Main Menu

Hollister v. Soetoro Dismissed

Philip Berg

Philip Berg

In a strongly-worded memorandum and order today, Judge James Robertson of the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Philip Berg’s “interpleader” lawsuit, Hollister v. Soetoro. The court said: “I do have jurisdiction” dismissing the suit for failure to state a claim (since the interpleader claim had already been ruled “frivolous”).

Judge Robertson, who acknowledged that the issues raised by Berg were important on the bolgosphere and among conspiracy theorists went on to say:

The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

But it gets worse for the plaintiffs:

Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the  interpleader claims and other legal contentions of plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.

As we all know, defending these lawsuits has cost upwards of millions of dollars, and the consequences to the aging Mr. Hemenway (the DC attorney who signed the case, since Berg and Joyce are not admitted to the DC Bar) may be catastrophic.

Excerpts from the memorandum were posted by commenters earlier to day at Berg’s web site, ObamaCrimes.info. I wonder if they are still there.

That’s OK. Berg’s NEXT case is the good one. It’s sealed.

, , , , ,

92 Responses to Hollister v. Soetoro Dismissed

  1. avatar
    Bob March 5, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    Any chance you could post something from PACER, etc. confirming the dismissal?

    Because some may claim this order is a forgery. (Shocking, I know.)

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2009 at 8:06 pm #

    Click on the Memorandum link in the article (or on the Docket tab). It’s real; I downloaded it from the court web site myself.

  3. avatar
    GeorgetownJD March 5, 2009 at 8:06 pm #

    Date Filed # Docket Text

    03/05/2009 22 ORDER granting defendants’ motion to dismiss 9 and John D. Hemenway is ordered to show cause within 11 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge James Robertson on March 5, 2009. (MT) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

    03/05/2009 21 MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James Robertson on March 5, 2009. (MT) (Entered: 03/05/2009)

  4. avatar
    nbc March 5, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    Ditto

  5. avatar
    Cee Cee March 5, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    DANGGGGGGG!~ Well we knew this was going to happen.

    I have one question…. can Hemenway sue Berg to recoup any money he is going to have to pay out?

  6. avatar
    Bob March 5, 2009 at 8:33 pm #

    Unless there was a gun to his head when he, Hemenway, signed all those court filings….

    (And I don’t doubt the order is legit, but people on “other” sites like to post proposed orders. So posting a copy of the docket with this order demonstrates authenticity to any possible doubters.)

  7. avatar
    thisoldhippie March 5, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

    No mention of this order. Just asking for more money.

    http://www.obamacrimes.info/

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    You have to dig into the forums for the juicy stuff.

    http://obamacrimes.us/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=670

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    I doubt it. He shoulda known better.

  10. avatar
    Cee Cee March 5, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    I don’t know I have a feeling that Hemenway will come up with something saying that Berg duped him into believing that there was REAL evidence.

    You know the birthers like to turn on each other at a drop of a dime.

  11. avatar
    Bob March 6, 2009 at 2:38 am #

    The court expects him to act like an actual lawyer if he’s going to sign his name to filings. If that’s his excuse, it won’t go far.

  12. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 6, 2009 at 2:50 am #

    Hemenway is responsible for his own filings — he will have to work it out with Berg with whatever agreement they had at the outset. We don’t know what Hemenway’s politics or finances are like — he may be financially well off enough to handle the hit. An order for attorneys fees in this case would run into the thousands… but there’s a limit as to how much a judge can order for reimbursement of attorneys fees on a case that was resolved with a dismissal motion.

  13. avatar
    mimi March 6, 2009 at 2:52 am #

    They banned me.

  14. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 6, 2009 at 2:54 am #

    Also, I don’t know federal practice, but at least in state practice the exposure could be limited by settlement among the parties. I don’t think that Hemenway has the sense to do this .. but if I were in his position I’d be on the phone to opposing counsel trying to reach a quick settlement.

  15. avatar
    myson March 6, 2009 at 3:49 am #

    You can still visit without posting.

    Hey all i shouldnt say congrats because this was very much expected, we only thot Berg will go to court & show some of his evidence but alas we are disappointed that a golden opportunity is missed to convince a judge!

