Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge delivers rule 11 sanction to "Hollister v 'Soetoro'" attorney

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 Tue Mar-24-09 03:34 PM
Original message
Judge delivers rule 11 sanction to "Hollister v 'Soetoro'" attorney
Judge Robertson answered John Hemenway's response as to why he shouldn't be hit with rule 11 sanctions - by sanctioning him with a reprimand.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13613272/27OrderFindingRule11...

"We live in a free country. Our liberties are manifold and are the envy of the world. In the very top tier of those liberties, enshrined in the First Amendment, is the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Many of those petitions are presented to judges. Every judge knows that a disturbingly high percentage of them involve petty slights, or imagined injuries, or matters that lie well beyond the reach of the judicial writ, but most judges will agree that it is important at least to listen to them -- especially to the grievances of poor petitioners, or disadvantaged petitioners, or petitioners who do not have lawyers -- even if the courts are powerless to grant relief.

Lawyers who come to court to present grievances, however, are held to a higher standard than disadvantaged or unrepresented persons. For lawyers, there are rules. A lawyer knows that no judge has any business addressing or ruling upon a dispute, no matter how fervently he or his clients may feel about it, unless the judge has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, unless the client has standing to be heard, unless the cause is ripe and justiciable, and unless the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. A lawyer who comes to federal court also knows, because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plainly say so, that his signature on a complaint certifies that to the best of the persons knowledge and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, Rule 11(b)(1), and that the claims . . . and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, Rule 11(b)(2)."


That's the first two paragraphs. And already one can feel the storm about to come.

"Many people, perhaps as many as a couple of dozen, feel deeply about this issue."


LAUGH!!!!!!!! APPLAUD!!!!!! Someone needs to send Robertson flowers and candy for this comment alone!

"Attempts have been made to tee the question up for judicial resolution in a number of courts across the country. See, defendants motion to dismiss . Mr. Hemenways associate, Philip J. Berg, made at least one such attempt, suing in a federal court in Pennsylvania, naming himself as plaintiff. After that suit was dismissed (for lack of standing), and after the Supreme Court declined to hear him, Mr. Berg (apparently) found another plaintiff, a man who retired from the Air Force as a colonel more than ten years ago and now claims to be uncertain about whether - if he were recalled to active duty - he would have to obey commands that come from President Obama as commander-in-chief. Mr. Berg (presumably) enlisted Mr. Hemenway in this cause. Mr. Hemenway, Mr. Berg, and Lawrence J. Joyce then filed this lawsuit. Mr. Hemenway signed the complaint, (1) certifying his compliance with Rule 11(b).

(1) Messrs. Berg and Joyce are not members of the bar of this court and were not granted leave to appear pro hac vice."


The judge knows exactly where to lay the blame for wasting the courts time it seems.

"I have said nothing, and have nothing to say, about the merits of the natural born Citizen question that Messrs. Hemenway, Berg, et al., have sought to present here."


Translation - "I have no intent to waste time on these paranoid theories.

"I have no business addressing the merits, because, having found that Mr. Hemenways interpleader suit failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, I have dismissed it. "


In other words, he's completely ignoring all the bullshit they tried to toss up to hide the issue, and stuck strictly to the issue in question.

"The only question that remains before me is whether Mr. Hemenway, when he signed the complaint, violated Rule 11(b). It seemed to me when I dismissed the complaint, on March 5, 2009, that Mr. Hemenways invocation of the interpleader statute as the vehicle for his complaint was completely frivolous. For that reason, and in compliance with Rule 11(c)(3), I ordered Mr. Hemenway to show cause why I should not find him in violation of Rule 11(b), either because he presented the suit for an improper purpose, Rule 11(b)(1), or because his claims and other legal contentions were not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, Rule 11(b)(2), or both. Mr. Hemenway, responding to that order, has filed about 35 pages of argument and self-justification. Most of his submission deals with the merits of his claim, which, again, are not the subject of the present memorandum."


One gets the feeling he's NOT happy with any of the Three Stooges in this legal comedy.

Bold face in the original - I suspect the Judge is wanting to make sure his point is clear:

"This case, like Saltany, offered no hope whatsoever of success, and Mr. Hemenway surely knew it. Mr. Hemenway had no colorable authority for the proposition that Mr. Hollisters contingent claim of duty could be the res in an interpleader suit, or, given the speculative and contingent nature of such a duty, that his claim had any particular dollar value. Mr. Hemenways complaint did not even allege the sine qua non of an interpleader suit - that wo or more adverse claimants . . . are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property, or to any one or more of the benefits . . . arising by virtue of any such obligation. . . . 28 U.S.C. 1335(a)(1). Mr. Hemenways suit was not a suit in interpleader or in the nature of interpleader. It was legally frivolous. By signing and filing a legally frivolous complaint, Mr. Hemenway violated at least Rule 11(b)(2)."


Basically "Why the hell did you waste my time with this crap???"

"Mr. Hemenway is 82 years old and takes considerable and justified pride in his patriotic public service and his status as a Rhodes Scholar. He is unlikely to repeat the conduct that gave rise to this proceeding, and in his case the permissible alternative sanction of a reprimand will be sufficient. Others similarly situated - the people who put Mr. Hemenway up to filing this foolish suit are unlikely to be deterred, except by a penalty that would be unreasonable to impose on Mr. Hemenway alone.(4)

(4)http://www.obamacrimes.info / (last visited 3/24/09) 02/13/09: PRESS RELEASE - Berg Fighting On. 3 Pending Lawsuits to Expose Obama for not being Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President and Berg requests help to spread the word as the major media refuses . . . Request - Everyone who can - Please raise, by asking four <4> friends @ $15.00 each, or contribute $60.00 to us now. You can use PayPal or credit card on our website or mail a check.


Translation - "Berg is the one that by all rights SHOULD be slapped with a fine and penalty, and I'm hoping other judges do just that."

"John D. Hemenway is hereby reprimanded for his part in the preparation, filing, and prosecution of a legally frivolous suit in this court. The order to show cause is discharged. It is SO ORDERED."


So, no fine, but a "don't do this again" statement that doesn't look good to someone at the end of their career. Along with a desire to throw the kitchen sink at Berg and friends.

You know, I rather hope Dr. Orly ends up in his courtroom next...... *evil grin*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Excellent. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. BTW, they've filed a notice of appeal in Hollister v. Soetoro
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Not a surprise.....
But the chances that it will get anywhere, (and Robertson has a good track records of decisions being upheld in appeals) are slim, none, and forget it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'll take door number three, Pat
It'll be "Forget it".

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. One more BTW
Orly Haitz is all atwitter over her trash being forwarded to teh solicitor general:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/03/24/usdoj--office-of...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yep.
She doesn't quite seem to get the idea that it doesn't mean anything

Oh, check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/worldnetdail...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. Rule 11 and its state counterparts aren't used NEARLY often enough...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh. My. God.
That was awesome. I was going to say "I can't believe Philip Berg put an 82 year old man up to take the punch on his behalf." but silly me, we're talking about Philip Berg here. There are no depths he will leave unplumbed.

Having the Mad Dentist go in front of this judge would be something really special to see. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milspec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
24.  Mad Dentist
:toast: :rofl: I would love it. BTW has she ever had a real court case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Did somebody say "Mad Dentist"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. Nice post Pat
Judge Robertson is one very cool judge. This will get the Birthers' panties into a complete wad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. *Grin*
Yep. I know....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. So far, nothing
They're ignoring it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. The judge found John Hemenway violated Rule 11 by filing a pleading he knew was unmeritorious.
Edited on Tue Mar-24-09 05:55 PM by TexasObserver
Then the judge explained why he didn't impose a monetary sanction on a very old man who had served his country honorably for many years.

It was a well written and well reasoned decision. It was a public spanking for a long time lawyer, who let his political desires blind him to the basic requirements of filing cases in federal court, the most basic of which is: Don't file cases that you know lack merit or standing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Agreed!
The judge made it clear where he thought the sanctions should go. Hemmenway's sanction was more a "you should have known better" thing, but the judge let the venom drip for Berg.

And I'm actually happy that there was no fine involved. I didn't think it was right that Hemmenway should have taken a financial hit for Berg's misdeeds, and a fine would have just made Berg and crowd a martyr. And it defused the claims that Robertson was only doing this because he hoped President Obama would put him on the Supreme Court - Robertson made it very clear the limit of his reasons.

Woe be to Berg though when next he goes in front of a Federal judge - I suspect their patience with him, (Or Dr. Orly, or Kreep, or Pidgeon, or.....) is starting to come to an end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
15. Now that is a thing of beauty
and it gives me great pleasure. thanks for posting. Can't wait til the freepholes get a hold of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
16. WAIT! Hollister has filed an Appeal
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13435683/Hollister-Notice-of-...

Surely the Appeals Court will see the light of day, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. In a way, the Judge was too kind.
A lawyer shouldn't be able to duck responsibility for his or her actions just because "someone put them up to it." That's no excuse unless the lawyer or a member of his or her family has a gun pointed at them.

Regardless, I trust the Court did what it thought was just and wise.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I think he took the guy's age into account, too
had it been somebody in their thirties, he;'d have smacked him around hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-24-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. He said as much.
But age is no excuse, really. An older attorney, in fact, is usually expected to behave better than a younger one.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
20. The NUTTERS at Birther Central (aka Freak Repukelick) have noticed this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. once again Judge Robertson makes me proud to have worked for him
at the beginning of my legal career.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
21. Oh, and Orly Haitz says she's meeting with Senator Jon Kyl today
We'll see if they get a Senaotr to join the tinfoil hat brigade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Hope Sen. Kyl records it...
Considering Dr. Orly's tendency to make shit up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. I doubt he'll record it.
But how much do you want to bet he has to publicly repudiate her statements afterwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
27. "frivolous and vexatious litigation"
I think that's what it's called.

Rock on, JUDGE!!!!


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-25-09 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
28. Thanks PatGund..I'm only
following this because of a woman at my job who is so concerned about this. Otherwise intelligent but obviously needs to get her paronoid on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwenu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
29. LOL. We knew it was coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gauguin57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
30. Keep repeating to yourself: As long as the birthers are filing suits, they're not reproducing.
If they're spending all their nights doing paperwork on these bogus lawsuits, they're not having sex, and therefore are not producing more moronic freepers like themselves.

Knock yourselves out, you birthers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sub Atomic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-26-09 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
31. POST OF THE DAY!!
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 Thu Nov 15th 2018, 01:28 PM
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