I’m not a lawyer, but a judge saying he doesn’t have to consider the issue presented before him because it has already been “Twittered” seems like the ultimate ex parte violation. A court cannot consider facts not in evidence. Unless somebody presented “Twitter” as evidence in the case, the judge cannot use it as a basis to decide anything. To do so would be a violation of the federal judicial code of conduct.
IOW, not only is this judge “biased” - he and the appeals judge who let his decision stand are blatantly flipping off the entire judicial code of conduct. Not even biased liberal judges would be that stupid. I think there’s much, much more to the story.
Those 2 lower federal judges are legally bound to the Federal Judicial Code of Conduct, aren’t they? I wonder how a person files ethics charges against them. Maybe with the threat of ethics charges they would come out with the real reason they made those decisions.
Judge Robertson is one of Clinton’s “Magnificent Seven” - whom Clinton appointed to the DC Circuit at the very beginning of his presidency to block any real justice in Washington DC while his “friends” were being charged with crimes. Those judges violated ethics by having monthly meetings just among themselves where they fanangled a way around the normal randomized computer appointment of cases so they would get all the cases for Clinton’s buddies. Their decisions on those cases were always (or almost always; not sure which) overturned on appeal, so the political character of their decisions were evident.
I believe Senator Jeff Sessions was onto them and was going to have an investigation at one point but I don’t know what ever came of that. Maybe the circuit’s head judge (who had been claiming authority to bypass the random assignment) decided to go back to the random assignment of cases once Clinton was out of office?
Since these judges are the stooges of Clinton, maybe Hillary accepting the SOS position was their cue to act as if the Obama presidency was legitimate, to make it appear that Hillary hadn’t knowingly accepted a position in an administration she knew was treasonous.
If they were just stupid enough to be Obama stooges themselves, I doubt they would have based their entire decision on such a blatant ex parte violation.
Blatant ex parte violation is also the way that Chief Justice Roberts chose to taint/flag the cases that SCOTUS conferred over, once SCOTUS refused to hear Donofrio v Wells. On the exact same day as SCOTUS decided not to hear Donofrio’s case on the merits, Roberts personally invited Obama to visit the SCOTUS, knowing the Berg case and others were lining up to be considered by SCOTUS. Never before had SCOTUS invited any President elect to visit SCOTUS; such meetings had always been initiated by the President elect, not the court. For a court to do so in this case is not only unprecedented, it is an ex parte violation since Roberts knew there was a long list of court cases that SCOTUS would eventually confer about.
A timeline of related actions/reversals and claimed threats to media makes the Oct 15 through Dec 7th timeframe very, very suspicious. My theory is that Obama threatened the judges within that timeframe, resulting in the sudden reversal in attitude of the judge in Berg’s case - who until that time seemed to be taking the issue seriously.
The first case to actually make it to SCOTUS - after a bunch of interference by the SCOTUS stay clerk, Danny Bickel - was the Donofrio case. I believe Obama’s thugs told SCOTUS that if they agreed to hear any of the eligibility cases Soros and his communist-Islamist allies would make another run on the bank and collapse the western economy thus bringing the final crisis the commos have been working on for a long, long time. To buy more time SCOTUS agreed not to hear Donofrio’s case but Roberts was determined to keep a foot in the door to revisit the issues when Soros’ threat was mitigated. So he deliberately committed an ex parte offense against all the upcoming cases he knew SCOTUS would have to refuse to hear.
Just like I believe Dick Cheney determined to keep a foot in the door when he refused to ask for objections as required by law during Congress’ electoral vote count.
And as even the liberal Judge Robertson did by his blatant ex parte decision in Hollister.
The threat of penalties for Hemenway and for Taitz for filing “frivolous lawsuits” may have been because the judges hated having to make what they knew were blatantly bad decisions; they knew they would have to violate their oaths every time a case came up so they just wanted to stop any more cases from coming. Threatening penalties was a way to do that, although it didn’t work in Hollister because the plaintiff had already been recognized as having standing.
Since Robertson in Hollister admitted that retired military had standing (as I believe was also affirmed in the Kerchner case, which would seem to make that standing precedent) it blows away the other judges claiming active military doesn’t have standing, which IIRC was the reason the judge denied Barnett and penalized Taitz for pursuing that issue.
The Barnett judge had figured out that if you grant standing you can’t snuff out the lawyer by fines. IIRC, Barnett’s case was the first one where military personnel were denied standing. I should check the timeline there; when was that decision in comparison with Hemenway’s defeat of Robertson’s attempt to fine him? I know Barnett came after Obama evaded the Cook issue by rescinding the orders.
It’s actually bizarre, from a legal standpoint. Early on you have judges admitting that retired military have standing. Then you have active military who volunteered to be deployed seemingly having standing but Obama evades the issue by rescinding orders. Then you have lower-level active duty being denied standing. Then you have an officer with standing basically denied by a judge claiming that Constitutionality is irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders. It’s like the courts are all back-tracking after initially admitting that even retired military have standing. From there the court cases involve people who should have even MORE standing, but the courts keep making standing more and more narrow.
As I said, I’m not a lawyer so I may be overlooking relevant distinctions, in which case I hope somebody will point that out to me.
Just pinging a few names to butterdezillion’s interesting legal-y and judge-y comments.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I don’t think Robertson’s opinion granted blanket standing to military. From what I am reading here, he acknowledged ‘jurisdiction,’ implicit standing, because of the statute used by Hollister. He then went on to dismiss on other grounds. Maybe a lawyer can clarify that.
Why do you suppose this happened?
#63 - Extremely thorough and very well deciphered, butter.
You’re such a whiz on the plausible scenarios of all these breathtaking, bloody judicial ins and outs.