[KarenMarie]

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.

[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.