Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Court to Berg - No, you can't have Interpleader, NOT YOURS!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:16 PM
Original message
Court to Berg - No, you can't have Interpleader, NOT YOURS!
Judge James Robertson, United States District Judge, in Civil Action No. 08-2254 (Hollister v "Soetoro"), has dismissed the case.

The Memorandum is a work of art, starting with:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13033154/Hollisterdismissal

"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.

The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven -- to the colonel’s satisfaction -- that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008), invoking the civil rights statutes, the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the law of promissory estoppel. That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a judge who took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them. Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Berg’s fallback brainstorm, essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Berg’s native-born issue up for decision on a new theory: If some “value” could be assigned to the “duties” the plaintiff thinks he might someday be called upon to fulfill under the Commander-in- Chief, then those “duties” could be deposited in the registry of this Court as the res whose distribution is to be decided by a suit in interpleader!"


Don't hold back Judge Robertson, tell us what you REALLY think of Berg!

Other than VERY unhappy with their antics that is

And John Hemenway may bear the punishment that should be Berg's (And Joyce's for that matter).

"Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case. (They have been filing electronically although they have not been admitted pro hac vice, see <#10>.) They are agents provocateurs –- and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to this case would only give them a forum to continue their provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Berg and Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, t<strong>he accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants."


Rule 11 sanctions are usually pretty financially painful for the attorneys that get them. Basically the judge just told Hemenway "How the hell could you have been so STUPID as to listen to these idiots and sign off on their case??"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Boom goes the dynamite.
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 05:20 PM by WeDidIt
Bergs case explodes in a ruling of rationality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh, and now that Berg has gone down in flames, Donofrio is Baaaaaaack
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 05:22 PM by WeDidIt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. *nods*
Yeah, quo warranto seems to be the order of the day. Berg, Dr. Orly, and now Donofrio all have, claim to be filing, or are demanding quo warranto actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. I may have to change my blog theme now...
This idiot has the same one as mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. His quo warranto reference comes from the DC Code:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE
DIVISION II. JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 16. PARTICULAR ACTIONS, PROCEEDINGS AND MATTERS
Chapter 35. Quo Warranto
Subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the United States ...
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant ...
via: http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=DCC-1000
WARNING: not all browsers work / cookies may be required


If the fool wants to proceed, why should I care if he throw away his money? The complete retort to the writ, were it ever issued, is so stupidly straightforward -- the President simply documents all the electors certified to him, notes the acceptance of the result by Congress, and points out that he was sworn into office, by the highest judiary official, in the presence of his political friends and foes alike, not one objecting -- and involves facts so well known, that one should expect the writ tossed on an immediate appeal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. Finally this has been put to rest.
It's too bad they can't be arrested or put in contempt of court because they wasted tax payer dollars and court time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. This will not be put to rest
until all the Birther lawyers have to start ponying up cash to plead their cases.

See my post above yours.

Plus Orly Taitz is still stirring shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Orly Taitz?
That's someones real name? Oy. What is wrong with these people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yep!
Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS, JD, SBSC (Stealth Bat Shit Crazy) She's Soviet emigrant who is now a Southern California Dentist, with a law degree from an on-line law school.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Hmm...sounds like a prize.
These people make me nervous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. And it may have started.
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 06:08 PM by PatGund
Hemenway's being ordered by the judge to explain why he shouldn't be hit by Rule 11 violations. The question is, is he going to take one for the team, or throw Berg and Joyce under the bus?

I suspect this will be the first of many sanctions against these twits.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the California Bar starts to ask Dr. Orly why she should be allowed to keep her law license....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. It is really worth reading the whole thing. It's not too long but the tone
of the dismissal is one of anger. Thank you for the link. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. You're quite welcome!
I get the feeling the courts may be getting tired of the birthers antics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Heh. I kind of got that impression, too. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. Oh snap! eom :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Tinfoilhat Nutters in Freeperland are LIVID!
Claim the only reason it was laughed out of court is because Clinton appointed the judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
17. Heh heh. "Straw plaintiff."
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
18. Hopefully every subsequent judge will now start slapping
Rule 11 sanctions to anything Burg is tied to. Keep hitting them financially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
19. Oh man!
I love that bit about "tortured by uncertainty". Underscores this bit of passive-aggressiveness quite nicely. Hopefully hitting them (and/or their lawyers) in the pocketbook will slow them down a touch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC