Posted on 03/25/2009 6:51:50 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen
But not acccurate, just like his original opinion.
Not only that but the comment by Judge Robertson is nonsensical and contradictory to the language of Rule 11.
Obviously by asserting that the complaint had no basis in the law or any extension of the law and in quoting the rule he brings the merits directly into issue. The object of the Show Cause had to deal with the merits to defend himself so for the judge to complain in a snarky way about Hemenway’s doing so makes no sense.
As usual you display your ignorance. It is a different suit with a different plaintiff. Therefore there is no claim or issue preclusion. Now, run and ask your “lawyer friends” what those last words mean. At least you are just ignorance. Judge Robertson is thoroughly familiar with these legal concepts and chose to ignore them in a frivolous decision.
“He’s not the President because he’s an usurper.”
_____________
Obama won the majority of the popular vote. he won the majority of the Electoral College. The election was cdertified by the elected legislature and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court administered the oath of office (twice).
Get over it and move on.
And obviously you didn't read Judge Robertson's decision. Link.
Now, run and ask your “lawyer friends” what those last words mean.
I know what it means. Judge Robertson correctly points out that you are wrong in that.
Judge Robertson is thoroughly familiar with these legal concepts and chose to ignore them in a frivolous decision.
You mean frivolous case, don't you?
I'm a little confused here...
isn't... "having found that Mr. Hemenway’s interpleader suit failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"...
a conclusion derived from addressing the merits?
...and what's an "interpleader suit"?
A suit filed by someone who has no direct interest in the underlying reason for the suit. The classic example is if you find a valuable article and two or more people claim ownership of it. You can file an interpleader suit and ask the court to determine who the actual owner is.
No, you obviously don’t know what issue preclusion means or claim preclusion means.
Judge Robertson’s opinion was frivolous and without warrant in the law in that it evoked these two concepts but cited no authority to support them other than internet concepts that have no legal authority or status in the law. From a federal judge this is quite frivolous and, frankly, unlike him.
To quote Walter Williams, you are not only ignorant, you are arrogant. But I encourage you to keep displaying both traits. I think it’s truly educational for people to see the sheer mindlessness of your sycophancy.
Well when it comes to ignorance and arrogance who better than you would know?
“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 think he’s being too polite calling him a blue gum baboon!
Well I have repeatedly had to point out your total ignorance of what you purport to be discussing so I guess I do know.
Obviously you prefer being an ignorant toady to actually learning anything about what you utter. It hardly advances any discussion
Of course you have. By saying the judge doesn't know what he's doing but you do. Not overly persuasive.
No, actually I pointed out the law involved, which you obviously have no knowledge of whatsoever.
And, according to you, neither does the judge. So I'm to accept your interpretation over his?
If a lawsuit is dismissed "for lack of standing", isn't the ONLY way to get the merits of the suit heard entail bringing in a plaintiff with standing? If your statement were true, then the concept of "standing" would trump any and all other legal concepts that can be masked behind it at the whim of the black-robed oligarchy.
Can you name the law that he interpreted?
I didn’t think so.
What authority does a judge have to “hold in contempt” someone who is not before his court?
We didn’t think so.
Any citizen is free to criticize any judge when that citizen is not before the court. The letter writer’s point is that this is guaranteed by the Constitution. You are proposing that a judge can “hold in contempt” a citizen not before his court who gives a characterization he does not like of the man sitting in the White House.
That would be a trapping of the royal tyranny we fought to be free of. That obviously means nothing to you.
Why don't you just read his decision? He's pretty clear in why he tossed this case out. The judge saw through Berg's charade and threw it out for the same reasons why Berg's earlier case had been thrown out; lack of any legal standing on the part of the plaintiff.
I was right, you don’t have a clue. You could not name a law or legal principle involved in the decisions so far in this case unless you talked to your “lawyer friends.” You clearly could not articulate a single actual legal point about Judge Robertson’s opinions on your own. It is equally clear that as long as it protects your slavishly worshiped occupant of the White House you don’t care about the law. Further, your assumption clearly is that judges never err so long as they act so as to protect someone you politically favor. Why participate in this discussion if you are so resolutely determined not to engage in any reasoned debate? It obviously gives you emotional satisfaction but it has nothing whatsover to do with the rule of law.
Curious .... What does Orly have to do with the article posted in this thread?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.