Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

COUNSELíS RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (re: Hollister v Obama)
Obamacrimes ^ | 3/17/2009 | rxsid

Posted on 03/17/2009 1:34:55 PM PDT by rxsid

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
Wow. Hitting back pretty hard. Let's see how far it goes with this (clearly) party hack of a judge. Perhaps this response will serve well at the next level...that is, the appeals court (or possibly SCOTUS). Emphasis added.
1 posted on 03/17/2009 1:34:55 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Big Ping!


2 posted on 03/17/2009 1:36:33 PM PDT by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2; pnh102; rxsid; seekthetruth; hoosiermama; LucyT; Red Steel; True Republican Patriot; ...

Ping. Long, but pretty hard hitting.


3 posted on 03/17/2009 1:37:59 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unkus

Indeed!


4 posted on 03/17/2009 1:38:41 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Now if they can get enough similar complainants and a compliant judge, they might get this certified as a class action matter. You would have to beat the trial attorneys off with a stick if you could get a deep pocket like the DNC or the Federal Government itself named as conspiratory defendants. Particularly with the number of victims of every action he has taken since taking office.


5 posted on 03/17/2009 1:41:37 PM PDT by Steamburg ( Your wallet speaks the only language most politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Wow. Hitting back pretty hard.

I predicted this lawyer would hammer this Moonbat judge with everything. After all, this wackjob in the black robe is going after him.

6 posted on 03/17/2009 1:41:57 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.”


7 posted on 03/17/2009 1:45:29 PM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist

They all know, deep down, that there is a problem here. Perhaps there will be a ‘tipping point’ that will compel some of them to actually begin to take (some kind of) action and uphold their oaths to our Constitution. Time will tell...hopefully sooner rather than latter.


8 posted on 03/17/2009 1:50:28 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I read on another thread that Judge Robertson is a US Naval Academy Graduate and a Rhodes Scholar. Clearly a case of too much education.

Disgusting.


9 posted on 03/17/2009 1:50:59 PM PDT by Joe Marine 76 ("Quo Warranto Is The Way To Go!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842
If the Court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as Court precedents have permitted in the past.

Your comments from another thread which are relevant for this one:

-------------

"I think the judge may have given this attorney a huge opening. If the judge is saying that the attorney brought a frivolous lawsuit and is threatening sanctions, the very existence of such a threat may just possibly give the attorney standing to subpoena Obama’s records.

Far more likely than that very remote possibility, though, is that the demand for sanctions will be dropped so that the matter is no longer a “live” issue.

That's my prediction - I would be surprised if sanctions are imposed. If they are, then the judge has done the movement to unseal Obama’s records a huge favor. "

-----------------------

Go after him judge I dare you.

10 posted on 03/17/2009 1:52:24 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Ok, I really appreciate the time you took to post this and it is a subject in which I have great interest.

But I am not a lawyer and trying to read that kinda made my eyes roll in the back of my head. :( Sorry.

Is it possible that you could tell me what it means in a sort of Cliff notes version.

Sorry and thank you.


11 posted on 03/17/2009 1:53:44 PM PDT by KarenMarie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

If so, it’s be behind the scenes, so publicly they could cry and rend clothes and issues statements of support for Obama, and whine “what could we do? Our hands are tied by that dratted Constitution! It’s those Republican’s fault!!!”, and once the cameras are off, sip Champagne at aleviating themselves of a problem and again blaming the Right.


12 posted on 03/17/2009 1:54:32 PM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

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.


13 posted on 03/17/2009 1:57:15 PM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Thanks! See my post 13 below also.


14 posted on 03/17/2009 1:58:27 PM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
It just creates another problem called “The Obama Principle” which is a level of incompetency that only a black man is allowed to rise to in an insane politically correct world. This guy would need a teleprompter to place a coherent order at McDonalds.
15 posted on 03/17/2009 1:59:02 PM PDT by hflynn ( The One is really The Number Two)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

obumpa


16 posted on 03/17/2009 2:00:07 PM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Didn’t realize his sister had a COLB from Hawaii.


17 posted on 03/17/2009 2:05:28 PM PDT by DieNarrin (Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842
"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."

For sure, IMO. An interesting turn of events ... perhaps.

18 posted on 03/17/2009 2:08:52 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Given Obama’s attitude thus far, part of me wonders whether he has the proof but his arrogance and narcissistic behavior disorder are leading him to refuse just for the sake of refusing.


19 posted on 03/17/2009 2:14:13 PM PDT by jagusafr ("Bugs, Mr. Rico! Zillions of 'em!" - Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“subpoena Obama’s records”
Yep.
One subpoena duces tecum and Team Obama dips into the Clinton file, `99; e.g. “Uh, Soldiers & Sailors Relief Act? Naahh... executive privilege—might fly. `No recollection’. Sure. No `cognizable legal authority’. Worked for Gore!” Etc.
If his authentic, bona fide birth certificate is ever produced, one of two things happens: the matter is dropped or he’s removed from office.
Like Hume’s explanation of `miracles’, considering the strenuous efforts of the One to protect his `lock-box’, which result do you think is more likely?


20 posted on 03/17/2009 2:15:40 PM PDT by tumblindice (Remain clam but grill your loins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson