Hollister v Soetoro - Hemenway lead attorney now. Berg, Joyce, Bauer request leave of case.

Scribd ^ | 11/21/2009 | rxsid

[AmericanVictory]

So you disagree with Wright & Miller. What authority do you rely upon in doing so? How can Judge Robertson have found that he had jurisdiction without assuming that the plaintiff Hollister had standing? Since Wright & Miller cite a very substantial number of cases you would have to disagree with those cases as well. In fact I would point out that in an earlier filing on appeal in the Hollister case Bauer himiself, as Obama's man who was crucial in putting him in office as part of the campaign and thus likely knew he was participating in the fraud concerning the COLB and the deprivation of the "intangible property right of honest services" stated to the Court of Appeals that Judge Robertson had "assumed" standing.

Thus you feel compelled, it seems to disagree with Bauer, who has just withdrawn in order to become WH counsel as part of the ongoing deprivation of honest services and who has spread his tentacles into the FEC and elsewhere to keep the fraud alive and the destruction of the Constitution going. My, you are devoted to the One.

Bauer, I would note, features on his web site that his father fought against Hitler, leaving Austria after the Anschluss and doing so in 1941. John Hemenway, who was, among other things a German expert serving in East Berlin against the communists during the Cold War, is on the record as having pointed out that the Nazis were not letting people like Bauer's father out in 1941. Moreover, Jonah Goldberg, in "Liberal Fascism" points out that the Dolfuss government was itself fascist, just not Hitler's fascists, so it would be interesting to know more about in just what capacity Bauer's father was fighting Hitler and it might shed light on why he is participating in imposing socialist fascism upon us now.

What is your motivation for standing up for the constitutional fraud involved even beyond the One's own henchman? What compulsion do you feel to protect the destruction of the Constitution that is underway?

[AmericanVictory]

So you disagree with Wright & Miller. What authority do you rely upon in doing so? How can Judge Robertson have found that he had jurisdiction without assuming that the plaintiff Hollister had standing? Since Wright & Miller cite a very substantial number of cases you would have to disagree with those cases as well. In fact I would point out that in an earlier filing on appeal in the Hollister case Bauer himself, as Obama's man who was crucial in putting him in office as part of the campaign and thus likely knew he was participating in the fraud concerning the COLB and the deprivation of the "intangible property right of honest services" stated to the Court of Appeals that Judge Robertson had "assumed" standing.

Thus you feel compelled, it seems to disagree with Bauer, who has just withdrawn in order to become WH counsel as part of the ongoing deprivation of honest services and who has spread his tentacles into the FEC and elsewhere to keep the fraud alive and the destruction of the Constitution going. My, you are devoted to the One.

Bauer, I would note, features on his web site that his father fought against Hitler, leaving Austria after the Anschluss and doing so in 1941. John Hemenway, who was, among other things a German expert serving in East Berlin against the communists during the Cold War, is on the record as having pointed out that the Nazis were not letting people like Bauer's father out in 1941. Moreover, Jonah Goldberg, in "Liberal Fascism" points out that the Dolfuss government was itself fascist, just not Hitler's fascists, so it would be interesting to know more about in just what capacity Bauer's father was fighting Hitler and it might shed light on why he is participating in imposing socialist fascism upon us now.

What is your motivation for standing up for the constitutional fraud involved even beyond the One's own henchman? What compulsion do you feel to protect the destruction of the Constitution that is underway?

[Seizethecarp]

“So you disagree with Wright & Miller.”

“What compulsion do you feel to protect the destruction of the Constitution that is underway?”

AV:

I agree fully with Wright & Miller and believe that you persist in misrepresenting them by conflating jurisdiction and standing in an illogical manner.

I support Hemenway’s appeal of the dismissal and his attempt to gain the standing for his claim that Robertson denied him.

[Seizethecarp]

Per AV:

“From Section 1349: “”Rules 12(b)(1) through 12(b)(b) and 12(b)(7) essentially are defenses to the district court's ability to proceed with the action. They are pleas in abatement and do not go to the merits of a claim. [footnotes omitted] Rule 12(b)(6) is the successor of the common law demurrer and the code motion to dismiss and is a method of testing the sufficiency of the statement of the claim for relief.” Thus a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not about standing and Judge Robertson's finding that he had jurisdiction is a finding of standing because it cannot have been made without assuming standing, making the Hollister case the only one in which standing has been found.”

