Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending Case

The right side of Life ^ | 2/5/09 | Phil

[classical artist]

The following Order from DC District Court Judge James Robertson was issued for Hollister v. Soetoro yesterday:

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is denied. His motion to shorten time for defendants to respond to his complaint [#3] is moot and is denied. The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed. JAMES ROBERTSON United States District Judge

[classical artist]

The Judge did not dismiss the case. What does this mean?

[ConorMacNessa]

Robertson is a Clinton Appointee:

Judge Robertson was appointed United States District Judge in December 1994. He graduated from Princeton University in 1959 and received an LL.B. from George Washington University Law School in 1965 after serving in the U.S. Navy. From 1965 to 1969, he was in private practice with the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. From 1969 to 1972, Judge Robertson served with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as chief counsel of the Committee's litigation offices in Jackson, Mississippi, and as director in Washington, D.C. Judge Robertson then returned to private practice with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, where he practiced until his appointment to the federal bench. While in private practice, he served as president of the District of Columbia Bar, co-chair of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and president of Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education Project, Inc.

Dont look for anything good out of him.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!

[Red Steel]

The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.

It means the case goes on.

[karibdes]

1. Interpleader - It’s used to force two parties to litigate, usually, over property. For instance, if I have a car and you say it is yours and your ex wife says it is hers, and I really don’t know to whom it belongs, I can file suit, name you and your ex as parties, and make you litigate who owns it. That way,m I am legally protected. Otherwise, I could give it to the wrong person and get sued. I am not really sure why it’s party of this suit, haven’t read the pleadings, but the Court felt this portion was frivolous (ridiculous essentially) and dismissed it.

2. Motion to shorten Defendants’ time to respond is exactly what it says it is. It is a motion to ask the court to order a Defendant(s) to respond sooner than the rules require. Since the court said it was moot, and denied it, I assume the Defendants already responded.

3. Pro Hac Vice - That is a motion whereby an attorney is admitted to a court where he isn’t licensed to practice (he has to be an atty of course). It requires that there be a local counsel who is qualified to practice before the court. These usually don’t require a hearing and are done, pro forma, on paper via a written pleading. The fact that he is making Berg and all atty’s appear on this issue suggests the judge doesn’t think much of the case.

These motions are fairly pro forma and none are dispositive of the case. Except for making Berg appear to be admitted to practice before the court, nothing done by the court suggests anything as to the merits. So . . . as someone said . . . the case goes on.

[pickyourpoison]

Is this new news on the cases?

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Judge did not dismiss the case. What does this mean?

It means the case goes on for now. The defendants have not yet appeared and moved to dismiss. But the handwriting on the wall is there:

"Plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is denied"

"the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed."

Remember the people saying on these threads that "interpleader" was the brilliant strategy that would work this time?

[Mr. Lucky]

It means counsel are about to be sanctioned in open court.

[real_patriotic_american]

I still believe that Obama will soon have to produce his original birth certificate and other documents in some court.

[mkjessup]

Unless and until Comrade 0bama is compelled to produce the original vault copy of his birth certificate currently under seal by the Governor of Hawaii, his presidency, his administration, his executive orders, his appointments, ALL actions undertaken by this usurper are invalid, illegitimate, and illegal.

As for Comrade 0bama?

SHOW US THE DAMN BIRTH CERTIFICATE, you SOB!

[curiosity]

Unless and until Comrade 0bama is compelled to produce the original vault copy of his birth certificate

Why is the vault copy necessary? What's wrong with the short form?

[Lurking Libertarian]

1. Interpleader - It’s used to force two parties to litigate, usually, over property. For instance, if I have a car and you say it is yours and your ex wife says it is hers, and I really don’t know to whom it belongs, I can file suit, name you and your ex as parties, and make you litigate who owns it. That way, I am legally protected. Otherwise, I could give it to the wrong person and get sued. I am not really sure why it’s part of this suit, haven’t read the pleadings, but the Court felt this portion was frivolous (ridiculous essentially) and dismissed it.?

They claimed their "loyalty" was a form of "intangible property" and they didn't know if they owed it to Obama or someone else. When they filed this suit, some people around here were claiming that this was the brilliant legal maeuver that would finally force Obama from office. The judge, quite correctly, recognized it as "frivolous" (as you said, that's legalese for "ridiculous"). "Loyalty" isn't property, and no one was facing competing claims that could subject them to dual liability.

[bossmechanic]

thank you for factual definitions.
Sometimes it’s difficult for idiot engineers like me to
understand the legal lingo.

[bossmechanic]

Surely you aren’t serious.
Ya might add a (sarc) sorta thing...

There is no short form. People have real birth certificates, signed by the attending doctor, validating
time and place of birth from a mother. The male sperm donor may not be on the cert but the mom’s there.

All folks on this web have ever asked for is access to the true vault version of Obama’s birth. But ya can’t get it without his or family’s personal approval. Now why would Mr. Obama refuse for 6 months to release the most fundamental and simple records.

Since no one but the ONE knows the answer, I guess we’re all in the same boat.

Let’s hope the boat don’t sink.

[karibdes]

HAHA No worries. You ought to see this idiot lawyer with engineering =)

[karibdes]

Ah. Thanks so much. I just couldn’t figure out fo the life of me how interpleader applied. =)

Yeah, not a good argument.

[hoosiermama]

Yes.

[mkjessup]

Why is the vault copy necessary? What's wrong with the short form?

The vault copy contains ALL the data relating to 0bama's birth (example, attending physician, actual medical facility, official father, and considering that Hawaii allowed parents to register the birth of a child born on foreign soil as if it had been born on U.S. soil, which is a critical issue in this regard), and the vault copy is far less likely to have been doctored or tampered with as have been the dubious 'short form' copies that have proliferated online, copies that have been demonstrated to be forgeries.

And it would put to rest the $64 dollar question, "why, among all of the Presidents of the United States of America, does Barack Hussein Obama stand alone in spending a small fortune and employing the services of many attorneys to keep the details of his birth secret and concealed from the public?"

Do you think for one minute that the lamestream media would have given ANY Republican President or President-elect a pass were they to engage in this kind of secretive behavior?

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[Scanian]

What’s wrong with the short form?

You’d be better served to ignore the trolls and obfuscators. The same site pests show up on these threads time and time again to write the same specious nonsense, just looking to destroy the thread by annoying serious constitutionalists. THEY KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT FACTCHECK POS!

[mkjessup]

You’d be better served to ignore the trolls and obfuscators. The same site pests show up on these threads time and time again to write the same specious nonsense, just looking to destroy the thread by annoying serious constitutionalists. THEY KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT FACTCHECK POS!

Oh I'm not bothered by such common kitchen vermin, and just like cockroaches, I love smashin 'em with the truth.

But thanks for your concern, it's appreciated! :)