Posted on 02/05/2009 2:45:47 PM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at therightsideoflife.com ...
In the past, he has given both Clinton and Bush absolute fits.
What’s a legal “maeuver”? Where did Col. Hollister claim he wanted to interplead his loyalty? And why isn’t a duty to answer as an officer in the Individual Ready Reserve an asset?
8 posted on Thu 05 Feb 2009 06:16:44 PM EST by real_patriotic_american
*******
Do you happen to know how the Supreme Court learned that Obama was born in the United States?
Myself, I can't figure out how the Supreme Court knows, or thinks it knows, that Obama was born in the United States. Thanks.
I agree with you in questioning Obama’s proof of (or actually- lack of proof of) being a Natural Born American citizen. Is there an official who can verify that his original birth certificate shows him to be a citizen?
Obama is not eligible to serve as President until he proves it!!
Sorry-- my bad. That was a typo for "maneuver."
Where did Col. Hollister claim he wanted to interplead his loyalty?
In his Complaint in this lawsuit.
And why isn’t a duty to answer as an officer in the Individual Ready Reserve an asset?
Because it is not "property" as defined in the law, and because this is not the type of case for which the interpleader statute was intended.
That’s the beauty of a vague order of dismissal. The judge said the suit was “frivolous” and you have maneuvered that into an adjudication as to legal definition of property, the correct interpretation of an Interpleader complaint and the interchangeability of duty and loyalty.
Does an officer have a duty (a/k/a loyalty) to present his credentials upon arrival at post? Shouldn’t the Commander in Chief do the same?
The judge said the interpleader part of the suit was frivolous. I am giving you my opinion of why that is. If you think there was a different basis for the judge's decision, please let me know. (I suspect we will get a fuller understanding of the judge's reasoning when he rules on defendants' motion to dismiss the case in its entirety.)
Does an officer have a duty (a/k/a loyalty) to present his credentials upon arrival at post? Shouldn’t the Commander in Chief do the same?
An officer doesn't present his credentials to a court, and if some citizen filed a lawsuit claiming that an officer's credentials were forged, the court would dismiss the case, because reviewing credentials is not a judicial function. Obama's credentials were judged sufficient when Vice President Cheney and the full membership of the House and Senate unanimously voted on January 8 to declare him Presdent-elect. If they made a mistake, it is not one a court is going to second-guess.
During his interview on the Andrea Shea King show Friday 1/30 (I believe) he sounded as if he was putting more 'faith' in the case that's currently sealed because that case (the sealed case) put's the burden of proof fully on the defendant(s) whereas the interpleader case he said only partly put the burden on the defendants...at least, that's what Berg stated.
It's been theorized that this sealed case is the type of criminal case known as a "Qui Tam"
None of which is relevant to his eligibility.
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,
That is false.
which is a critical issue in this regard), and the vault copy is far less likely to have been doctored or tampered
What makes you think it is harder to tamper with the vault copy?
with as have been the dubious 'short form' copies that have proliferated online, copies that have been demonstrated to be forgeries.
And what evidence have you that it's any harder to forge a vault copy?
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?"
Your premise is incorrect. He is not doing this.
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?
When McCain's eligibility was questioned, he posted a photocopy of his birth certificate on the internet and that shut everyone up. Obama did the same, but it did not have the same effect.
McCain posted his original birth certificate - not a forgery.
The short form is an official document issued by the state that contains the time and place of birth, and it is prima facie evidence of it accepted in any court.
All folks on this web have ever asked for is access to the true vault version of Obama’s birth.
Why do you care who the physican was? Why do you care what the hospital name was? The reason it is not released is because it is not relevant to anything.
He posted an official copy of his long form. It was not the original.
Obama posted an official short form.
Both documents suffice to prove the location of birth, as well as the identity of the parents.
The only thing missing from Obama's is information about physician's name, the hospital, and the like, none of which is relevant to the question of his eligibility.
You said — “I still believe that Obama will soon have to produce his original birth certificate and other documents in some court.”
They might try a Russian court, since Pravda has been writing articles about these cases. I’m sure they’ll find some court around the world to take it, if not here. The “World Court” might even be persuaded to find jurisdiction in the matter...
You said — “SHOW US THE DAMN BIRTH CERTIFICATE, you SOB!”
It is becoming “oh so apparent” that Obama is “showing everyone” that he only has to do what all the other candidates have been required to do in the past. Nothing more than that.
Of course, I don’t know why people can’t “get that” — as that’s just the normal thing that candidates have been required to do.
As I’ve said, it’s clear that the vetting system has never required the kind of documentation that is being asked for now. If that is desired, then it will take a state law (or a Constitutional Amendment) to require certain kinds and specific documentation, written into the statute, itself, in order to require these things...
You said — “Remember the people saying on these threads that “interpleader” was the brilliant strategy that would work this time?”
Yes, indeed, I do remember that.
But..., have no worries — you’ll be told that this is also part of that *brilliant plan* — to have it denied as frivolous... (oh..., you didn’t know that?)...
You said — “Obama is not eligible to serve as President until he proves it!!”
That’s what they call “beating a dead horse”... In case you haven’t noticed, Obama is the President, regardless of individuals making pronouncements that he’s not.
Obama has not needed to prove anything more than any other candidate has been required to prove by any of the processes that they went through or any court has demanded of them.
He has (along with his campaign and the party) signed legal statements saying that he is qualified to be President. And that’s pretty well as much as any other candidate has been required to do.
AND SO..., that’s why this vetting process if broken and needs to be fixed. See what the states of Oklahoma and Arizona are doing about fixing that.
You said — “McCain posted his original birth certificate - not a forgery.”
And according to Leo Donofrio, that doesn’t make any difference because he says McCain is just as disqualified to be President.
But, besides that, McCain was not *required* to show it. He just thought it was a good political move to show it and did so. What is not required — cannot be *demanded* to be shown, but can only be volunteered, if the person wants to. In McCain’s case, he wanted to. In Obama’s case, he has not done any more than what he’s presented to the public, thus far. Any further demands for documents, he has not agreed to or volunteered to do.
And, at this present time, Obama is the President.
You said — “Hey, the weekend is upon us, I’m sure you’ll be able to find plenty of other threads to troll.”
Comments which disagree with your viewpoint are not trolls. There are those who wish to make it so that anyone who disagrees with what is said on these types of threads as trolls, but to say that means that no one could have *any discussion* or *any disagreements* on Free Republic. LOL...
This is a discussion forum and it’s up to the individual posters to bring their viewpoints to the issue at hand, regardless of what someone else may think about it.
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.