Hollister v. Soetoro: Hemenway Reprimanded, Order to Show Cause Discharged
Attorney John D. Hemenway, having filed as an interpleader for Hollister v. Soetoro, has been reprimanded for his help in bringing what Judge James Robertson termed a “legally frivolous lawsuit:”
27.OrderFindingRule11Violation-3-24-2008
While it is the judge’s prerogative to rule as he has done, I do find his sarcastic tone rather disconcerting, especially with respect to those who legitimately question the eligibility of the President. It seems to me that he could have properly explained his reasoning for the reprimand without going into a soliloquy of his personal feelings on an issue of which he specifically disclaims any interpretation.
According to the current listing of eligibility-based lawsuits, my readers will notice that Mr. Berg has already appealed this case.
-Phil
From the world in his head, Leo C. Donofrio wrote:
“The conspiracy against [...] Obama” wasn’t any point of mine. At issue here is a conspiracy theory, and my point has been how far removed from reality that thinking is.
I’ve answered that that twice already, Leo, and the answer is not likely to change should you ask yet more times. What is it about? It’s an ego trip; it’s all about you.
Consider the 9/11 “inside job” theory. Is it about the G.W. Bush administration and the physics of collapsing buildings? Only in a shallow sense. It’s a conspiracy theory, so it’s really about people fancying themselves the savvy ones who are not fooled, the smart ones who put together the clues, the patriotic ones who stand up for truth and justice against all those traitors and amongst all those cowards.
Leo, that’s just in your head. I am, as I’ve said here a few times and elsewhere yet more, a hobbyist — I study fringe thinkers. When I read how you thought the feds located you despite your altered appearance when an RFID tracker picked up the passport in your shoe, I recognized an excellent specimen. After I stopped laughing, that is.
That’s nice. I’ve got more than a dozen years on you. So what?
The proof is in the results. So far your Supreme Court batting average is 0 for 4 (unless you have handled some other Supreme Court cases you haven’t told us about).
According to information on this page:
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/article/29778.html
you had “reactivated” your law license in mid-November 2008. So it looks like your “long resume” also included a “long vacation?”
Back to Supreme Court Jurisdiction 101:
A summary DENIAL of a case brought on state court is NOT a decision of a federal question; thus no Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter what arguments you raised — if matters what the court actually DECIDED. If the court refuses to give a reason – that’s your tough luck. So while I stand corrected as to the lack of reason given for the denial of your case — the principal remains the same.
When I made my remarks about standing before, I was mistakenly thinking about the Wrotnozski case, which you also briefed — see:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR9.pdf — where the court explicitly denied the case on grounds that “the plaintiff lacked statutory standing to bring his complaint and this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.”
Your case was denied at the trial level because,
See: http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/myimages/album2147.image18603.html
So basically the court said you brought an action under a state statute after the deadline for such actions had passed. So I guess rather than “standing”, you technically were initially denied simply because you missed the statutory deadline.
I rest my case on everything written below. All those so inclined may have the last word. The more one protests, the less likely people are to see the truth.
Ok, I admit it, I was the guy dancing with Ben Stiller in Starsky and Hutch. Now I’ve told my secret. You got it out of me, Im Dancin Rick!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47gahDuOff8&feature=related
Brygenon -
You refuse to address your original point because it has no defense. What was the conspiracy against your precious Obama?
I’ll put my tin foil hat on to listen to you. But like I said, I sued to remove three candidates because this was always about the Constitution. You said it wasn’t really about the Constitution, that in a “Larger sense” it was about something else.
Go on then… what was it about?
The more you shirk from the issue you originally raised, the more your rattle shaking in the crib makes you appear to be what it obviously is you are.
“Everybody was Kung Fu fighting… man those cats were fast as lighting… for brygenon it was just a little bit frightening…those cats were fast as lighting…Whoa!”
I choreographed the disco dance battle scene in the remake of Starsky and Hutch, so you just better watch your booty cuty.
Practical Kat -
I’ve snipped your insulting language and won’t return the favor, but let it be known I’ve been admitted to practice law since 1991 and have a long resume worth of experience and have graduated from a top notch law school which is usually ranked #1 in NY State for passing the bar exam (NY being the toughest there is and which I passed on my first try).
One can only bring a law suit when one has information to sue upon. On October 22 the NJ SOS office admitted to me that they did nothing to verify the eligibility of the candidates. I couldn’t bring suit until they made that admission. I brought suit within five days.
Practical Kat said:
“I’m not talking about how to technically meet some sort of statutory requirement, I’m talking about how experienced lawyers go about winning cases.
