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 1-5051-83 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]

To: rxsid

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


21 posted on 03/17/2009 2:21:17 PM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarenMarie
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.

22 posted on 03/17/2009 2:23:07 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice; Amityschild; Calpernia; ~Kim4VRWC's~; 1COUNTER-MORTER-68; 21stCenturyFreeThinker; ...

Long read, interesting times ahead...


23 posted on 03/17/2009 2:25:15 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 57 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

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


24 posted on 03/17/2009 2:27:52 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
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.

25 posted on 03/17/2009 2:29:37 PM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 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

26 posted on 03/17/2009 2:46:38 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Thanks for the emphasis. I followed it pretty well.

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

27 posted on 03/17/2009 2:49:09 PM PDT by WhirlwindAttack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhirlwindAttack

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


28 posted on 03/17/2009 2:52:03 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; All

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!


29 posted on 03/17/2009 3:03:16 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gama Tamasi Ma Jyotir Gama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

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)?


30 posted on 03/17/2009 3:08:32 PM PDT by autumnraine (Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose- Kris Kristoferrson VIVA LA REVOLUTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
"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.

31 posted on 03/17/2009 3:08:32 PM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

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

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


32 posted on 03/17/2009 3:09:48 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gama Tamasi Ma Jyotir Gama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842
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.

33 posted on 03/17/2009 3:14:24 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: null and void

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.


34 posted on 03/17/2009 3:16:37 PM PDT by azishot (I just joined the NRA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

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.


35 posted on 03/17/2009 3:20:05 PM PDT by azishot (I just joined the NRA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: null and void

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


36 posted on 03/17/2009 3:32:30 PM PDT by IrishPennant (Obama: Succeeding Where Bin Laden Failed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

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.


37 posted on 03/17/2009 4:47:53 PM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: azishot

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


38 posted on 03/17/2009 4:48:47 PM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: azishot

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


39 posted on 03/17/2009 4:49:50 PM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Nice smackdown by the attorney. WOW!


40 posted on 03/17/2009 5:51:09 PM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

The appeal has already been noted; there is only one plaintiff.


41 posted on 03/17/2009 5:52:44 PM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Read the supplemental part to the Show of Cause; the refusal to allow a hearing under the circumstances would be against the weight of authority.


42 posted on 03/17/2009 5:54:16 PM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Thanks for the ping.
This issue is not going away.


43 posted on 03/17/2009 5:55:10 PM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Appreciation of the effort...carry on.


44 posted on 03/17/2009 6:26:06 PM PDT by sniper63 (Silent and stealthy - one shot - one kill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Nice going, John! Way to research the cases. I’m glad you’re on our side.


45 posted on 03/17/2009 7:36:47 PM PDT by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ 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.

You're right, and when the Judge relents, I'd love for this to get some airtime to offset how the media played it up.

46 posted on 03/17/2009 7:41:30 PM PDT by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I don’t know.... I’ve heard many times that he wanted to stay as DNC chair, and Obama wouldn’t let him. Then he wanted to have a cabinet appointment, HHS chair, something like that, and he was never offered it. I saw it posted (I didn’t see it myself) that he has publicly said that he wants a job like that, but doesn’t get it offered. The impression I’ve gotten is that he wants in, but is being shut out.

But I feel as you do, that there are those who know.

I heard (again, I don’t know) a long time ago, that when Congress vetted McCain’s eligibility, that it was suggested they do Obama, too, and the idea was nixed. If it’s true, it must have been nixed by those who knew the outcome would be negative....


47 posted on 03/17/2009 8:28:06 PM PDT by canaan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: canaan

“It suggests that the intellectual capacity of this Court focused on the issues in the instant suit at a very low level, perhaps for political purposes, such as to win attention from the highest authority when a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States becomes vacant.”

Wow! This attorney has a backbone!

Also, there seems to be a citation of a document in the part where it says Maya has a Hawaiian BC. First we heard she did, then we heard it was a hypothesis of TechDude, who was discredited. If there’s a document, maybe it’s the BC - but how did they get hers, if HIPPA laws prevent release of any...? So hard to know what the truth is... boy, I hope this goes to discovery.


48 posted on 03/17/2009 9:04:58 PM PDT by canaan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: canaan
Yeah, he came out punching this loon judge. LoL!

boy, I hope this goes to discovery.

Come on judge are you going to take this? Impose your fine on the lawyer.

I'll be the first to chip in to pay for it.

49 posted on 03/17/2009 9:16:33 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: kitchen
Bump for late night viewers.
50 posted on 03/17/2009 11:34:35 PM PDT by kitchen (One battle rifle for each person, and a spare for each pair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 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