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 9:25 am #

    Senile dementia?

  17. avatar
    Bob March 6, 2009 at 11:40 am #

    I liked this comment:

    “I’m sure an Appeal can be done. It’s not over.”

    If Hemenway is sanctioned, he probably will appeal the sanction order.

    As for an appeal of the dismissal order, Berg’s been trying to pass the hat for an awefully long time….

  18. avatar
    mimi March 6, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    no myson. I can’t. I can’t even view. Unless I find an I.P. spoofer thingy. I can’t even view the site. They are totally crazy over there.

  19. avatar
    A. Kibitzer March 6, 2009 at 12:31 pm #

    “As we all know, Obama has paid his lawyers millions of dollars defending these suits”

    Rule 11 sanctions do not have to reflect any actual amount paid. You need to flag your ironic statements for the humor impaired, but even where legal assistance has been provided for free, the cost of that assistance, if it had been billed, can be awarded.

  20. avatar
    Paul March 6, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    Can I sue Berg for being an idiot?

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    Paul, I don’t think you can. You just don’t have standing. Your injury is not specific to you, but diffuse, applying equally to all the citizens. Further, the courts lack jurisdiction because they cannot redress your grievance–no matter what the court does, Berg will still be an idiot.

    The preceding is presented for humorous purposes. I don’t call Berg an idiot; I don’t know what he is.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    If I did that, I’d have to flag this whole web site for the humor impaired!

  23. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    What a surprise! A liberal judge appointed by Clinton trying to cover for THE ONE.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 2:00 pm #

    I hope Obama appoints many more liberal judges.

  25. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 2:07 pm #

    I do too! It will fun to watch the mayhem that ensues when the undoing of all the ILLEGAL appointments takes place.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    It’s been remarkably quiet at ObamaCrimes.info. Someone of the Obot persuasion posted all the juicy bits. The ever thoughtful Malcolm suggested that it wasn’t nice to tease Berg, and every one should put all their hopes on the sealed case. Some thought there would be appeals. Some thought the judge was biased.

    Not a peep from any of the principles.

  27. avatar
    NBC March 6, 2009 at 3:15 pm #

    It gets even better under the doctrine of de facto officer, these appointments cannot likely be undone even if Obama were, contrary to what we know so far, shown to be not eligible.

    Hilarious

  28. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    I suggest you do just a little research into the matter. You will find that you even bothered to come out of your hole today to be what is hilarious.

    LIBERALS ARE TRUTH AVERSE!

  29. avatar
    Bob March 6, 2009 at 3:21 pm #

    You, of course, have proof that the officer de facto doctrine wouldn’t apply?

  30. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 3:48 pm #

    It all revolves around the “Timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment”.

    Every judge appointed by this ILLEGAL administration will have EVERY judgement called into question.

    Futhermore, these challenges of validity HAVE to be settled before those judges would be able to hear ANY other cases. This will create a massive logjam that will have a ripple effect throughout our whole legal system.

    All could be avoided if your messiah just produces the documents requested.

    Otherwise, it’s all up for grabs.

  31. avatar
    Bob March 6, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    “Futhermore, these challenges of validity HAVE to be settled before those judges would be able to hear ANY other cases. This will create a massive logjam that will have a ripple effect throughout our whole legal system.”

    Uh-huh.

    Any litigant actually challenging the judge’s validity on this basis would likely hear: “Motion denied; take it up with appeals court.”

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    Asking Heavy for proof or a positive argument is like asking your microwave to make ice cream. It just doesn’t work that way.

  33. avatar
    richCares March 6, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    he believes the “Messiah” can make ice cream in a microwave, he is so enamored with the Messiah! he includes “Messiah” or “The One” in most of his posts. He’s Got Messiah on the brain, no cure!

  34. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    FYI, the Dow is down 20% since your messiah’s coronation. You wanted change, now that’s all you have left!

  35. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    Hey doc, what I said IS a fact. Instead of spending all your time trying to defend the undefendable, why don’t you spend a little time researching the mess that this ILLEGAL administration is making.

