More documents, another case.... HOLLISTER v. SOETORO.
Posted on 11/09/2009 5:51:03 PM PST by rxsid
A new court filling in the HOLLISTER v. SOETORO case:
Hollister-v-Soetoro-Hemenway-Reply
Hope it sticks..........................
More documents, another case.... HOLLISTER v. SOETORO.
~~PING!
Someone please humor me, I just finished painting a bathroom... I am too tired to think... what does this filing pertain to?
Thanks!
PS Yes the bathroom looks great!
Nice read - also hope it sticks!
If someone tells you, can you ping me?
I still am braindead from flu.
Nothing.
Among other things, notice to be taken of the two different versions of certification by Pelosi to the state electoral officials. Why the altered document?
I guess it’s too difficult for you, eh?
It’s like reading The Economist v. People, the fare that we’ve become used to in the eligibility suits. A lot of legalese, without all the invective and charges of bias, treason, your mother dresses you funny, etc.
Bottom line is, apparently, Hemenway filed some documents for the court to ‘take judicial notice’ of. The Obama team didn’t file an opposition. The court demanded an explanation of why they didn’t oppose, or, if no objection filed, the court WOULD take judicial notice.
So Team Obama filed their objection, with what Hemenway claims are misleading statements, and then sets out to show how those claims are ‘misrepresentations,’ which is legalese for ‘lies.’
I found it interesting, but that’s me. I read The Economist.
Public record documents from the proceedings in the case before the Middle District of California can be taken notice of. The Kenyan birth certificate submitted with its supporting statement under penalty of perjury, for example, should be taken notice of, not for its validity, but for the fact that it has been submitted and so raises a question that should be examined since the same inquiry is sought in this case.and...
The official records put out by Speaker of the House Pelosi, in two different versions in her capacity as a Party Official participating in the public record of the electoral process can be taken notice of, not as to the truth of one versus the other, but for the fact that two different versions existed, both officially certified, and apparently a different version was sent to one state as opposed to other states. This raises the same question that alteration of documents always does, a presumption of deception or fraud that requires inquiry.as well as...
The Cheney failure to allow the required objections is a record part of the electoral process. Any extraneous commentary to what is noticeable can simply be ignored. What we see here is an outrageous misrepresentation of the law and even of the facts of the Rule cited followed by little more than name calling of what was presented.
Bump post 14. Excellent summary.
I did not know about this one. So we have this case, Berg, and Apuzzo at the court of appeals level. Is that right?
Looks like Orly is still taking on Judge Carter hoping to keep her January trial date
Right. Although, Berg is a part of this suit. I believe he’s taken more “credit” (for bringing the suit) or more public attention than the actual role he’s played though.
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.