Posted on 02/25/2009 4:55:05 PM PST by 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).
Indeed they do as of course they are humans as well. We do know that humans are also capable of doing things intentionally. We don't know either way. Maybe they didn't, maybe they did. Obviously, if they did, that is indeed judical activism playing the part of lawmakers. Without question, the Constitution doesn't give the judiciary the power to make law. Therefor, it would be a major Constitutional issue.
Again, we don't know for sure at this point as both 'sides' could be assumed.
“... this is a reality, simulatin’ another reality, after bein’ co-opted by a third reality...”
Why yes, old boy, that’s exactly what I was trying to say!
“His goons control the clerks at SCOTUS as well as the clerks there cheered him when he visited.”
If bo controlled the clerks at SCOTUS, none of these cases would have gone to conference.
I understand why people get discouraged but the darkest hour is right before the dawn.
Frankly, I am encouraged by the extraordinary upset that this is causing bo.
bo is desperately trying to keep SCOTUS from making a decision on the merits because he knows that when they do, he is finished, legally speaking, of course.
Thanks. Keeping my fingers crossed. I hope Berg can get more help or some interns to stay on top of his cases.
I think if SCOTUS gets the right case they will do something.
Do you think this is maybe a thought in the back of Obama’s mind in his pushing all this crap through; that his days are numbered possibly as POTUS?
Yes, but I do not think bo will go away easily. He will try to take away our right to bear arms, our right to free speech, our right to associate and assemble, our right to petition the Courts. Essentially he is trying to take away all of our civil rights.
He will also try to take control of the National Guard in every State.
He wants to establish a Dictatorship. He knows that is the only way he will survive politically.
I agree with this. He has to have control of everything he can. What the people who voted for him don’t understand is a dictator doesn’t have friends. They are not compassionate. They murder if you don’t go their way.
Unfortunately, these voters are going to find out they will go the way of the rest of us. They too will be thrown under the bus.
In other words, once your usefulness is gone; so are you.
Accournding to Linda Starr over at obamacrimes.us, they believe the judge in this case is the issue. meaning, the documents were fine when accessed by everyone else.
"In this Honorable Court’s Order to Show Cause his Honor states he received “many blank pages, decorated only by what appear to be botanical drawings and the illegible photocopy of an Hawaiian certificate of live birth.…The blank pages were either somebody's idea of a joke (in which case I don't get it) or a mistake.” Counsel for Plaintiff would never file blank pages or attempt to play any type of a joke on this Honorable Court as Counsel for Plaintiff have too much respect for the Judicial system."
"4. Plaintiff’s Brief and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants Motion to Dismiss does contain as EXHIBIT “2” the Hawaii Department of Home Lands manual with a sample copy of a Hawaiian certificate of live birth. Three(3) pages in the Hawaii Department of Home Lands manual has a picture of a tree, however, this document as well as all pages filed in Plaintiff’s Brief and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants Motion are very legible and are on the Pacer Court docketing system as item thirteen (13). See EXHIBIT “A”. There are absolutely no blank pages in Plaintiff’s Brief and supporting Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants Motion to Dismiss. The entire Brief and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants Motion is very clear, legible and accessible on Pacer."
"This Honorable Court also made note of the Declaration of Paralegal, Lisa Liberi, “a paralegal (who works in the office of a Pennsylvania lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in this Court)”. Counsel for Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire and Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire, sponsored by Washington, D.C. licensed attorney, John D. Hemenway, Esquire, filed a Motion on December 31, 2008 requesting Admittance to the Court pro hac vice. Although Judge Robertson ruled February 11, 2009 that he was holding these motions in Abeyance, a hearing has not been set by this Honorable Court to rule on Mr. Berg and Mr. Joyce’s pro hac vice requests."
It is about time to stop f-ing around with these lower courts and just get the case before SCOTUS upon Original Jurisdiction!
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is very limited. I asked you on a prior thread what the jurisdictional basis would be for an original jurisdiction suit before SCOTUS against Obama, and I don't recall your answering. Can you explain the basis for the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in this case?
“I asked you on a prior thread what the jurisdictional basis would be for an original jurisdiction suit before SCOTUS against Obama, and I don’t recall your answering.”
Sorry 2 hear about UR recall problem.
Refreshing UR memory, I told U 2 go ask bob the bo’s dumb lawyer.
Meaning you have no answer. OK.
"UPDATE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DISCHARGED"
It's time to move to the appeals level?
Please explain what this means. Was it thrown out...any other recourse?
This is very interesting, and from Orly's Site:
Military Officer Oath Analysis
There is a huge difference between the military enlisted oath and the officer oath.
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
Enlisted Oath
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Officer Oath -
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. We only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a Presidential Usurper).
Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constitution. Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters. The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.
Let's see if SCOTUS runs and hides again. They failed to live up to their oaths by ignoring the prior cases. I pray they will wise up very soon and honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/05/open-letter-from-brigadier-general-charles-jone.aspx
Open Letter from Brigadier General Charles Jones
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/24/major-general-commanding-general-carroll-d-childers-joins-military-suit.aspx
Major General Commanding General Carroll D. Childers Joins Military Suit
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/23/col-riley-former-division-chief-national-security-agency-joins-our-action-2.aspx
Col. Riley former division chief national security agency joins our action
http://defendourfreedoms.us/2009/02/23/dr-taitzs-military-action-welcomes-officer-easterling.aspx
Officer Easterling, Active military officer deployed with the US military in Iraq
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.