Much has been made of Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito supposedly mouthing "not true" during President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech.

Get ready for even more explosive news. Thanks to exclusive, patent-pending technology, Suits & Sentences has been able to decode what other justices were quietly mouthing during the speech:

Chief Justice John Roberts: "I am seriously going to muff your swearing-in next time, pal..."

Justice Anthony Kennedy: "Why doesn't Linda Greenhouse respect me?"

Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "I never should have left."

Retired Justice David Souter: "I'm so glad I left."

Justice Clarence Thomas: "       "

Texas resident Karen McBrien is no stranger to the federal court system. She has filed multiple lawsuits, the flavor of which can be sampled in this excerpt from her latest:

"A SF FBI duty agent said to Plaintiff in January 2008, 'I suppose you're going to tell me we can read your brain.' Plaintiff had not even brought the subject up, but his stating this to Plaintiff mad her wonder whether she has been the subject of FBI brain behavioral research without her knowledge or consent, pursuant to an order of some type, and may have involved the Navy, Seattle Police, SFPD and other law enforcement forensic studies, a patent and a brain device developed by...a neurologist at Stanford."

Then it starts getting really complicated.

Some of Ms. McBrien's earlier cases were dismissed by judges who deemed them as raising "fantastic or delusional" claims. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts dismissed the latest lawsuit by Ms. McBrien as "frivolous."

The state of California intends to execute Theodore Shove. So he's fighting back because, honestly, what else does he have to do with his time? Except repent, of course...

Shove and eight of his fellow death row inmates at California's San Quentin Prison recently sued federal judges throughout California. They also sued President Barack Obama. And Attorney General Eric Holder. And Homeland Security Security Janet Napolitano. And numerous members of Congress. And their own defense attorneys. And, naturally, others as well.

Their lawsuit explained:

"Domestic Terrorism, Treasonous Acts of Terrorism against Our Country are clearly being perpetrated for great financial and political gains for everyone involved."

In a 445-page complaint, accompanied by 189 pages of appendices, the San Quentin lawsuit went on in similar fashion. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly needed only two pages to dismiss the suit.

Shove, the lead plaintiff in this case, apparently has ring-leader potential. He was convicted in 2008 for having masterminded the 2001 beating deaths of an 81-year-old man and his 79-year-old wife. Prosecutors say Shove, now in his late 50s, wanted to take over the couple's aerospace salvage business. The man Shove hired to commit the murders is serving a life sentence.

Holy %$#!, is all Suits & Sentences can say.

Marine Cpl. Raheem G. Green was convicted at court-martial of various offenses involving a fellow Marine, a woman known as "JL" who says he groped her repeatedly. One of the offenses was use of indecent language, contravening Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And this is what Green said; or, rather, moaned:

"Mmmm-mmmm-mmmm."

In a striking new opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has upheld Green's conviction on the indecent language count. Green is paying a high price for his behavior, which included the groping as well as the language: four months confinement and a bad conduct discharge.

So the question is: Does an utterance have to be an actual word in order to be indecent? And the appellate panel's answer is: No, it doesn't. Even a guttural sound like "mmmm-mmmm-mmmm" can be deemed criminally indecent, the appellate court reasoned. Apparently, it all depends on context; as the court said:

"Green demonstrated his sexual predatory nature in a number of encounters with Cpl JL. We cannot ignore Green’s actions when he uttered “mmmm-mmmm-mmmm” -– he had grabbed and pulled Cpl JL’s shirt down and was looking at her breasts."

Keep in mind the military's definition of indecent language, as elucidated by the court:

“‘Indecent’ language is that which is grossly offensive to modesty, decency, or propriety, or shocks the moral sense, because of its vulgar, filthy, or disgusting nature, or its tendency to incite lustful thought. Language is indecent if it tends reasonably to corrupt the morals or incite libidinous thoughts. The language must violate community standards."

So how about, say, a simplified "mmmm-mmmm"? Is that criminally indecent?Might depend on the rising and lowering inflection. How about a blunt, to the point "mmmm"?

Represented by Navy Lt. Michael Maffei, Green had argued on appeal that "mmmm-mmmm-mmmm" was neither language nor indecent.

For the record, this was the scenario, as related by Cpl JL, who had been previously subjected to several crude and sexualized behaviors by Green:

"I turned around, walked very quickly back to Corporal Green. He was sitting on a few cans of ammunition
logging in the docs still, and he said, bend down, I’ll get it. So I bent at the waist towards Corporal Green,
he then grabbed my shirt and my skivvy blouse –- or my skivvy shirt and my cammie blouse, pulled it down and said mmmm-mmmm-mmmm."

Agriculture Department chemist Joseph Poett got caught in the classic War-on-Terror nightmare: the spurious 'terror' association. It took him several years to clear the unfair taint.

A procedural decision Monday by U.S. District Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly puts a spotlight on this case.

It's a tale Alfred Hitchcock might have told, as interpreted by Michael Chertoff. Going about his everyday business in a Midwestern office of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, Poett applied to obtain certain toxic chemicals. But in August 2006, the FBI informed Poett's supervisors that he was deemed to be a “restricted person” who “has involvement with an organization that engages in domestic or
international terrorism or international crimes of violence."

