Once again you display your ignorance. Robertson found that he had “jurisdiction because of the statute.” It is elementary that a court cannot have jurisdiction over a case in which the plaintiff has no standing. Therefore he necessarily, albeit without discussion of the issue, found standing. Several attempts by Soetoro a/k/a Obama at the appellate level to introduce the issue of standing were not accepted by the appeals court. Therefore, as the case stands standing has been found, although the Supreme Court can raise the issue on its own. But Soetoro a/k/a Obama has chosen not to raise it and have it briefed.
You further illustrate your ignorance of Rule 11 law in your response. Without inquiry into what the pre-filing inquiry was the the finding of a violation of the rule is clearly erroneous as is its adoption by an appellate panel without independent analysis. The opinion of a judge so clearly non-neutral that the suit is “frivolous” is not based on the rule of law. But then that does not concern you, does it? Either that are you simply very poorly informed. Perhaps you are among those who are rewarded for spreading disinformation. Why don’t you tell us what that reward consists of.
Don’t try to kill the messenger.
JUDGMENT These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009).
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the
sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint.
Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28745277/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-PER-CURIAM-JUDGMENT-filed-Lower-Court-Affirmed-Transport-Room
As stated, standing was found. You were wrong about that. As stated, Rule 11 deals with pre-filing inquiry, which was not even examined. It is acknowledged in filing for cert the affirmation of Robertson without any further analysis is believed to be an error. It is clear that the appeals panel was successfully intimidated and affirmed clear error. What remains to be seen is whether the intimidation will reach enough justices of the Supreme Court. Only time will tell. You do not deal in reason or the law but rather in the currency of the lickspittle. It is evident that the appeals panel approved the Robertson decision, that does not make their approval free of error, particularly since they adopted without comment or anlsysis his opinion, based as it was on “blogging and twittering.” Obviously you indentify with that reasoning and cannot make an independent analysis of it because of your own bias.