AV:

Your conclusion above, “Thus a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not about standing...” is not supported by the preceding Wright & Miller quote on which you base your conclusion.

The district court's “ability to proceed with the action” referred to by your W&M quote encompasses both jurisdiction of the court and standing of the plaintiff. Rule 12(b)(6) is exactly about standing.

Robertson said his court had jurisdiction, but that Hemenway did not have standing (did not state a claim that met the requirements for standing).

Hemenway is now appealing to overturn Robertson's ruling against Hemenway’s standing.

[AmericanVictory]

In order for your assertion to have any validity, “standing” would have to part of the merits. The quote from Wright & Miller makes it quite clear that Rule 12(b)(6) goes to the merits while Rules 12(b)(1) through (5) and (7) do not. You are the only person so far as I know to conflate standing with the merits. It is you who are erroneously “conflating.” Further, if you read some of the further material I have quoted from Wright and Miller they specifically mention “standing” as being addressed under Rule 12(b)(1) and their treatise itself cites quite a number of cases in support. It is not clear whether you are deliberately misreading what has been put before you or you don’t comprehend it. But it is clearly one or the other.

[Canadian Outrage]

Wow, that was a great description of what the Interpleader really means. I’m married to a Lawyer and have worked with him for 23 years but we do business and corporate law, not litigation. He gave up litigation 21 years ago so I didn’t have a lot of experience with it. Just typing some court docs, affidavits, Statements of Claim etc. This is an entirely different area of the law for me. I did get some education however when my daughter got divorced. I hated it.!! That is “stress”. Divorce and custody are horrible. CO

[Canadian Outrage]

LOL - your post #50 was awesome. CO

[Canadian Outrage]

Fair enough, I see your reference to Berg alright. However, what is your comment to the other half of my statement? Why should not this FRAUD, HIMSELF have to prove his eligibility? Why is he hiding everything? Why is he paying so many lawyers so much money to keep everything secret? What does the pr*ck have to hide?? Every other president has shown their qualifications!! Why not this slimy fraud? CO

[EDINVA]

Mr. Lucky takes the duncecap for this thread.

He writes of the attorney’s incoherence, without himself posting anything of merit.

Mr. Lucky questions the attorney’s knowledge of grammar. I am sure Mr. Lucky aced English Comp 101 at his local community college and can craft a nifty Strunk and White sentence.

Mr. Lucky questions the attorney’s knowledge of history, and we must all be assured that Mr. Lucky took at least Western Civ.

In the meanwhile, as a matter of public record in this case, Mr. Hemenway:

” ... entered the Army of the United States during WWII and was promoted to Infantry Second Lieutenant preparing for the anticipated landings in Japan which were scheduled for November 1, 1945.

” ... studied civil engineering, then attended the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, graduating with the class of 1951.

” won a Rhodes Scholarship while at Annapolis and then studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Oxford for three years.

” was invited to join the United States Diplomatic Service after successfully passing a four day examination and then joined the United States Department of State as a foreign service officer in which capacity he became a Russian/German expert.

“...served in Moscow during the height of the cold war (1960-1962).”

Oh, yes, and went to law school and passed the bar.

So, please tell us again, Mr. Lucky, just what your qualifications are to speak about your perceptions of Mr. Hemenway’s lack of historical knowledge or grammatical proficiency.

[AmericanVictory]

When I was still active in the bar I always resisted taking divorce cases. The saying is true that “They bring out the worst in the best people.”

[AmericanVictory]

What does Philip J. fBerg’s having been formerly associated with the case as a signing attorny, although never admitted to the case, have to do with the merits of Colonel Hollister’s case? Zero, just like the One you are so anxious to protect from the exposure of his fraud. You trolls are like a pane of glass.

[Canadian Outrage]

Do they ever - a very ugly area of the law to be involved in for sure. CO