When it comes to getting injunctions and stays in an election, lawyers have to move aggressively and early, because time is working against you. The more time goes by…”
Go read the Torricelli case. The NJ Supreme Court discussed the possibility of changing the ballots right up to the election if there was a compelling reason to do so. If it weren’t for the Torricelli case, I wouldn’t have brought the suit. There was legal precedent. You said nothing could be done because the ballots had been printed and you were wrong. I gave you the case to look at but you didn’t bother to read it.
Like I said, you’re wrong. If you expect me to respond to you again on this issue, then you’ll have to read from and quote the Torricelli case. Find it, read it, quote it — or go about being in the dark and posting inane untruths. It’s not my blog, say what you like. What does the truth matter anyway?
Practical Kat said:
“Leo, for purposes of jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter what you argued in your papers; it matters what the court actually decided. If the NJ Supreme Court had ruled on the federal questions you raised, then SCOTUS would have had jurisdiction to review that. But the court didn’t — it rejected your case on grounds of standing, under state law, and never reached the federal question. Hence you did not have a federal question to appeal.”
Did you even read their holding?
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/myimages/album2158.image18673.html
You’re just wrong – 110% wrong. The holding says nothing, nada, zilch, about what you have said above. It’s one paragraph. It tells you exactly what the NJ Supreme Court relied on… two things are listed. Read…
“This matter having come before the court on an Application for emergent relief pursuant to Rule 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant’s papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied.”
Now where do you see anything about standing?
Go read the NJ AG brief. There’s nothing about standing. Nor is there anything about standing in the NJ App. Div opinion.
The NJ Supreme Court knows how to formulate a holding. O rperhaps you know better than them? Is that what you’re implying? That your judgment is superior to theirs? Had they wanted to mention “standing” they would have used the word “standing” in their opinion.
It’s not a hard word to spell. It’s very simple. (Twilight zone theme ends.)
JBJD said:
“The NJ AG pointed out to the court, that phrase, “by law entitled to vote,” refers to those voters who have qualified to vote and not to those candidates who have proven their right to run for office. Indeed, the candidates of President and Vice President are not even mentioned in the law until the next sentence. Leo misread…”
That’s a laughable load of crapola.
- The statute is clearly identified as prescribing duties to the SOS.
- The statute is not a voters rights statute – ie suffrage laws.
You will find voters rights statutes elsewhere in the Code. They are clearly marked.
- The statute prescribes a duty to the SOS. If the view you take were correct the statute would make no sense. It would be redundant because “voters” by definition of the word… are entitled to vote. If they aren’t entitled to vote, then they aren’t “voters”, they are criminals.
But this simplest way to analyze this is as follows: If the interpretation you are spewing were actually true —
EVERY VOTER ENTITLED TO VOTE WOULD HAVE TO BE LISTED IN THE SOS STATEMENT.
the statement lists the names of candidates, not the names of voters.
think about it just a wee bit.
Leo Donofrio wrote:
1) The reason that Calero was disqualified in some states is that he did not claim to be natural born. The SoS’s did not have a duty to conduct independent inquiry, but in Calero’s case there was no investigation needed. (Calero “ran” despite lack of eligibility because he didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected. Minor parties run their candidates for the protest value, or simply for the sake of keeping their own party viable and visible on the ticket.)
2) The reason that SoS’s invalidated Calero in some states and not others is that each STATE sets its own requirements for listing on the ballot, and they are free to do so. (There’s that 10th Amendment again) States are free to set their own rules as to how they select their electors and as to whom the electors can vote for.
I’d not that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires that electors be selected by popular vote. (“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….”) See: “ELECTORAL COLLEGE”, http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag4_user.html
Losing attorney Leo Donofrio wrote,
Papers in Phil Berg’s losing petitions — showing 1936 typewriters alternated between a fixed-width and a proportional font, and attributed to Donald Lamb who is trying to charge rent on all of Colon because he and he alone thinks he holds title — are not valid biographical sources.
They were now writing to show what a beautiful and consistent legal philosophy all Secretaries of State share. They were arguing to win their cases and they made short work of you.
Leo, you missed my most important bit. Don’t examine adverse court rulings in order to discover where the judge made the mistake. The judges were not writing essays for you to criticize. They were telling you how things are going to be.
In answer to the question you SHOUTED, Leo, Obama and McCain are eligible because they are citizens by birth, rather than by later naturalization. You had a contrary position, but yours lost.
First, noting how you changed your appearance to evade the teams of federal agents who were no doubt deployed against you, let’s be clear that we are talking about a conspiracy theory here, and within that theory, you, Leo, are really, really important. Studying fringe thinking is a hobby of mine, and you don’t have to tell me that your conspiracy theory is not just about Obama. Of course it’s all about you.
