ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Hollister v Soetoro (re Berg)

scribd ^ | 2/25/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

New Court Order in Hollister v. Soetoro

Filed & Entered: 02/25/2009 Docket Text Order to Show Cause

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12825890/Order-to-Show-Cause

That doesn't look good on Berg (the case).

[myson]

the suit was filed as an interpleader suit which requires the filing of a motion for leave to file interpleader. This is because, interplaeder suits are about proprties related to commercial transactions, so if by that leave a court sees that it isnt about the type of property which can be obtained by an interpleader suit the court can quickly dispose of it.

In the above suit the motion to try the suit as an interpleader suit was denied as the judge didnt feel a human life, the plaintiff, was a property which commercial transactions are allowed. However the court kept the suit alive so that another type of action action maybe sought.
The defendants had earleir filed for the case to be dismissed as it wasnt an interpleader type suit, so the jugde asked the plaintiff to file just legal argument — laws, case laws— as to why the whole suit should not be dismissed.
Instead of the plaintiff to file a responds to the motion to dismiss, they refiled there matter still as an interpleader. The judge found that unacceptable & asked then to file a responds to the motion to dismiss.
This latest ruling is stating that what was filed didnt meet the definition of a respond as some pages were blank so the judge asked them to refile as he wasnt completely sure the blank pages were an error. So they have until 5pm 2day to refile a respond to the motion to dismiss

[FreeManN]

Bottom line folks is these cases need to be filed in SCOTUS upon Original Jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding Donofrio’s “wussy” post and Orly’s protestations, SCOTUS has been very considerate of these cases.

The same can not be said of the lower courts for a variety of reasons.

Again, these cases need to be filed in SCOTUS.

Despite this setback, Berg has the best shot at producing a winning case at this time.

Orly’s problems with her client Easterling have put what may be an overwhelming burden on her ability to continue prosecuting her cases.

There are a number of cases being developed that are not yet reported. So the curious cases against bo are far from over.

We have only begun this legal fight.

[freekitty]

Couldn’t they have just put blank page inserted as they sent? Unless of course it was error or someone else put them there.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Why would the judge say that evidently Berg “has not been admitted to practice in this court?”

Berg is a Pennsylvania lawyer, but he filed a lawsuit in D.C., where he is not licensed.

[freekitty]

Why did they file this as interpleader in the first place. Those kinds of cases are ususally about estates or insurance claims of parties where a third party comes in.

[Lurking Libertarian]

So far as I can tell in this particular case, it looks like the clerk for the court required something of the plaintiff that wasn't required. So the paralegal files documentary evidence of what transpired. Then, the judge takes it out on the plaintiff's paralegal? This appears to me that the judge on this case is basically saying he and his court are above the rules.

What the judge's order states is this:

The plaintiff filed an interpleader action--that is a special kind of lawsuit where one person is holding money or property and isn't sure who it belongs to and asks the court to tell him who to pay so he doesn't wind up paying twice. The Complaint said that the "property" they were holding was their "loyalty" to the President and they needed interpleader because they don't know who the real President is. (Aside: when this lawsuit was first filed, I posted here that this was a frivolous claim, and got seriously flamed for saying that.)

The Judge said that it was frivolous to sue for interpleader because "loyalty" is not property. However, he didn't dismiss the Complaint because the defendants hadn't yet asked him to.

Obama then moved to dismiss the Complaint and Berg missed the deadline to respond to Obama's motion to dismiss. The judge gave Berg more time to respond to the motion. Berg still didn't respond to the motion to dismiss. Instead, he has his paralegal file an affidavit saying that the court clerk bullied her into filing a motion she didn't have to file. The judge said that he ordered Berg to respond, not the paralegal, and that what he wanted was a response to the motion to dismiss, not an explanation for the filing of the motion. The judge is now giving Berg a third chance to respond to the motion to dismiss.

Added to all of this is that Berg is not licensed to practice law in D.C. He filed a motion to be admitted "pro hac vice" -- that is, allowed to practice just for this one case. The judge said that he is not inclined to do that because Berg is clearly not following court rules (although he has not definitively rejected Berg's motion yet).

[Lurking Libertarian]

Can Berg then take this case to SCOTUS if it is dismissed?

No. He can appeal the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. If they affirm the dismissal he can ask SCOTUS to hear the case, but they don't have to.

[rxsid]

True.

However, that doesn’t address my question. How can the court (the clerk) require something that isn’t required? Is this particular court above the rules (law) such that they can mandate whatever they want whenever they want?

[Frantzie]

if the DC Circuit does not affirm the dismissal will they take it? It appears O’s goons are trying to make these go away.

[Lurking Libertarian]

However, that doesn’t address my question. How can the court (the clerk) require something that isn’t required? Is this particular court above the rules (law) such that they can mandate whatever they want whenever they want?

We don't know for sure what the clerk said-- all we have is something from Berg's paralegal, and I personally think that Berg's credibility is questionable. But it does happen sometimes that clerks make mistakes, and there is a procedure for asking the judge to correct them 9which Berg didn't follow).

But all of that is a sideshow here. The judge's order has nothing to do with whether Berg followed (or disn't follow) the clerk's alleged advice. Berg is being called on the carpet for missing three deadlines to respond to the motion to dismiss. Instead of responding, he filed something about how the clerk supposedly bullied his paralegal-- not a response to the motion to dismiss.

[Frantzie]

I think berg is admitted in federal Court and the DC Circuit AFAIK is Fed Court.

[Lurking Libertarian]

if the DC Circuit does not affirm the dismissal will they take it? It appears O’s goons are trying to make these go away.

It looks like the case is going to be dismissed on default-- Berg keeps missing deadlines to respond. That is hardly the kind of issue the Supreme Court hears.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I think berg is admitted in federal Court and the DC Circuit AFAIK is Fed Court.

You don't get admitted to "federal court"-- you get admitted to a federal court. You must apply to each one separately. (Take it from me, I am admitted to 14 different federal courts, and there are nearly 100 I am not admitted to.)

[Frantzie]

What about Gary Kreep’s case with Alan Keyes? Keyes should have standing as Scalia said at a college speech that another candidate would have standing. The harm issue may be harder because the other side could argue that Keyes did not have a chance of winning but if O was disqualified Keyes might have had a better shot.

Is CA trying to just slow Kreep’s case to a crawl?

What is Orly’s problem with Easterling?

[Star Traveler]

You said — “Have you met Star Traveler?”

Ummm..., MHGinTN — I don’t believe you have even met me... LOL...

—

[... at least I’m not suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome... ]

[rxsid]

"But all of that is a sideshow here"

True, this is a tangential issue...however, if that is indeed true that the court required something that isn't required...that's hardly a sideshow IMO.

It could be seen as judicial activism or the judiciary acting as lawmakers.

That would be another major Constitutional issue there unto itself.

[Lurking Libertarian]

True, this is a tangential issue...however, if that is indeed true that the court required something that isn't required...that's hardly a sideshow IMO. It could be seen as judicial activism or the judiciary acting as lawmakers. That would be another major Constitutional issue there unto itself.

Courts make mistakes all the time-- they are staffed by human beings. That's why we have appellate courts. An alleged error by the clerk's office is hardly a "constitutional crisis," especially when it has no impact on the outcome of the case.

[Sibre Fan]

Obama then moved to dismiss the Complaint and Berg missed the deadline to respond to Obama's motion to dismiss....

I don't think Berg missed the deadline. He filed an Amended Complaint on February 9 (when the opposition was due), apparently believing that that obviated the need for an opposition.

The Judge disagreed and issued an order (available on Right Side of Life that read:
"Plaintiff's amended complaint [#11] adds nothing to the original complaint except rhetoric and legal theory and creates no obligation upon the defendants to respond to it. Nor is the amended complaint responsive to defendants' motion to dismiss [#9], opposition to which was due on 2/9/09. Unless points and authorities in opposition to the motion to dismiss are filed by 2/13/09, the motion will be treated as conceded and granted. It is SO ORDERED."

Berg then filed an Opposition on February 13th. He filed both the Opposition Brief and the Declaration. See Pasted text from Docket at obamacrimes.com.

However, from what I can tell reading other sites following this case, something was wrong with the document. Some people had no problems with it but others couldn't open it correctly or print it. It seems that the Judge could not see the document either as the Order said that he had a bunch of blank pages, plus the Declaration.

[FreeManN]

There are so many BO cases pending that I really don't have time to comment on all of them.

So I am now just focusing on the lawyers that have made it to Conference with SCOTUS.

Donofrio made it but he quit.

Out of respect and regard for Orly, I am not going to comment about the problems with her cases.

So that leaves Berg. He has 3 cases that are still pending and he is about to file his 4th.

Berg is the best of the bunch at legal writing, case management and client relations, the nuts and bolts of the legal profession.

At this point, IMHO Berg has the best shot at being successful. www.ObamaCrimes.info

[Frantzie]

Thanks for the update. I wish Leo had stuck it out but he was doing it on his own. His case he wrote for Cort is still there. I hope Berg can take in across the goal line.

He was very good the other night on Savage radio show.