This was a canard. But how to fight it? Poett filed Freedom of Information Act requests to get to the bottom of it all.

As Poett ultimately determined, the FBI's career-crimping determination stemmed from his past, passing involvement with a group called the Irish Northern Aid Committee in America, also known as Noraid. Way back in 1992, Poett had written the British ambassador to the United States, saying he regretted the possibility that "the funds others and I have solicited may have fallen into the wrong hands" and adding that he would "pray for the peaceful resolution between the British and Irish People."

Finally, last year, Kollar-Kotelly noted Monday that the government determined that "the FBI no longer reasonably suspects Plaintiff of knowing involvement with an organization that engages in domestic or international terrorism or with any other organization that engages in intentional crimes of violence and that Plaintiff is now eligible for access to select agents or toxins.”

So now, the fight is over attorneys fees.

Cheerios fans, watch out. The National Consumers League has just turned a crucial corner in its legal challenge to the cereal's marketing.

The consumers group filed suit in the District of Columbia, contending that General Mills violated the District's Consumer Protection Procedures Act through "falsely misrepresenting that [Cheerios] has drug-quality properties that would reduce total and ‘bad’ cholesterol levels when eaten."

Lots at stake here. The consumers group wants $1,500 for every box of Cheerios sold. This adds up, as 3 million boxes or so are sold annually.

In a decision quietly issued Friday*, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. denied General Mills' effort to get the case removed to federal court. The cereal manufacturer had its tactical reasons for escaping a D.C. jury, presumably. Technically, the company argued the consumers' lawsuit was properly handled as a federal class action suit.

The standing arguments here became a twist on the usual line-up; here, the defendant was arguing that the plaintiff had standing in federal court and the plaintiff said, no way. The judge agreed with the consumers group, which seems to have been adroit in its approach. The National Consumers League explicitly did not argue that it had suffered individual harm through the Cheerios' marketing, Judge Kennedy noted; therefore, it lacked standing.

*''Quietly issued' is a code phrase. It means that no press release was issued, and that Suits & Sentences just happened upon the action several days after the fact.

Federal administrative law judges handle hundreds of thousands of disputes every year. They're invaluable. They're under-appreciated. And, they're getting older.

That could get to be a problem, if a retirement epidemic hits and all that experience goes rushing out the front door. Theoretically, it could.

In a new report issued Friday, the Government Accountability Office reported that 51 percent of all administrative law judges were eligible to retire at the end of 2008. By 2013, fully 79 percent will be eligible to retire. The GAO warns that federal agencies "could face skill and competency gaps" unless hiring and success plans are developed. Now.

At the National Labor Relations Board, for instance, a remarkable 85 percent of the administrative law judges -- 34 out of 40 -- are already eligible for their gold watches and rocking chairs.

The federal government employs 1,436 administrative law judges, more than 80 percent of whom work for the Social Security Administration. Their average age is 61. By contrast, the average age of all federal employees is about 46.

All the sweet addictive nicotine without any of that meddlesome smoke. That, evidently, is what the electronic cigarette is all about.

And now, a U.S. District Court judge says the Food and Drug Administration lacks the authority to block importation of this technological wonder. In an interesting 32-page decision issued Thursday, Judge Richard J. Leon concluded the electronic cigarettes were beyond the reach of the FDA. States the judge:

"This case appears to be yet another example of FDA's aggressive efforts to regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices...unfortunately, its tenacious drive to maximize its regulatory power has resulted in its advocacy of an interpretation of the relevant law that I find, at first blush, to be unreasonable and unacceptable."

Consequently, Judge Leon imposed a preliminary injunction against the FDA.

As described by Judge Leon, electronic cigarettes look like a conventional cigarette but are "an alternative to traditional smoked tobacco products that is designed to replicate the adult experience of smoking without combustion or the use of cancerous by-products...They function by vaporizing a liquid nicotine mixture that is derived naturally from tobacco plants."

Suits & Sentences suggests an implantable nicotine chip could be even more efficient as a addictive drug delivery system adult recreational device, but we digress.

Smoking Everywhere is a distributor that imports electronic cigarettes from overseas manufacturers. The company has done brisk business, but the FDA issued a "hold" on two shipments that arrived at Los Angeles International Airport in late September 2008. The agency contended the shipments, and several others, amounted to unregulated drug devices and thus are subject to FDA oversight.

Judge Leon, though, concluded that Congress never intended to extend the FDA's jurisdiction to "tobacco products, like electronic cigarettes, that are marketed in customary fashion for purely recreational purposes." The judge adds:

"Just a sampling of the promotional claims reveals, for instance, that Smoking Everywhere intends its electronic cigarettes to provide "the nicotine hit that smokers crave," to "refresh smokers and satisfy
their smoking addiction," and to provide "the same pleasures of smoking a traditional cigarette." The brand name itself is evidence that the product is not intended to prevent, treat, or mitigate nicotine use and addiction."