Skip to comments.
Hollister v Soetoro DISMISSED (US DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - 3/5/09)
scribd ^
| 3/5/2009
| rxisd
Posted on 03/05/2009 1:52:30 PM PST by rxsid
ORDER For the reasons set forth in an accompanying memorandum, the defendants' motion to dismiss [#9] is granted, and John D. Hemenway is ordered to show cause within eleven days of the date of this order why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13033216/Dismissed
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: akaobama; berg; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; hollister; hollistervsoetoro; obama; philipberg; soetoro; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 341-350 next last
To: mrmeangenes
Where is the proof that he was born in the US? Have you — or anyone — seen a birth certificate, stating that Dr. SO-and-So delivered a healthy male child at XXX hour on XXX day at XXX hospital?
61
posted on
03/05/2009 3:51:47 PM PST
by
JoeA
(JoeA / welcome to third world politics.)
To: rxsid
Barry's
Version looks nothing like this
Decosta Short Form COLB:
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/?action=view¤t=doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
Looking at his version, you can not even come close to reading the state seal of HI (like you can this one) cause it's not there.
62
posted on
03/05/2009 3:55:35 PM PST
by
rxsid
To: curiosity
That is a great quote. This judge indeed has a sharp tongue. I hope he slaps a giant fine of Berg and his minions. Yeah, but where is the damn BC? Not that derivative instrument, fake or no, which was posted on the internet, but the real thing. Or are you saying the American public has no right to ask as long as its your guy doing the stonewalling?
To: rxsid
Why didn't he post that same version on his campaign web site?
My guess would be bandwidth issues. Since the high resolution versions were made available to the public, what other reason can you think of for resizing the image placed on the Fight the Smears site?
Here's why, the version that was posted on the Barry friendly web sites doesn't have an official state seal either.
Yes, it does. You don't even need to apply any sort of image enhancement to see it.
Perhaps you need a better monitor or eyeglasses?
To: rxsid
Supreme Court is obviously complicit in the take over and collapse of USA. Tar, Feathers, Pitchforks, Rocks, and last resort, use your imagination but this must be stopped.
To: rxsid
"Where's Barry's 1961 Long form Certificate of Live Birth???? "
66
posted on
03/05/2009 4:02:55 PM PST
by
rxsid
To: rxsid
"This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end." The day I believe anything a Clintonite judge says about the law is the day hell freezes over.
Clinton's federal judge appointments are notoriously partisan. There was the Clinton judge that took shots at Sarah Palin from the bench!: Judge: Palin Used Her Child As a 'Prop', there was the Clinton appointee that "judged" Free Republic, and there are many other examples of partisan Democrat activity on the bench by Clinton appointees.
This Robertson character was himself part of a little club during the Clinton administration, as Alamo-Girl documents, he was part of "The Magnificent Seven", a group of the first seven Clinton appointees to the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Being sanctioned or attacked by Robertson in the Obama case is like Dred Scott being caned by Roger B. Taney for being "uppity".
It's pretty much a forgone conclusion with that corrupt little crew in the D.C. District Court.
To: curiosity
I hope he slaps a giant fine of Berg and his minions. I hope the day comes when people like you quit pretending to uphold the constitution.
68
posted on
03/05/2009 4:04:32 PM PST
by
Krodg
To: rxsid
His does not look like this:
69
posted on
03/05/2009 4:04:58 PM PST
by
rxsid
To: Michael Michael
70
posted on
03/05/2009 4:05:29 PM PST
by
usmcobra
(Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
To: Michael Michael
Welcome to Free Republic! Hope the pay and bennies are pretty good!
To: rxsid
Factchecks looks nothing like the other, Decosta COLB which contains the state seal
Your right, there's something there. In that ver7 high resolution pic, can you read the state seal like you can of the much smaller seal in the Decosta image? No. That isn't the state seal. Who needs the glasses?
72
posted on
03/05/2009 4:11:38 PM PST
by
rxsid
To: rxsid
Barry's Version looks nothing like this
Decosta Short Form COLB:
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/?action=view¤t=doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
Looking at his version, you can not even come close to reading the state seal of HI (like you can this one) cause it's not there.
No, it's there. Again, you can see it without image enhancement in the high resolution images. It's not as obvious, but it's there. And there's nothing unusual about it not being so obvious. It's all about the scanner and scanner settings.
Here, take a look at this. This is a scanned image of a genuine Hawaiian COLB provided to Polarik by a woman named Michelle. The image is located on Polarik's own PhotoBucket album:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/MCOLB-80-50.jpg
Where's the seal? Do you see it? Is this a fake COLB?
No. Just that the particular scanner and settings used to do this scan didn't pick up the seal. To pick up the seal, shadows have to be created, and the light source on this scanner was pretty direct so it didn't create sufficient shadows that could be picked up by the scanner.
When this scan was made available to the public, someone suggested that Michelle go over the seal with some pencil lead to make it visible.
Here's the subsequent scan, showing the seal. Again, this image is right there on Polarik's Photo Bucket album, and I was there when this whole thing was going on.
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/SKMBT_C45008071717410.jpg
To: rxsid
His does not look like this:
Because his wasn't likely scanned on the same scanner with the same scanner settings.
However there is absolutely nothing unusual about his when compared with the scanned image of another Hawaiian COLB provided by Michelle.
To: Non-Sequitur
You have the right to ask for it. You don't have the right to force Obama to produce it. Not through the court. Are you saying this is not a legal matter?
To: Big_Monkey; popdonnelly; NavVet; the_Watchman; bossmechanic; mrmeangenes; Diogenesis; curiosity; ...
To: Michael Michael
There's no official state seal on Barry's version on any of his friendly web sites. I've provided the images. You can clearly see what they are trying to pass off as the state seal is 1) totally illegible, no reference to state of HI and 2) who know what COLB that came from because in that very high res shot of the fake seal, you can't tell who's COLB it's on.
77
posted on
03/05/2009 4:18:47 PM PST
by
rxsid
To: Michael Michael
By the way...have you seen in 1961 long form Certificate?
78
posted on
03/05/2009 4:19:47 PM PST
by
rxsid
To: rxsid
Furthermore...look at the spacing of the two outer rings. In the Decosta image there is a definate space between the two. In the Barry image the rings virtually touch each other. Not only is it an obvious fake (can come close to reading anything on the high res fake), but it’s a terrible fake job at that.
79
posted on
03/05/2009 4:22:56 PM PST
by
rxsid
To: this is my country
Are you saying this is not a legal matter?
The Constitution (and federal statute) ultimately leaves it up to the political process.
If voters aren't satisfied that he's eligible, they can choose not to vote for him. If any of the electors have any issues, same thing. Congress, when certifying the electoral votes can submit objections to those votes. If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has any issues, they can choose to refuse to administer the oath of office.
But enough voters voted for Obama to appoint the requisite number of electors, and the requisite number of electors cast their votes for Obama, and Congress certified those votes without objection, and Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office without objection.
So here we are.
Only avenue left is removal from office by way of conviction of impeachment as per Article II, Section 4.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 341-350 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson