Hollister v. Soetoro (Obama); Attorney John D. Hemenway reprimanded for bringing suit

United District Court; District of Columbia | Mar 24, 2009 | JAMES ROBERTSON

[TheCipher]

Not only that, he has his head so far up Obamas butt he knows when Obama is going to fart before Obama does !!! :-)

[patriot08]

Dr. Orly addresses Roberts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9O9usBeg9Y

Dr Orly on G Gordy Liddy:
http://feeds.radioamerica.org/podcast/GGL/audio/Liddy_mon_23-03-09_H1.mp3

[Non-Sequitur]

The judge can't help but throw in a snarkey comment can he?

You should have read is order to dismiss.

[patriot08]

DR. ORLY TAITZ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please go to Dr. Orly's website http://defendourfreedoms.us/ and HELP HER. This lovely little Russian refugee is working herself to exhaustion to save YOUR country. It is reported that she is surviving on 3-4 hours sleep per night and is bearing much of the expense of her lawsuits herself. Dr. Orly is requesting researchers, lawyers, letter writers and other volunteers.

[Non-Sequitur]

The injustice was that SCOTUS declined the case. Lower courts aren't going to rock the boat that the SCOTUS refuses to rock.

Injustice or not, the Supreme Court did decline to hear the case and it had been dismissed by the lower courts. From a judicial standpoint the matter was dead. Refiling the same case under a different cast of characters is the definition of a frivilous lawsuit. Hemenway got off lucky; the judge could have ordered him to pay the defendant's costs.

[patriot08]

Dr. Orly’s website:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

[balls]

That may not be going anywhere but Easterling et al vs Obama et al is looking much more hopeful. Listen to Steve Malzberg at about 5 minutes into this podcast:
http://podcast.wor710.com/wor/1652701.mp3

[SvenMagnussen]

Why won’t Judge Robertson recognize Joyce’s brief to SCOTUS expousing the doctrine of res ipso loquitor and juris prudence?

SCOTUS granted Joyce leave to file the brief after reading it. Shouldn’t Judge Robertson accept the Court’s directive this issue speaks for itself and should be addressed by the Court?

And to make matters difficult, Judge Robertson refuses to grant Joyce admission Pro Hac Vice after SCOTUS accepted him.

[MilspecRob]

BTTT

[Velveeta]

“O-HOLE”

Fair warning: I am so stealing that term.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Why won’t Judge Robertson recognize Joyce’s brief to SCOTUS expousing the doctrine of res ipso loquitor and juris prudence? SCOTUS granted Joyce leave to file the brief after reading it. Shouldn’t Judge Robertson accept the Court’s directive this issue speaks for itself and should be addressed by the Court?

The Supreme Court granted permission to file an amicus brief in a case it then refused to hear. So that amicus brief, legally speaking, is now meaningless. Lower court judges cannot consider it, unless it is re-filed in those cases.

[Dionysius]

What else can one expect from a Clintonista appointee? We’ll be living with these Constitution-tredding imbeciles for a long time. But fear not, I’m sure Ocrumbo’s appointments will be even worse.

[SvenMagnussen]

The Supreme Court dismissed the case, not on its merit, but on a procedural issue, i.e. the case had not been presented to the Appeals Court before being filed with SCOTUS.

If the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses Berg’s case on standing, then SCOTUS will hear the case which has been demonstrated by the acceptance of the Amicus Curiae brief.

[mountainbunny]

I don't care what the merits of the case are. If I were a judge, and anyone in my courtroom referred to the President of the United States -- whoever he is -- as a "blue gum baboon," I'd throw them in jail for contempt.

I guess that maybe you could possibly argue that that statement was a political opinion.

This (from the article (^) at WorldNutDaily), is not:

He finished with his speculation on what "ought" to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report.

He deserves to be held in contempt for that statement. I can't support being nasty or disrespectful to a judge.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses Berg’s case on standing, then SCOTUS will hear the case which has been demonstrated by the acceptance of the Amicus Curiae brief.

Acceptance of the amicus brief does not mean the Court will hear the case. It is routine for the Court to accept amicus briefs on cases it then refuses to hear-- it happens every week.

[Non-Sequitur]

If the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses Berg’s case on standing, then SCOTUS will hear the case which has been demonstrated by the acceptance of the Amicus Curiae brief.

You keep telling yourself that. If the lower court dismissed it for lack of standing, and if the 3rd Circuit dismisses it for the same reason, then the odds that the Supreme Court will then agree to hear it hover somewhere between zilch and none.

[SvenMagnussen]

Dismissive and condescending works for Obama, but you may want to support your arguments with actual facts.

[Non-Sequitur]

Dismissive and condescending works for Obama, but you may want to support your arguments with actual facts.

Well I suppose we'll find out, won't we? The Third Circuit should rule on Berg's case any time now.

[SvenMagnussen]

Filing appeals is expensive. I’m sure Judge Robertson meant well when he cited Berg’s website incorrectly ...

” See http://www.obamaerirnes.info/ (last visited 3/24/09) 02/13/09:”

Actually, it’s http://www.obamacrimes.info to submit a donation for liberty and justice. Don’t be shy. Judge Robertson is just a bully who knows that if the truth ever comes out, then Obama will be put out of office.

[Non-Sequitur]

Don’t be shy. Judge Robertson is just a bully who knows that if the truth ever comes out, then Obama will be put out of office.

Of course.