Posted on 03/26/2009 1:49:44 PM PDT by mrmeangenes
"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 person’s 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)."
"Many people, perhaps as many as a couple of dozen, feel deeply about this issue."
"Attempts have been made to tee the question up for judicial resolution in a number of courts across the country. See, defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. #9-1 p. 3, n.1]. Mr. Hemenway’s 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."
"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."
"I have no business addressing the merits, because, having found that Mr. Hemenway’s interpleader suit failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, I have dismissed it. "
"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. Hemenway’s 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."
"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. Hollister’s 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. Hemenway’s complaint did not even allege the sine qua non of an interpleader suit -– that “[t]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. Hemenway’s 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)."
"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.
"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 [Dkt. #22] is discharged. It is SO ORDERED."
No mas.
Interesting opinion. The judge ruled (1) the right to petition for redress of grievances is an important right; (2) The suit alleges a grievance which may well have legal merit [that the president of the United States is constitutionally prohibited from serving]; and (3) the lawyer who brought the suit should be reprimanded for having filed the suit [lack of legal standing].
Lyin’ SOB activist judges...
ANY US voter should have standing to bring this suit. And, if any cause is actionable, it should be a fundamental Constitutional question, as this one most assuredly is.
I’m not buyin’ it...
It’s time to take back the country.
Judge Robertson? Judge Roberts?
The bottom line is that Hemenway blistered Robertson with criticism, and demanded the right of discovery ( of Obama’s BC ), and Robertson meekly backed down. His bluff was called and he folded.
1. Sorry, People ! I said “Robertson” instead of ROBERTS.
(Old age.)
2.”The bottom line is that Hemenway blistered Robertson with criticism, and demanded the right of discovery ( of Obama’s BC ), and Robertson meekly backed down. His bluff was called and he folded.”
I read through the order 3 times, and didn’t see one word about Roberts “backing down”;nor did I see any reference to blistering criticism.
I DID see he chose to issue a simple reprimand as the sole sanction - citing Atty. Hemenway’s age and long, honorable service.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92149
“And now you’ve heard the rest of the story!”
Paul Harvey
Did you read Mr. Hemenway’s Show of Cause? I would suggest reading the Supplemental Show of Cause as well.
The judge was basically faced with backing down or holding a hearing and granting discovery (i.e., forcing the defendant Soteoro/Obama to produce a certified birth certificate).. call it what you may, it’s backing down.
I am pleased Patriot Hemenway stood his ground. Judge Robertson had threatened him with serious financial sanctions, i.e., paying the legal fees of Obama and Biden. Instead, Judge Robertson instead issued a ‘reprimand.’ I’d call that backing down.
I’m completely confused. Are we talking about the Supreme Court’s Justice Roberts?
I got pretty confused myself - because I was right the first time ! (Hey: I’m a geezer !)
It was Judge ROBERTSON , and his ruling dealt with sanctions for filing a “frivolous” case.
“Standing” in a case involving national office is possessed by all citizens having attained the age of majority.
“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 [Dkt. #22] is discharged. It is SO ORDERED.”
For more “fun reading”, I refer you to the online publication that has been promoting this matter:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
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.