The ”Frog Court” originated as result of a sealed court settlement over an unfortunate incident regarding Nixon EPA Administrator Anne Gorsche, prescription drugs, a government limo, and a lost weekend in the early 1970s.
The quiet settlement established the Frog Environmental Regulatory Commission, or FERC. FERC’s mandate is the protection of native frogs in the Western US.
FERC enforces its policies by providing a judicial forum at the Frog Court. Under the original court settlement conditions, everyone and everything has “standing” to speak on behalf of the animals, birds, trees, etc., in their petitions to Frog Court.
But after a few years, eventually the animals began to speak for themselves at Frog Court.
The Frog Court has jurisdiction in my own backyard in NW Oregon. I restored 500 square feet of my back yard to shallow pond frog habitat. I sought to register these new wetlands, called the Frog Mitigation Area, with the Frog Court in order to obtain “wetlands credits,” worth in the high two figures. The Frog Court now settles various disputes in my backyard and vicinity.
Here is the upcoming case docket for Frog Court’s next judicial session:
Anna’s Hummingbirds v. Feeder proprietor.
Request for injunctive relief. Hummingbirds claim the the feeder proprietor has failed to thaw out the feeder by 7 am on at least five occasions during the last ten years.
Status: Homeowner has offered to settle by setting up at least three feeders, and apologizing.
Juncoes v. Redwoodman
Breach of Contract. In a previous action, the juncoes withdrew their opposition to a paver path project in their habitat, in return for a bribe of 100 lbs. of suet. But the suet was never paid.
Defendant asserts the suet was in fact supplied, but stolen by the squirrels.
Status: Set for trial, or re-bribing, which ever occurs first.
Finches vs. Juncoes
Water Rights Dispute
Years ago, Frog Court awarded water rights at the Lily Pond to the “Little Brown Birds” for “as long as the crabgrass grows.” Juncoes contest that finches are yellow, not brown, and do not quality for Pond access.
Status: Frog Court originally denied jurisdiction since “the Pond is plenty big for all you little birds,” but the juncoes have appealed.
Thirteen Fathead Minnows vs. Kingfisher, John and Jane Doe
The 13 minnows reside in the Lily Pond, as mosquito controllers. They recently learned that hoomans John and Jane Doe have said it would be fun to watch kingfishers in their own back yard.
Such fun would come from Kingfishers catching the minnows. The minnows seek an order restraining the Does from taking any steps to lure the Kingfisher.
The Kingfisher is not a defendant but was added as a “real Party in Interest.”
In Re: Bullfrogs
Wrongful death and injury
The Bullfrogs filed a class action suit against the Frog Mitigation Area (FMA), claiming that the FMA’s agents may have injured or killed bullfrogs, thus preventing them from their usual pleasure of eating all of the native frogs.
Status: Laughed out of Court. Bullfrogs have appealed.
Frogs vs Fish, et al.
After a renovation of the Lily Pond, all the fish were moved to another pond, leaving only a few minnows. Native Chorus frogs assert ownership of the renovated Lily Pond on grounds of abandonment and adverse possession.
The former fish occupants demur. Herons have filed an amicus brief favoring the obese fish, since the chorus frogs are too small to bother eating.
Koch Bros. v. Redwoodman
The Koch brothers seek damages for their “pain and anguish” that there is one spot on earth, namely the Frog Mitigation area, that they aren’t allowed to foul.
Status: Frog Court has issued warrants for the Koch Bros. arrests.
Coyote and Eagle v. Fences
National Environmental Policy Act
Coyotes and Bald Eagles in the vicinity of the FMA have filed a petition for relief, seeking removal of all of the neighborhood’s fences, including the fence around the FMA, since those were built without an environmental review.
Their petition urges that “all those fat little dogs and cats should be allowed to run around loose.”
The Suburban Pootie and Woozie League has filed an opposing brief.
Squirrels v Redwoodman
The Eastern Fox squirrels claimed that Redwoodman defamed them by asserting they stole suet from the Juncoes.
Status: Set for dismissal. The Frog Court’s preliminary ruling is that invasive Eastern Fox squirrels are impossible to defame.
Now it’s your turn.
You’ve been reading The Daily Bucket,
a nature refuge.
We amicably discuss frogs, animals, weather, climate, soil, plants, waters, and life’s patterns.
We discuss what we see in each Bucket.
We value all observations. Please comment about your own natural area, and include photos if possible. We love photos!
To have the Daily Bucket in your Activity Stream, visit Backyard Science’s profile page and click on Follow, and join to write a Bucket of your own observations.
Thanks for reading;
What have you noted in your area or travels? Snow burying the bird feeders yet?
Please post your observations and general location in your comments. I’ll check back by lunchtime.
The Politicus is a collaborative political community that facilitates content creation directly on the site. Our goal is to make the political conversation accessible to everyone.Any donations we receive will go into writer outreach. That could be advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit or person-to-person outreach on College campuses. Please help if you can: