COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (re: Hollister v Obama)

Obamacrimes ^ | 3/17/2009 | rxsid

[so_real]

Tough language ... indicative of how fed up the general public is becoming with this “Pres—ent” sitting where a “PresIDent” belongs.

[rxsid]

Well....for starters, I'm no lawyer (and don't even play one on T.V.) or Constitutional scholar. Simply a concerned citizen who has learned a great deal (more) of history and Constitutional issues since first learning of Barry's eligibility problems in early October of last year.

My understanding here, is that the Judge in this case (who is, IMO, seriously prejudiced against the plaintiffs) ordered one of the lawyers (John D. Hemenway, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff Gregory S. Hollister) to show 'cause' as to why the Judge should not levy sanctions/fines on the attorney. Hemenway (no doubt with input from Berg), basically hit back at the Judge. As others have stated, the Judge will probably back off on the order to show cause...otherwise he (the Judge) very well may have opened a can of worms he did not intend to open.

Other, more Constitutionally and Judicially scholarly folks might be able to explain it better.

[null and void]

Long read, interesting times ahead...

[rxsid]

on a side note to this, the plaintiffs plan to appeal the decision.

[Dan(9698)]

As others have stated, the Judge will probably back off on the order to show cause...otherwise he (the Judge) very well may have opened a can of worms he did not intend to open.

Quite some time will pass before the order to show cause will be quietly dismissed under the "better use of the Courts resources" excuse.

[rxsid]

Additional info here:

March 16, 2009 25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 22 Order on Motion to Dismiss filed by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER. (jeb, )

HOLLISTER v. SOETORO et al Filing 25

[WhirlwindAttack]

Thanks for the emphasis. I followed it pretty well.

I really think this is our best hope to get us back on track.

[rxsid]

Sure thing. I tried to emphasis what I thought may be pertinent, while trying to format it for posting here.

[little jeremiah]

Okay, I’ve gone partially blind just attempting to read a little bit (plus it might as well be in a foreign language for all I can understand)... THanks for posting it and any interpretation by anyone, heartily welcome!

[autumnraine]

You know, by fining him, doesn’t this open up a whole new kind of case? A criminal case? Wouldn’t the call for evidence be even more urgent (ie: the birth certificate)?

[rxsid]

"I wonder if a few heads over at the DNC, House and Senate are quietly saying to one another: “He’s so incompetent that this may solve the problem.”

I would add...I believe Howard Dean (among others) knows as well that there was a major problem with Barry's eligibility. Why, after 2 very strong election cycles, for the Dem's, within only 2 years...would he resign (shortly after the election b.t.w.) as the DNC chair? Some would say because Barry wanted someone else in there. Well, Dean, in part help get Barry elected. I believe Dean knows of the problems, and wanted to disappear from the scene so to speak.

[little jeremiah]

I read your explanation above, should have read the whole thread before whining.

Thank you, and will continue reading. I appreciate your efforts here.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Paragraph 63 is very important. If the judge is saying the lawsuit is frivolous and that the attorney and client should be sanctioned, then it opens the door to them showing just WHY it’s not frivolous. It’s not altogether dissimilar from accusing someone of libel - the accused then gets a chance to defend himself, truth being a defense. Could the judge be opening the door to a fuller airing of this issue without knowing it? I predict this Rule 11 hearing will go away quickly. If not, then again the door is opened a little more. If sanctions are applied without giving the parties a chance to defend themselves, then we have indeed gone beyond the looking glass.

The original order ruled the suit was frivolous becuase he tried to use the interpleader statute where it has no possible application. That has nothing to do with Obama's birth certificate. He will be sanctioned, and it will be upheld on appeal.

[azishot]

Thanks for the ping.

Sounds like Hemenway pulled a “triple dog dare” on the judge.

Wonder what the judge will do next? Hope he doesn’t use the “you filed this too late” nonsense.

[azishot]

You did an excellent job! The emphasis you added was a BIG help.

I still can’t believe that the judge felt BO was properly vetted.

[IrishPennant]

Thanks for the ping - this certainly qualifies for the “How not to be a Judge” award.

[AmericanVictory]

You need to read more carefully and read the supplement. The Judge completely misinterpreted and misrepresented the use of the Intervention Rule (mistaking it, among other things for a statute) and as the supplement to the Show of Cause makes clear there are cases supporting such use, which makes Rule 11 inapplicable. READ the supplement carefully.

[AmericanVictory]

He can’t; it was filed by the deadline he set. He has opened up a game where standing does not matter.

[AmericanVictory]

Not only “vetted” but “twittered” those great legal terms of art, much used by the great judges. /s

[Velveeta]

Nice smackdown by the attorney. WOW!