 other birthers) can blame the judge, but integrity demands you blame yourself.

  88. avatar
    Northland10 July 12, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I stated that I would consider disavowing actual damages, not nominal ones, which are typically less than $20, and often as little as $1.

    I’m not saying the government officials did their duty. I’m saying I’m not making any claims against them, nor are they indispensable parties.

    The government officials are not in your amended complaint, so, I suppose the are not indispensable parties. They are not parties at all.

    Be that as it may, and beyond the jurisdiction question, let us look at your damages and relief as on your amended complaint.

    Plaintiff prays that this court order relief in his favor as follows:
    1. A declaratory judgment setting forth the respective rights of the parties, under the applicable relevant facts, as the court shall find;

    Declaring what? That your case is a pile of poo? I believe you have to specify what should be declared in your prayer for relief. You are asking for an advisory opinion, not a declaratory judgement.

    2.Defendants be enjoined from doing any action which would support having the name of defendant Obama, as a candidate for United States President:
    (a) Printed on ballots in Florida; or
    (b)Listed or counted as a write in candidate in Florida;

    Your defendants, Obama and the Florida Democratic Committee do not control who is printed on ballots in Florida (especially since the primary, which never happened, would have already happened) and definitely have not control over the listing or counting of write in ballots.

    3.Money damages in an amount to be determined; and

    Lacking any real amount, you give no sense of how much a punitive amount should be, and why. Isn’t “financial damages” a more appropriate term?

    4.Such other relief as this court deems just and proper.

    So, you want to court to figure out themselves what relief you should be entitled. I can think other relief they may want but it involves the contrast to your “hot potato theory”.

    Granted, I am not sure on the specifics of the Florida court, but, besides standing, I see “Dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be given.”

  89. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    Backing up the car to hit the corpse again … hey, why not, it’s already dead!

    Jerry Collette: I stated that I would consider disavowing actual damages, not nominal ones, which are typically less than $20, and often as little as $1.

    So, again, you’re willing to forego damages you can neither justify nor even define? Mighty white of you, Jerry! 😉

    Jerry Collette: I’m not saying the government officials did their duty. I’m saying I’m not making any claims against them, nor are they indispensable parties.

    … and you imply you’re holding out the possibility of using their supposed dereliction to justify the damages you can’t quantify or define? C’mon, now Jerry, we’re talking about your case, right? They aren’t mentioned in your filing and you’ve adamant about excluding them.

    A compelling case makes a throughly detailed, logical argument. States a thesis that an injustice has occurred, fills in a backstory, details a chain of cause-and-effect, demonstrates responsibility, and closes by requesting a remedy. Your filings bear little resemblance to this outline. You have a thesis, you suggest some unrelated remedies. In the middle, a skeletal backstory (There was an election, I lived here) and some disconnected rubble in the middle. This isn’t going to compel anyone to do anything but ask why you bothered. Your case fails on every point.

    If you have been injured, then everyone was injured. Who has standing?

    The state doesn’t elect a President. You should be suing in federal court against the DNC and or Congress. Again, standing?

    That we—or only you and onyone—has a right to being represented by eligible persons is a curious thought. But a case it is not. Yet. Maybe never. Keep working on it.

  90. avatar
    G July 12, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    Well stated, on all points. I fully agree!

    JPotter: A compelling case makes a throughly detailed, logical argument. States a thesis that an injustice has occurred, fills in a backstory, details a chain of cause-and-effect, demonstrates responsibility, and closes by requesting a remedy. Your filings bear little resemblance to this outline. You have a thesis, you suggest some unrelated remedies. In the middle, a skeletal backstory (There was an election, I lived here) and some disconnected rubble in the middle. This isn’t going to compel anyone to do anything but ask why you bothered. Your case fails on every point.
    If you have been injured, then everyone was injured. Who has standing?
    The state doesn’t elect a President. You should be suing in federal court against the DNC and or Congress. Again, standing?
    That we—or only you and onyone—has a right to being represented by eligible persons is a curious thought. But a case it is not. Yet. Maybe never. Keep working on it.

  91. avatar
    Keith July 12, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    G:
    THANK YOU!!!

    I too find it particularly annoying when folks abuse words, such as theory, and improperly conflate it with what is nothing more than a mere, unsubstantiated hypothesis…

    One of my pet peeves…

    Agreed.

    +100000000000000000000

  92. avatar
    JPotter July 12, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    G: I too find it particularly annoying when folks abuse words, such as theory, and improperly conflate it with what is nothing more than a mere, unsubstantiated hypothesis…

    Me too, I says! Please, please, please stop presumptuously using “theory” to refer to a novel hypothesis, in an attempt to appropriate an unearned level of legitimacy.

    A theory has been tried and has been demonstrated to be, at some level, effectual in a practical sense.

    Collette’s novelty is at best a (*ahem*) trial balloon. 😉

  93. avatar
    G July 12, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    Wow, Thank You!!!

    I think that is the first time I’ve ever been given a quintillion of anything…let alone a hundred of them! 😉

    Keith: Agreed.

    +100000000000000000000

  94. avatar
    Keith July 13, 2012 at 7:14 am #

    G:
    Wow, Thank You!!!

    I think that is the first time I’ve ever been given a quintillion of anything…let alone a hundred of them!

    Yeah well, it was just a random number of digits, sort of overdoing the level of precision for the sake of accuracy. I couldn’t remember how mah\ny digits there are in a bazillion.

    I didn’t expect you to count ’em 😎

  95. avatar
    Majority Will July 13, 2012 at 8:09 am #

    Keith: Yeah well, it was just a random number of digits, sort of overdoing the level of precision for the sake of accuracy. I couldn’t remember how mah\ny digits there are in a bazillion.

    I didn’t expect you to count ‘em

    I enlarged the zeroes to see if there were hidden smiley faces.

    Evidently, It’s one of the first signs of a true conspiracy.

  96. avatar
    Reality Check July 13, 2012 at 9:34 am #

    All you folks who are trying to pin Jerry down on the details of his case are missing the point. Just check his web site, appropriately titled Gifted Legal Mind. Jerry is “Not Your Typical Paralegal –
    Some paralegals are more like glorified legal secretaries, while others are more like gifted attorneys without a bar card. Jerry’s in the latter category. If what you really need is more of a legal secretary to handle things like calendaring and boilerplate interrogatories, Jerry’s not who you’re looking for. There are many, many, far, far better legal secretaries available.” And as Jerry says “Lots of people can write pleadings, motions, and briefs. Few can cut through the nonsense and highlight the core, pivotal issues as well as Jerry can. Jerry also writes contracts and web content.”

    See Jerry found that case with the arrow thing? Who would have thought of that? That arrow came straight from 1600 Pennsylvania avenue right into Jerry’s heart in Pasco County. Unfortunately, this judge had no heart and didn’t want this brilliant legal hot potato in his court. No sir.

    Watch for a blimp to find its way into the case very soon. You just watch.

  97. avatar
    Keith July 13, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    Reality Check: Watch for a blimp to find its way into the case very soon. You just watch.

    Is that the one on the US/Mexico border staring down on my brother’s grave at Fort Huachuca?

    I was so angry during his funeral looking at that damned thing floating above the speakers lectern at the beautiful outdoor chapel that I almost hyperventilated. It just broke my heart and it is NOT the America I grew up in.

    Who is going to help me take back MY America? Huh? Who? The Tea Party folks seem to want walls, mine fields, and more barrage balloons, so they are no good. Except they don’t want to actually pay for anything, so maybe they can arrange to de-fund the ugly mother-diddling thing. I just might join the Tea Party if they make that happen (and pigs might fly).

  98. avatar
    G July 13, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    Ah, that’s just the math geek inside me. 😉

    Actually, there is no real such number as a “bazillion”, so you don’t have to worry about how many digits it would take. It is simply a convenient term for meaning eggagerating the size of a number to something that seems impossibly big.

    So…I guess 100 quintillion might as well be a bazillion… so there, you did succeed after all. 🙂

    FYI, in case you are interested:

    It goes: million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, etc.

    Sort of like: mono (one), bi (two), tri (three), quad (four), quint (five)… so there is an actual rhyme and reason to the naming of those large number sets…

    Keith: Yeah well, it was just a random number of digits, sort of overdoing the level of precision for the sake of accuracy. I couldn’t remember how mah\ny digits there are in a bazillion.

