As the score of litigants and complainants against President Obama ticks way past 0-120 (depending on how you count), I found two more filings by Birther litigants. The first one is from Cody Judy, who is trying to gain a Writ of Certorati from the Supreme Court (no less).
Next on deck is Robert Strunk's response to the denial of his motion against the certification of Barack Obama by the New York State Board of Elections. His motion was not only dismissed with prejudice, which is effectively the judge saying GTFOOMC, but he now is forbidden to file any more motions without the permission of the court. One would think that Strunk, now he has been effectively declared to be a vexatious litigant, would be more circumspect in his pleadings. Alas, logic and good tactics do not seem to be his strong suit based on his objection to the dismissal. Strunk appears to have not read this part of the judgement against him:

plaintiff STRUNK alleges baseless claims about defendants which are fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational.

..because here he is, still trying to insist that since he personally fired President Obama in January 2009, that he therefore has standing:

the Court properly recognizes that Plaintiff had duly fired Barack Hussein Obama within 72 hours of his dual offer of contract byoath on January 20 & 21, 2009; and as such, Plaintiff is the only person in thecountry to have done such firing and suffers a specific particular personal injury as aresult different than any other person in the USA in that Defendant Barack HusseinObama Soebarkah personally has injured Plaintiff

Strunk should maybe have read a clue about the court's view of the validity of this claim by this portion of the hearing transcript:

COURT: I saw your letter that you fired the President. I guess he didn't agree with you, because he's still there

Further reading of the transcript should show that the judge was ridiculing Strunk's entire collection of allegations, but Strunk, like the ram butting the dam, appears to have either not noticed, or is determined to go down with all guns blazing. His response to the ruling is a work of...well, I hesitate to use the word "art", mainly because I think that insults all artists, who work at their craft as opposed to making sh1t up.
I did not manage to make it to the end of either of these filings, mainly because of the sudden onset of an acute headache. Both filings are voluminous, verbose, totally unstructured and devoid of cogent argument. In short, they are going to be treated to what the legal profession neatly terms GTFOOMC or D9D.
This is what happens when no sensible lawyer will touch a ludicrously meritless case, and the lawyer-wannabes take over.
NOTE - GTFOOMC = Get The **** Out Of My Court