    This clown has done more to hurt this country in 2 months than Hitler, yes HITLER, did to Germany in 10 years.

    At some point, you have to look in the mirror and say I WAS WRONG!

  36. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    Maybe, but EVERY challenge MUST be heard. That’s a lot of cases that won’t get tried in the meantime.

    Wake up folks. We are not going to stop until this pretender is deposed. You think you are smart, but you are NOT! You are smarmy. The law is on OUR side!

  37. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 4:17 pm #

    I thought you were not nswering me anymore, richy. Just can’t help yourself, can you?

  38. avatar
    Bob March 6, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    Estimated delay caused by challenging a judge’s eligibility on this basis: 2 minutes for the judge to review to evidence presented, and then deny.

  39. avatar
    NBC March 6, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    You mean you are a LIBERAL

    Shock…

    “Stupid is as stupid does” Forrest Gump

  40. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Do your parents know you are on the computer? What an immature waste of air.

  41. avatar
    GeorgetownJD March 6, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Poor Heavy. He doesn’t realize the Dow is a weighted average, with weight put on the financial and insurance sectors. Since stock price is a multiple of forecasted earnings per share, and bad news has been announced by financial heavy hitters AIG, Barclays, GE Cap and HSBC which are writing down their balance sheets (and taking the corresponding hit to the P&Ls), it’s a wonder the Dow isn’t down more than 20%. Thank deregulation for that.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    Yes, the mistakes made last fall are making their way through the economic system. The Obama stimulus package has barely started. If the Dow is down for the first year Obama is in office, you might rationally offer criticism. How long did the great depression last?

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    I don’t spend much time looking in the mirror.

  44. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    Yep! Pass after pass. You sick pups are in for a rude awakening. But then again, maybe not since very few of you probably have much in the way of assets to be ceased.

  45. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    The depression lasted 6 years more than it should have thanks to the very same INSANE spending that the ILLEGAL one plans to do.

    The definition of insanity rule applies, only liberals are unteachable!

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    So what’s your economic recovery plan?

    [Doc C punches the Deep Freeze button on the microwave.]

  47. avatar
    NBC March 6, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    Now that’s irony for you.

  48. avatar
    Heavy March 6, 2009 at 5:06 pm #

    Much too invloved to go into detail, but the main points would be

    Cut taxes to spur investment

    Let the mortgage market collapse

    Cut federal spending by 40%

    Force illegal immigrants to leave including THE ONE

    Basically do the ONLY thing that has EVER worked…Let capitalism do it’s thing.

    I know that scares the pants off of you limpwristed lib, but hey, you asked!

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    Damn, this microwave is making ice cream!

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    When you say cut federal spending by 40%, do you mean discretionary spending or all spending?

  51. avatar
    Bob March 6, 2009 at 5:49 pm #

    WND is also curiously silent about the dismissal order. Yet its top story (about Senator Kyl “relying” on snopes) mentions that Berg has three active suits, including this one.

  52. avatar
    Ian Gould March 6, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    “This clown has done more to hurt this country in 2 months than Hitler, yes HITLER, did to Germany in 10 years.”

    He’s started a world war and imprisoned and killed millions of people?

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    I guess they’re still trying to decide how to spin it.

  54. avatar
    James March 6, 2009 at 7:42 pm #

    Mr. Barack H. Obama is not the President, he is a usurper.

    It makes no difference where Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr. was born. He can not meet the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement of our Constitution (Article 2, Section 1), because his father was not a United States Citizen.

    The Supreme Court clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” in the case Minor v. Happersett (1874). Justice Gray thoroughly discussed the definition of “natural born citizen” in his review of the Minor case. The Supreme Court in Minor adopted the Laws of Nations definition of “natural born citizen” as being a person born in the United States to “citizen parents” — this definition does not include Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr., because his father was not a United States Citizen.

    Mr. Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and a British Subject and not a Citizen of the United States. Therefore, Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr. can not meet our Constitutional requirement of a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States and is not eligible to be the President.

    Mr. Barack H. Obama is not the President, he is a usurper.

  55. avatar
    bogus info March 6, 2009 at 8:07 pm #

    “The law is on OUR side!”

    Doesn’t look that way to me. LOL

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2009 at 9:49 pm #

    It seems to me an untenable position to say that Minor v. Happersett “clearly established who was a ‘natural born citizen'” when the case itself states “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” (“these doubts” referring to those born in the United States of Alien parents).

    Further, a careful reading Minor shows that the court recognized only two kinds of citizens: those born and those naturalized.

    Rather than continue here, I’ll write an article.

  57. avatar
    Ian Gould March 6, 2009 at 11:30 pm #

    My assets will be ceased?

    Here in Australia?

    So is this part of Obama’s plan for the Stalinisation of America or are actually dropping a hint about the “something bad will happen to someone somewhere at some time” you keep referring to?

  58. avatar
    Llurich March 7, 2009 at 2:39 am #

    Dear Dr. Conspiracy,
    1. You are not a lawyer.
    2. The citizenship issue is a judicial issue.
    3. Dont pretend to be an authority on this topic.
    4. The govt officials did not vet Obama, even Roger Calero was listed on 5 states as candidate, that’s their kind of stupid work.
    5. The judges are using technicality to avoid the issue bec they are afraid to be called lunatics or wackos.
    6. It takes only one judge to see the emperor’s new clothes..

    Just one…

  59. avatar
    Llurich March 7, 2009 at 2:40 am #

    For all you intellectually-challenged non-lawyers, use this guide to arrive at Obama’s status.

    What are the possible birth situations that give rise to a citizenship question?

    Answer:

    To properly analyze the citizenship of a person, we have created these situations for the courts to decide, ultimately the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS).

    Situation 1:

    The father is a Mexican citizen. The mother is a Mexican citizen. Months prior to birth, the parents illegally cross the border into the US. The child is subsequently born in US territories in 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

    Situation 2:

    The father is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The mother is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The child is born outside USA territories in 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

    Situation 3:

    The father is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The mother is a naturalized U.S. citizen. The child is born within USA territories in 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

    Situation 4:

    The father is an immigrant to the U.S. but is not yet a U.S. citizen. The mother is an immigrant to the U.S. but is not yet a U.S. citizen. The child is born within USA territories in 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

    Situation 5:

    The father is a British citizen. The mother is a US citizen. The child is born within USA territories in year 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

    Situation 6:

    The father is a British citizen. The mother is a US citizen. The child is born outside USA territories in year 2009. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)?

    Situation 7:

    The father is a British citizen. The mother is a US Citizen mother who is not yet 19 years old. The child is born in Kenya in 1961. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)? Note that the law in 1961 differs from the law in 2009.

    Situation 8:

    The father is a British citizen. The mother is a US Citizen mother who is not yet 19 years old. The child is born in Hawaii in 1961. Is this child a US citizen? Furthermore, is this child a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) eligible for President (POTUS)? Note that the law in 1961 differs from the law in 2009.

  60. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 7, 2009 at 3:31 am #

    Check again. 😉

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2009 at 8:35 am #

    You say that citizenship is a judicial issue, and this is true in general, but the power to remove a sitting president is vested solely with Congress.

    The US Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, federal district courts, state supreme courts and local courts have universally rejected the lawsuits filed. You say, incorrectly, that it only takes one (incompetent) judge. Any spurious legal decision to inject the courts into the case of the current president would be appealed. That means you will need a dozen or so judges who are incompetent.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2009 at 8:36 am #

    I hope you didn’t type that in from scratch. There is only one situation of interest here. The child is born in Hawaii in 1961. He is a natural born citizen.

  63. avatar
    brygenon March 7, 2009 at 10:17 am #

    This judge was nominated by Clinton, but keep in mind that the birthers’ *always* lose.

    They swayed *zero* electors of the Electoral College. They got *zero* members of the U.S. Congress to object to certifying the election. Their record in court is impressive: every case, every appeal, 100% failure.