    I didn’t expect you to count ‘em

  99. avatar
    Keith July 13, 2012 at 11:35 am #

    G: Actually, there is no real such number as a “bazillion”

    Thanks for that. While you are at it, can you describe, in detail, the correct process for sucking eggs too?

    G: It goes: million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, etc

    Not in the UK it doesn’t. Nor in Europe in general. FYI

    And by the way, a google is 10^100. That’s a 1 followed by 100 zeros.

  100. avatar
    G July 13, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    WOW!!!

    That was fascinating!!! Thanks for that link.

    I was familiar with the SI nomenclature differences, but I had no idea about the different European system at all and only vague memories of realizing that the greek system was out there too. What is so funny is that the French created both what is now called the “American” and the “European” systems…LOL!

    My favorite factoids from your article were also around that fun number, the googol:

    The googol equals 10 duotrigintillion in the American system, 10 sexdecilliard in the European system, and 10 triacontatrillion in the proposed Greek-based system.

    The googolplex (1 followed by a googol of zeroes) is far larger than any of the numbers discussed here.

    🙂

    Keith: G: It goes: million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, etc
    Not in the UK it doesn’t. Nor in Europe in general. FYI
    And by the way, a google is 10^100. That’s a 1 followed by 100 zeros.

  101. avatar
    G July 13, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    Um Keith, I’m not sure where you’re from, but that particular phraseology you just slung at me is pretty much the same as telling someone to strongly “F— Off” around these here parts…

    So I hope you didn’t intend it that way, but it comes across quite aggressively rude and insulting and I take offense to it.

    Keith: While you are at it, can you describe, in detail, the correct process for sucking eggs too?

  102. avatar
    Keith July 13, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    G:
    Um Keith, I’m not sure where you’re from, but that particular phraseology you just slung at me is pretty much the same as telling someone to strongly “F— Off” around these here parts…

    So I hope you didn’t intend it that way, but it comes across quite aggressively rude and insulting and I take offense to it.

    No offense intended, I apologize unreservedly for not realizing that the phrase carries cultural difference baggage. Learning something new everyday makes life interesting.

    Where I came from (Tucson) it just means (and this is how I meant it) that you are telling me something which I already know, probably better than you, like an arm-chair quarterback telling Joe Montana how to throw a football or something. It is ‘cutting’, true, but not rude. In this case, I don’t know whether I know it better than you, but I certainly know it as least as well as you.

    It is most often used to introduce a comment that the listener should probably already understand, like “I don’t wanna tell you how to suck eggs or anything, but if you brace that post straight up before you pour in the concrete, you won’t have to stand there with the level in your hand while it sets”.

    If a Tucsonan wants to tell you to F— Off, they will say “F— Off” (or the Spanish equivalent “Chinga tu madre”). No need to beat around the bush.

  103. avatar
    Keith July 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

    G: Actually, there is no real such number as a “bazillion”,

    Yeah, OK, so I didn’t use a smiley face. So shoot me!

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    The really big number is the googleplex, 1 followed by a Google of zeros.

    Keith: And by the way, a google is 10^100. That’s a 1 followed by 100 zeros.

  105. avatar
    G July 13, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    Thanks for your explanation. We’re good. Yeah, its definitely a “regional” slang quirk around here. We have a few of them that seem particularly unique to the Ohio (or at least NE Ohio) region.

    For instance, we refer to all carbonated beverages as “pop”. If someone says they had to “modell”, that usually means they took a big, stinky, nasty dump. …And phrases that indicate that you want to teach someone how to go “suck an egg” have a pretty harsh and confrontational connotation, particularly amongst the large blue collar segments of our rust belt heritage. It is viewed worse than just telling someone to “F— Off”, which can simply be dismissive… its that plus an invitation to a fist fight. Seriously.

