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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
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]

To: rxsid

WOW. He’s really hit that judge hard. If he rules the attorney must face sanctions then the case moves to discovery in order to for the attorney to defend himself against the sanctions charge as his civil rights are violated. Being injured BOOM he now has standing.

If the judge now rules against sanctions he looks like a fool, which we now know he is, but well, that’s beside the point. Any way at which point the attorney could now file a again pertaining to something along the lines of having been brought before a biased and prejudicial judge and seek a new judge perhaps? And even more juicy a motion to impeach that judge for having been biased and prejudicial?

Can we say that judge is now in a rock and a hard place? hee hee hee Lord willing..........


51 posted on 03/18/2009 4:43:57 AM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

bttt


52 posted on 03/18/2009 6:57:15 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Marked for later.

“A second point raised in Judge Robertson’s Memorandum (p.1), is that the President of the United States had been properly vetted. This assumes facts not in evidence and was not addressed.”

Understatement of the year.


53 posted on 03/18/2009 7:00:00 AM PDT by Canedawg (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

Seriously, can anyone find a case where a federal judge has been impeached and removed?

I thought that went by the wayside when a confirmed drunk was acquitted after being impeached.


54 posted on 03/18/2009 7:01:21 AM PDT by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Joe Marine 76

You are confused. John Hemenway, the lawyer he attacked, is a Naval Academy grad (after WWII service in the Army) and Rhodes Scholar (unlike Clinton, he worked at Oxford and finished); Judge Robertson was ROTC at Princeton and then did serve his term in the Navy before law school.


55 posted on 03/18/2009 7:47:28 AM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

He seems to have picked the wrong guy, would you say?


56 posted on 03/18/2009 7:48:53 AM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; AJMCQ; classical artist; autumnraine; Cyclone59; RegulatorCountry; Logical me; F15Eagle; ...

Thanks for your link to the supplement to the above at Post 26; it puts the judge in an even harder to defend position based on the political motivated sloppiness of his decision and order.

And a Ping to those who have not checked in on this show of cause yet.


57 posted on 03/18/2009 7:59:22 AM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory

Hebrews 4:13 says that nothing is hidden from God.

All things that man tries to cover up, God reveals, and this is just a case of someone doing just that - (”inadvertantly”) revealing that which he desires to keep secret.


58 posted on 03/18/2009 8:04:45 AM PDT by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“”federal judge has been impeached and removed?””

Alcee Hastings?

Now a Congressman.

Not as ironic as Marion Barry, but almost.


59 posted on 03/18/2009 9:39:52 AM PDT by Gemsbok (If wishes were horses, than beggars would ride)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; All

This continuing carnival show confirms for me several things:

a.) If a judge (ANY judge) does not want a case to proceed through his courtroom, he can and WILL find something, ANYthing to derail the proceedings, be it by finding fault with something that has been filed, discovering some ‘technicality’ which nullifies a portion of, or the entire case itself.

b.) ANYone who dares to represent themselves (i.e. ‘pro se’) has the deck stacked against them before they make even their first filing. Judges do not LIKE people who choose to represent themselves.

c.) Any attorney getting involved in something like this current 0bama/BC issue had best have his sh*t together because the Judges (especially the SCOTUS) are NOT going to like being pushed into a corner where they have to start ruling on something as critical as the Constitutional eligibility of the Usurper currently occupying the Oval Office. They don’t want to do it. They don’t want to be in the middle of this controversy. They want to sit on their fat asses in their plush chambers, sip nicely aged whiskey, puff on a fine cigar, and compare obscure notes and items with their fellow judges.

You want Justice?

You’ll get Just Ice.

If a U.S. judge, ANY judge rules that 0bama must prove his Constitutional bonafides, I will first, go out and buy a hat.

Then? I’ll eat it.


60 posted on 03/18/2009 9:43:31 AM PDT by mkjessup (You're either with our Constitution, or you are with TKU ("The Kenyan Usurper"). CHOOSE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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