  64. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 7, 2009 at 10:33 am #

    Actually, I don’t think there is any sitting judge who is that stupid. The state judges will all know darn well that they don’t have jurisdiction to decide the qualifications of the US President… and there’s generally a somewhat higher bar to make it onto the Federal bench.

  65. avatar
    brygenon March 8, 2009 at 7:28 am #

    More to the point here: if you don’t like a politician’s economic policies, fine, vote for someone else. Don’t start spreading lies about him not being born here.

  66. avatar
    brygenon March 8, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    Llurich wrote: ”
    1. You are not a lawyer.
    2. The citizenship issue is a judicial issue.
    3. Dont pretend to be an authority on this topic.”

    Well then, what person would be the authority — the single, number one, chief authority — on this judicial issue? That would be the man at the top of the federal judiciary: U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts.

    Hey, check it out — that’s the very guy who swore Obama into office (twice!) and then addressed him as “Mr. President”.

    Roberts was aware that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen. The fact is well-known, takes seconds of Googling to verify, and appeared in multiple petitions distributed to the entire Supreme Court, one of which Roberts himself had distributed.

    Looking at the birthers’ theories, one has to wonder: why would John Roberts swear in a “usurper”? Does the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court need the birther’s instruction on how to interpret the Constitution? Was he afraid of retaliation, even though no one can fire him or even reduce his pay? Was he willing to ignore the law in his zeal to elevate one the senators who voted *against* his confirmation?

    The Supreme Court received the birthers’ petitions, and denied them, all without comment. If the court thought that Obama’s presidency was somehow illegal, shouldn’t at least one of the justices have at least written some kind of note into at least one of the decisions to dismiss?

    Was there an iron-clad precedent proving that an American-born child of a foreigner could be eligible for the U.S. Presidency? I’d argue ‘yes’, but either way: there is one now.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    The 45 states that did NOT list Roger Calero did list Barack Obama.

  68. avatar
    Bob March 10, 2009 at 3:01 pm #

    About John Hemenway:

    “Mr. Obama’s lawyers are now threatening my 84-year-old father-in-law, through Judge Robertson, with penalties of legal fees for pursuing the truth about Mr. Obama’s birth.”

    It is the judge, not Obama’s lawyers, that initiated the sanctions proceedings.

    But the real question is why did Berg cajole an 84-year-old man to act as the figurehead lawyer?

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm #

    That web site is a hotbed of birther misinformation, try this in Google:

    “birth certificate” site:familysecuritymatters.org

  70. avatar
    NBC March 10, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    I wonder if she got her father in law in touch with Berg and now feels guilty?

  71. avatar
    Bob March 10, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    Probably yes to first half, no to the second half.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 10, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    While she’s listed as a “contributing editor”, that’s the only article by her on the site.

  73. avatar
    mimi March 11, 2009 at 12:56 am #

    “Mrs. Hemenway spent 15 years on Capitol Hill in various staff positions in the Senate and the House, followed by five years in the Pentagon. She is married to a native of Washington, D.C. and is a proud parent of three school-age children.”
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29130

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 11, 2009 at 6:46 am #

    It makes good theater.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 16, 2009 at 10:47 pm #

    In response to the Judge’s Show Cause order why Hemenway should not be sanctioned, a response was filed today. It’s in the docket (link at top of page).

    The response pulls out some cases that don’t say what they claim, and recites the whole birther mess, even the travel ban to Pakistan.

  76. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 16, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    Rule #1 when faced with an OSC re Rule 11 Sanctions: “What not to say”:

    It suggests that the intellectual capacity of this Court focused on the issues in the instant suit at a very low level, perhaps for political purposes, such as to win attention from the highest authoriry when a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States becomes vacant.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/13326739/23ResponsetoShowCauseOrder (paragraph 56)

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 16, 2009 at 11:03 pm #

    This is weird:

    “10….in the case of President Hoover, the Supreme Court had determined that a person born of two American citizens not resident within the continental United States (in Hoover’s case, China) could be qualified under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.”

    While Hoover was the first president to be born west of the Mississippi, it was Iowa, not China.

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 16, 2009 at 11:58 pm #

    Seems rather obvious that they’re trying to create a martyr.

  79. avatar
    Bob March 17, 2009 at 2:12 am #

    Seems rather obvious that they’re trying to create a martyr.

    Assuming the judge agrees with that assessment, perhaps the judge will grant himself the last word and then just discharge the OSC with no sanctions. Or refer the matter to disciplinary unit of the district court (and the state(s) that have barred Hemenway), and let them deal with this.

    Still, I get the sense the judge will issue sanctions, and let Hemenway take it up with the 3d Circuit.

  80. avatar
    Heavy April 23, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    Those of you who dispute the claims of us “Birthers” that THE ONE has paid lawyers over $1mm to defend NBC lawsuits, listen up.

    The Federal Election Commitee has released information that your messiah’s campaign has paid the firm of Perkins Coie over $1mm since Oct. 2008. Perkins Coie, if you recall, is one of the firms representing THE ONE in NBC lawsuits. Interesting, isn’t it?

    The committe is also investigating wether this use of campaign funds is legal. If it isn’t, it is NOW!

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2009 at 11:25 am #

    The attorney who has represented Obama in the few cases where he actually opposed something, was Robert F. Bauer, who is a partner at Perkins Coie. But the little bit of filing that I’ve seen could not begin to approach $1M.

    Which Federal Election Committee are you referring to? Several states have them. How about a link to the story?

  82. avatar
    Bob April 23, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    WND has the story (and it links to the FEC page). (Politico had the story first.)

    There’s only one FEC. But states have comparable agencies for their elections.

  83. avatar
    Heavy April 23, 2009 at 12:15 pm #

    Thanks, Bob.

  84. avatar
    NBC April 23, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    Yes, of course there is a small problem of linking these expenses to the exact type of services rendered.
    But even a million dollars would be worth every penny with a so far 100% success rate.

  85. avatar
    Heavy April 23, 2009 at 1:21 pm #

    If you call usurping the Constitution “Success”.

    Weren’t you one of those who said it was nowhere near $1mm? And what about the issue of paying for personal expenses with campaign funds even if its $1?

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    OK, thanks to Bob and the other “Bob” that sent me the WND link via email.

    However, Heavy said: “The committe is also investigating wether this use of campaign funds is legal” and that I did not find in the article. “This use” presumes a particular use, when there is no information about what the use really is. That is, they ASSUME that these line items are for legal fees for Obama’s eligibility court cases, when in fact they could be for any legal services to the campaign, including FEC compliance. Perkins Coie does FEC work.

    At this point, there is nothing “interesting”, just the usual guilt by association.

  87. avatar
    Bob April 23, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    Responding to eligibility lawsuits is not a “personal expense.”

  88. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 23, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    I’d point out that there are many legitimate legal expenses incurred during a political campaign that probably represent the bulk of payments made by Obama. These include preparing FEC filings, handling campaign related legal matters throughout the country, such as leasing of campaign headquarters, various contracts for services, etc.; “election protection” actions in various states, such as litigation over access to polling places.

    Robert Bauer is the head of the “political” division at Perkins Coie – see: http://www.perkinscoie.com/political_law/

    Here is are some of the areas the firm lists as specialties:

    *Advising on federal and state campaign finance law and regulation including candidate committee and PAC compliance;

    *Counseling on lobbying disclosure and governmental ethics statutes and rules at the federal, state, and local level;

    * Designing and implementing internal compliance and training programs to ensure compliance with campaign finance, lobbying and ethics laws and rules;

    * Litigating in Federal and state courts matters relating to political activity and expression

    You’ll note that “defending frivolous law suits brought by nutty attorneys” is not listed; apparently its not the most time consuming thing that they do.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    Bob there are state “Federal Election Committees”, some of which (if not all) are party-related, for example, the Vermont Republican Federal Election Committee, and the Georgia Federal Election Committee. (Heavy said “Committee”.)

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    Well of you want interesting, Al Franken paid Perkins Coie $389,276 the last month of 2008.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    Additional article on Bauer from Politico.com.

  92. avatar
    Bob April 23, 2009 at 6:49 pm #

    Those are PACs with (deliberately, I would say) confusing names.