    These ways of speaking seem so instinctual to many of us that were simply born and raised in this area…but only when I grew up and had the chance to travel and visit other states, I started to notice how some of our words and connotations don’t “translate” as we happen to use/view them, and how other regions had ways of saying certain things (like the Southern “slam” of “bless his heart”), which would be taken as a sincere expression of blessings, if said around here. Heck, folks in the lower half of our state come across as “odd” in their speech, to the rest of us up here…

    So funny and quirkly when you think of it. Here we are – one nation with the same primary language (English), living in an inter-connected 21st century world, with 24/7 tv and internet, and yet there are still weird quirks, like these, which can get completely “Lost In Translation” if you only travel even 100 miles in a different direction…

    Keith: No offense intended, I apologize unreservedly for not realizing that the phrase carries cultural difference baggage. Learning something new everyday makes life interesting.

    Where I came from (Tucson) it just means (and this is how I meant it) that you are telling me something which I already know, probably better than you, like an arm-chair quarterback telling Joe Montana how to throw a football or something. It is ‘cutting’, true,but not rude. In this case, I don’t know whether I know it better than you, but I certainly know it as least as well as you.

    It is most often used to introduce a comment that the listener should probably already understand, like “I don’t wanna tell you how to suck eggs or anything, but if you brace that post straight up before you pour in the concrete, you won’t have to stand there with the level in your hand while it sets”.

    If a Tucsonan wants to tell you to F— Off, they will say “F— Off” (or the Spanish equivalent “Chinga tu madre”). No need to beat around the bush.

  106. avatar
    Reality Check July 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Correct. 10^100 is a Googol, A Googolplex is 10^googol. I think I read in an Asimov book on numbers that the Googolplex is so large that even if you used every proton in the universe as a zero it cannot be written out. Note the spelling is different than the famous search engine.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The really big number is the googleplex, 1 followed by a Google of zeros.

  107. avatar
    Keith July 14, 2012 at 2:18 am #

    G: Thanks for your explanation. We’re good. Yeah, its definitely a “regional” slang quirk around here. We have a few of them that seem particularly unique to the Ohio (or at least NE Ohio) region.

    Well my family is from Michigan (I was born in Detroit), and it never had that connotation.

    I just googled “suck eggs”:

    Wikipedia
    UK phrase finder
    Free Dictionary
    World Wide Words

    and many more similar descriptions

    I rather like the explanation provided by World Wide Words:

    Q: From Jonathan Downes: I wonder if you would care to explain a phrase in wide use but rather odd in its direct meaning: teaching your grandmother to suck eggs? (This has been in use by my parents, both in their 70s).

    A: It does look odd, but its meaning is clear enough: don’t give needless assistance or presume to offer advice to an expert. As that prolific author, Anon, once wrote:

    Teach not thy parent’s mother to extract
    The embryo juices of the bird by suction.
    The good old lady can that feat enact,
    Quite irrespective of your kind instruction.

    Many similar expressions have been invented down the years, such as Don’t teach your grandmother how to milk ducks, and don’t teach your grandmother to steal sheep. These have the same kind of absurd image as the version you quote, which has survived them all. It was first recorded in 1707 in a translation by John Stevens of the collected comedies of the Spanish playwright Quevedo: “You would have me teach my Grandame to suck Eggs”. Another early example, whimsically inverted, is in Tom Jones by Henry Fielding, published in 1749: “I remember my old schoolmaster, who was a prodigious great scholar, used often to say, Polly matete cry town is my daskalon. The English of which, he told us, was, That a child may sometimes teach his grandmother to suck eggs”.

    But the idea is very much older. There was a classical proverb A swine to teach Minerva, which was translated by Nichola Udall in 1542 as to teach our dame to spin, something any married woman of the period would know very well how to do. And there are other examples of sayings designed to check the tendency of young people to give unwanted advice to their elders and betters.

    I did notice a few commenters indicate that telling someone to “go suck an egg” was the same as telling someone to “go fly a kite”. I can understand that your usage is a bit of a stronger task than flying a kite, but the idea is the same.

    So the differences are nuanced, one is an instruction to perform an act, the other is unneeded and unwelcome instruction in how to perform the act. 😎

    Since I asked you to explain to me how to suck an egg, I was asking you to teach me, the expert how to do it, not to go do it yourself.

    I think I’m off the hook. Damn I’m glad I can read better than birther lawyers.

  108. avatar
    G July 14, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    LOL! Thanks for that interesting historical info on that weird phrase. Just curious, as I have lots of friends from Michigan. You folks also refer to carbonated beverages as “pop”, don’t you? At least whenever I’m in Michigan, my friends there know what I’m ordering when I say that… 😉

    Keith: So the differences are nuanced, one is an instruction to perform an act, the other is unneeded and unwelcome instruction in how to perform the act.
    Since I asked you to explain to me how to suck an egg, I was asking you to teach me, the expert how to do it, not to go do it yourself.
    I think I’m off the hook. Damn I’m glad I can read better than birther lawyers.

  109. avatar
    Northland10 July 14, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    G:
    LOL!Thanks for that interesting historical info on that weird phrase.Just curious, as I have lots of friends from Michigan.You folks also refer to carbonated beverages as “pop”, don’t you?At least whenever I’m in Michigan, my friends there know what I’m ordering when I say that…

    I still have trouble ordering “soda” since all I want is a pop. I caught this earlier today on FB:

    1. We go to a “Secretariah State office” for our drivers license.
    2. Detroit is pronounced without the “t” (though, having an extra T, in SW Michigan, the T is added to the word across)
    3. A thumb is a geographic location.
    4. We know what yoopers and trolls are.
    5. We do not say Upper Peninsula but only UP.
    6. The UP is not Northern Michigan (that was not on the FB post but, I keep having to explain this).
    7. We use our hand as a map.
    8. Baseball games are cancelled for snow.

  110. avatar
    G July 14, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    LOL! Thanks for sharing those. 😉

    Northland10: I still have trouble ordering “soda” since all I want is a pop.I caught this earlier today on FB:

    1.We go to a “Secretariah State office” for our drivers license.
    2.Detroit is pronounced without the “t” (though, having an extra T, in SW Michigan, the T is added to the word across)
    3.A thumb is a geographic location.
    4.We know what yoopers and trolls are.
    5.We do not say Upper Peninsula but only UP.
    6.The UP is not Northern Michigan (that was not on the FB post but, I keep having to explain this).
    7.We use our hand as a map.
    8.Baseball games are cancelled for snow.

  111. avatar
    Keith July 14, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    G: You folks also refer to carbonated beverages as “pop”, don’t you?

    Yeah… as in Soda Pop. But I, at least, pretty much lost the habit, having grown up in Tucson where it wasn’t used so much. Everybody knew what it was though.

  112. avatar
    Keith July 14, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    Northland10: 2. Detroit is pronounced without the “t” (though, having an extra T, in SW Michigan, the T is added to the word across)

    That is incorrect and pegs the speaker as a wannabe Michigander pretending that he knows the residents all speak Canuckian. Try pronouncing Amarillo as Amar/ ee / oh in Texas and report back which hospital you end up in.

    D’ / troy / it does have three syllables though.

    (though, having an extra T, in SW Michigan, the T is added to the word across)

    And my first wife use to give me holy heck for that.

  113. avatar
    JPotter July 15, 2012 at 12:42 am #

    I have heard more than one Okie refer to it as “sodie pop”. Hard to get more hick than that!

  114. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2012 at 1:05 am #

    JPotter:
    I have heard more than one Okie refer to it as “sodie pop”. Hard to get more hick than that!

    Round these parts here in the South you ask for a “co-cola”.

  115. avatar
    G July 15, 2012 at 1:26 am #

    LOL! Now that *does* sound hilariously “hickish”…! 😉

    Although I’ve heard “soder” and “soder pop” in certain places too – so that is up there in the “hick-speak”, if you ask me. 😉

    JPotter:
    I have heard more than one Okie refer to it as “sodie pop”. Hard to get more hick than that!

    Yep, you’ve nailed the origin of the term on its head: “soda pop”. Although, it seems folks in my part of the world have not just completely dropped the “soda” part, but pretty much forgotten its connection altogether. You never hear the two words put together in reference to a carbonated cola from any true native of this region. Heck, many of them not only don’t make the connection, but are completely obstinately in cynical doubt/denial, if you try to explain it to them. (Trust me, I’ve won many “local” bets and “regaled” many a local group in the past on this very seemily simple and innocuous, yet entertaining topic!)

    For us, in “these here parts”, if you say “soda”, it is assumed to *only* mean one of two things – either “baking soda” (like Arm & Hammer) or “club soda” type seltzers, used for mixed drinks.

    Just about every carbonated beverage can be simply refered to as a “pop” around here, not just the colas. There are certain carbonated beverage categories, such as the root beers, ginger ales and various creme ales that are understood around here as either a type of “pop” or a type of root beer / ginger ale / creme ale (as the case may be).

    Yeah, so that’s just how the term evolved and localized in my particular region. I realize that many other areas of the country simply just use the single terms of “soda” or “cola”, like we use “pop” here…and that there are also quite a few places where the full-term “soda pop” remains in regular use.

    The places I find “odd” are the ones that use a specific brand name to mean all types of colas. I’ve seen that with both Coke and Pepsi – which I consider specific brand drinks… yet encountered people who refer to all “soda pop” as simply a type of “coke” or “pepsi”. For example, I’ve found it to be really amusingly confusing to see people order a “coke” for their drink and then, which asked which type (where the asker is assuming to either hear something like “regular”, “diet”, “cherry” or “caffeine free” as an answer), get a response from one of these folks that they want the “Diet Pepsi coke”… And I’ve seen the reverse happen as well. Now *that* always blows me away…

    Keith: Yeah… as in Soda Pop. But I, at least, pretty much lost the habit, having grown up in Tucson where it wasn’t used so much. Everybody knew what it was though.

  116. avatar
    G July 15, 2012 at 1:30 am #

    Wow, what particular region of the south is that? Neat to learn that particular optional phrasing for it! I’ve actually not encountered that one directly yet… now I want to, as it would sound so strangely amusing to me to hear it pronounced that way…

    Majority Will: Round these parts here in the South you ask for a “co-cola”.

  117. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2012 at 5:38 am #

    G:
    Wow, what particular region of the south is that?Neat to learn that particular optional phrasing for it!I’ve actually not encountered that one directly yet… now I want to, as it would sound so strangely amusing to me to hear it pronounced that way…

    The Land of John Pemberton and Asa Candler.

  118. avatar
    Northland10 July 15, 2012 at 6:27 am #

    Keith: That is incorrect and pegs the speaker as a wannabe Michigander pretending that he knows the residents all speak Canuckian. Try pronouncing Amarillo as Amar/ ee / oh in Texas and report back which hospital you end up in.

    D’ / troy / it does have three syllables though.
    .

    I suppose I should have been more specific. The “t” is kind of there but we (or at least the original list, and myself) never finish the t sound. It just closes with out the “tuh” (or however you spell a t sound).

  119. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 15, 2012 at 8:17 am #

    My father said “co-cola” and he grew up in south Alabama. When I went to a restaurant and didn’t know whether they served Coke or Pepsi, I would try ordering a “cola” but it never worked. But then one time in a place that had bottled water on the menu, I asked for “tap water.” The waitress said she didn’t know if they had that and asked the chef. She returned and said that all they had was bottled water and the stuff the stuff that comes out of the faucet.

    G: Wow, what particular region of the south is that? Neat to learn that particular optional phrasing for it!

  120. avatar
    The Magic M July 15, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    Northland10: 4.Such other relief as this court deems just and proper.

    So, you want to court to figure out themselves what relief you should be entitled. I can think other relief they may want but it involves the contrast to your “hot potato theory”.

    I’ve always wondered about that particular issue. Is it specific to birther cases?
    It might have a non-crank meaning such as “I don’t really know what all possible legal consequences of my lawsuit are, but I want those consequences to happen anyway”. I might think of “I sued an attorney because he defrauded me and the court may also order him disbarred although I didn’t ask for it, but I wouldn’t object to it either”. But that’s just an educated layman trying to understand a legal filing from another legal system than his own…

    Northland10
    Granted, I am not sure on the specifics of the Florida court, but, besides standing, I see “Dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.”

    FIFY

  121. avatar
    JPotter July 15, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: She returned and said that all they had was bottled water and the stuff the stuff that comes out of the faucet.

    How about this one: there used to be a restaurant in Tulsa, in a very rundown area, called The Chicken Coop. It was horrendous. The dining equivalent of so bad it’s entertaining. The health department was clearly being bribed. It is now long gone.

    On my one and only visit, a “cultural expedition”, I noted a framed warning, posted conspicuously: “This is a family establishment. Profanity will not be tolerated.” The waitress/dishwasher waddled over with fistfuls of spotted silverwear, wearing a tee-shirt with the following emblazoned over a enormous bosom: “I ain’t gotta take yo’ SH*T!”

    It was all downhill from there!

  122. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

    The Magic M: I’ve always wondered about that particular issue. Is it specific to birther cases?It might have a non-crank meaning such as “I don’t really know what all possible legal consequences of my lawsuit are, but I want those consequences to happen anyway”. I might think of “I sued an attorney because he defrauded me and the court may also order him disbarred although I didn’t ask for it, but I wouldn’t object to it either”. But that’s just an educated layman trying to understand a legal filing from another legal system than his own…FIFY

    Using the pharase, “and any other relief the court may deem….” is actually common place. While you so want to articulate specific damages as much as possible, you also want to leave as much wiggle room for anything that may come up during trial, a run away jury that throws punitive damages your way, or any number of things. Always wise to leave the door wide open for more.

  123. avatar
    y_p_w July 15, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

    JPotter: How about this one: there used to be a restaurant in Tulsa, in a very rundown area, called The Chicken Coop. It was horrendous. The dining equivalent of so bad it’s entertaining. The health department was clearly being bribed. It is now long gone.

    On my one and only visit, a “cultural expedition”, I noted a framed warning, posted conspicuously: “This is a family establishment. Profanity will not be tolerated.” The waitress/dishwasher waddled over with fistfuls of spotted silverwear, wearing a tee-shirt with the following emblazoned over a enormous bosom: “I ain’t gotta take yo’ SH*T!”

    It was all downhill from there!

    Sounds like the now closed (but hoping to reopen) Sam Wo Restaurant in San Francisco’s Chinatown. The star of the show used to be the rather large Edsel Ford Fong, who would greet diners with Sit down and shut up. Some referred to him as “the world’s rudest waiter”.

    Experiences included him telling people who asked for a Coke that they only served tea. I’ve read about patrons seeing their food get sneezed on by a waiter. He might take their food from them before they’re done. He was known for feeling up female customers and criticizing customers’ choices as well as intentionally getting the orders wrong. He’d yell at people for giving small tips and not providing menus in English. He was born in San Francisco but somehow sounded as if he just got off the boat.

    However, most people thought of the experience as a show – perhaps even performance art. I’ve heard from more than one person that he whispered to them that most of it was an act.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel_Ford_Fong

  124. avatar
    misha July 15, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    y_p_w: The star of the show used to be the rather large Edsel Ford Fong, who would greet diners with Sit down and shut up. Some referred to him as “the world’s rudest waiter”…However, most people thought of the experience as a show – perhaps even performance art. I’ve heard from more than one person that he whispered to them that most of it was an act.

    You have to go to Zabar’s in NYC – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabar's – The staff is deliberately insulting. It’s the only place in the world where someone can insult Woody Allen.

    I think the staff has a contest to see who can come up with the best insults.

  125. avatar
    G July 15, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

    ROTFL! 🙂

    Dr. Conspiracy: But then one time in a place that had bottled water on the menu, I asked for “tap water.” The waitress said she didn’t know if they had that and asked the chef. She returned and said that all they had was bottled water and the stuff the stuff that comes out of the faucet.

    Ah, Georgia. Home and HQ of Coca-Cola (Coke). Now I get “co-cola” and that makes sense! I only had one extended stay in Georgia, and that was to enjoy the 1996 Olympic Summer Games. As Coke was an official sponsor, that was the ONLY soft drink option that was even available within many miles of Atlanta, during those weeks. So, I guess I didn’t notice it, because if you wanted a soft drink, it was either regular Coke or diet Coke and that was it. It was the same way with all the other officialOlympic product sponsors too. For instance, the only beers you could find anywhere were either Bud and Bud Light (the official domestic options) or Geisen Haus dark and light (the official import options). The only fast food chain option was McDonalds. I’ll never forget seeing all the familiar shapes of other fast food chain restaurants that had been also converted into a McDonalds, just for that time period. It truly was one of the most bizarre experiences of my life. Going to a supermarket and seeing only rows and rows of one same option for each type of product choice felt very “weird” as an American, used to an endless array of choices. The whole atmosphere got much darkly weirder in the immediate aftermath of the Centennial Park bombing, but that’s a whole story of its own, for some other time..

    Majority Will: The Land of John Pemberton and Asa Candler.

    Fascinating! I’m going to presume that they were inspired by their northern neighbor’s Georgia’s Coca-Cola empire, too…

    Dr. Conspiracy: My father said “co-cola” and he grew up in south Alabama.

  126. avatar
    MN-Skeptic July 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    I grew up in south central Wisconsin where the preferred term was “pop”. I remember chuckling in college when a gal down the hall, from Ohio, wanted to borrow a “quahtah” for a “soda.”

    You might be interested in this Pop vs. Soda map: http://www.popvssoda.com/

  127. avatar
    G July 15, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    Wow… THANK YOU for that cool site!!! I spent way too much time just now clicking through all the maps and stats… heck, I even “favorited” it as a bookmark. 🙂

    I’m relieved to know that there are so many other areas that also say “pop”. Whenever I travel beyond the surrounding-state areas of Ohio, I always seem to end up in places where they don’t say “pop” and …so I thought we were fairly isolated, until your map showed me otherwise. Cool stuff! 🙂

    MN-Skeptic:
    I grew up in south central Wisconsin where the preferred term was “pop”. I remember chuckling in college when a gal down the hall, from Ohio, wanted to borrow a “quahtah” for a “soda.”

    You might be interested in this Pop vs. Soda map: http://www.popvssoda.com/

  128. avatar
    G July 15, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    Can’t seem to figure out what part of Ohio that gal must have been from….obviously, not from around here. Our “accent” pretty much sounds like the standard American dialect that you commonly see on TV, when they aren’t trying to be “regional”. We do pronounce both the hard “r” sounds in quarter and don’t tend to leave any letters silent in our speech.

    The only thing I can think of that is different is that Medina (both a county and city around here) is pronounced similar to saying “medic”. (i.e. “meh-die-nah”) instead of how the rest of the world says “Mih-deen-ah” (like the “Funky Cold Medina” song from Tone Loc…or the Saudi Arabian city). Oh, and where the east coast and England have cities called Worcester, our equivalent is simply spelled (and pronounced) how theirs sounds to us – Wooster. (most prounounce it “wuss-ter”, instead of rhyming with “rooster”).

    But I still can’t figure out where in my state, anyone would pronounce quarter the way that girl you knew did…

    MN-Skeptic: I remember chuckling in college when a gal down the hall, from Ohio, wanted to borrow a “quahtah” for a “soda.”

  129. avatar
    MN-Skeptic July 15, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    G:
    Can’t seem to figure out what part of Ohio that gal must have been from….obviously, not from around here.Our “accent” pretty much sounds like the standard American dialect that you commonly see on TV, when they aren’t trying to be “regional”.We do pronounce both the hard “r” sounds in quarter and don’t tend to leave any letters silent in our speech.

    I do remember that she was from Ohio, but I suppose it’s possible that she had been a recent transplant to your state. She could have spent most of her life on the east coast, then moved to Ohio a year or two before she came to college. Since I had only lived in Wisconsin and Iowa, I had no idea what an Ohioan sounded like.

  130. avatar
    G July 15, 2012 at 11:25 pm #

    A number of southern Ohioans, particularly in certain areas, might have various types of “southern accent” drawls. Mainly because there are many folks that were transplants from those states to up here, particularly 30+ years ago, when the “rust belt” was a booming economic attraction for those looking for jobs. (My father-in-law came up from TN, my mother-in-law is from WV…you find a lot of that, even in NE Ohio).

    However, we mainly don’t have much of an “accent” here in Ohio. Particularly here in the northern half of the state. As I mentioned before, think of your typical “American” bland dialect, as spoken on most TV shows, when they are just trying to sound “typical” and not from anywhere in particular. That is how we typically sound around these parts.

    MN-Skeptic: Since I had only lived in Wisconsin and Iowa, I had no idea what an Ohioan sounded like.