Thank you for your detailed response to Practical Kat. Leo. I anxiously await her response, which so far, is not forthcoming.
Leo, I’m not going to go point by point over your posts, but I want to respond to this:
When I wrote what you “needed” to do I was speaking from the standpoint of practical experience — what would a top flight lawyer like Ken Starr have done? When you respond back pointing to a statute that gives you more time, you are showing your lack of experience — I’m not talking about how to technically meet some sort of statutory requirement, I’m talking about how experienced lawyers go about winning cases.
When it comes to getting injunctions and stays in an election, lawyers have to move aggressively and early, because time is working against you. The more time goes by, the closer to the election, the greater your burden will be and the harder it is to get relief; there is a big difference between what a judge will do the day before the ballots have been printed, and the day after they have been printed.
You are a good chess player, so you know that there is a difference between the way a novice plays the game and the way an expert plays. Both types of players will follow the same rules – and the beginner can point to every move he has made and show that it was proper within the rules of the game. But the beginner will consistently lose against the experienced player simply because the beginner won’t recognize the larger strategy, and the beginner will make more mistakes.
So when I wrote what you “needed” to do, maybe a better word was what you “should have” done. You can tell me I’m wrong, but the fact remains that you were denied every step of the way — so I’m clearly right about the fact that you followed a losing strategy.
Leo, for purposes of jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter what you argued in your papers; it matters what the court actually decided. If the NJ Supreme Court had ruled on the federal questions you raised, then SCOTUS would have had jurisdiction to review that. But the court didn’t — it rejected your case on grounds of standing, under state law, and never reached the federal question. Hence you did not have a federal question to appeal.
Here is the actual text of NJ Statutes Ch. 19:13-22″by law entitled to vote”: “The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election. This statement, in addition to the names of the candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, if any such have been included in any such certificate or petition filed with him…” The NJ AG pointed out to the court, that phrase, “by law entitled to vote,” refers to those voters who have qualified to vote and not to those candidates who have proven their right to run for office. Indeed, the candidates of President and Vice President are not even mentioned in the law until the next sentence. Leo misread and continues to misread the clear meaning of the statute. But this was only one of the fatal flaws of his filing.
Leo Said:
“Why should the Secretaries of State in those states which removed Roger Calero from ballots have the power under law to do review and judge Calero’s qualifications while those same Secretaries of State claimed to have no authority to review and challenge Obama and McCain.”
Brygenon replied:
“State officials can check biographical sources and exclude ineligible candidates, but they need not listen to conspiracy theories and legal sophistry.”
In that case they can also check John McCain’s biographical sources which would have led them to fund that he was born in Colon, Panama.
They could also have checked Obama’s autobiography and his statements at fightthesmears.com where he admits to being a British citizen at birth.
But as to McCain and Obama, the various Secretaries of State said they had no authority to check on Obama and McCain… but poor old Calero they could check on. How do they have the authority to check on one candidate but not another? It’s either racism or a lie or both.
What’s a conspiracy theory? Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth. He admits it many times, even in his autobiography.
Where’s the conspiracy theory? It’s a simple legal question. Let me phrase it for you:
HOW DOES A PERSON WHO ADMITS IN MULTIPLE SOURCES THAT BIRTH STATUS WAS “GOVERNED” BY BRITISH LAW QUALIFY AS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE US?
This was never about Obama. Obama wasn’t President when I brought my law suit against McCain, Obama and Calero. Now Obama, a Constitutional scholar, has a very big problem explaining why he never addressed his British Citizenship in the context of Article 2 Section 1… And his nervous supporters are trying to derail the cold hard analysis of the law by spinning sinister conspiracy theories that somehow their chosen one was singled out.
You made a point that this issue wasn’t mainly concerned with the Constitution but that somehow Obama was being attacked for some other conspiratorial purpose. I educated you to the truth. Now you’ve gone and donned your tin foil hat alleging conspiracies. Sit on my couch and tell me your conspiracy theory. Explain the larger issue to me. Go on…
How does a law suit against McCain, Obama and Calero function as a conspiracy theory against just Obama?
Phil answered Earl correctly, Obama admits the British Nationality Act of 1948 “governed” his birth (governed is Obama’s choice of words). Furthermore, he also admits that he waived his Kenyan citizenship at age 21. He also admits he became a Kenyan citizen after Kenya got independence from Great Britain. He got Kenyan citizenship in this way because he was already a Great British Citizen form birth. This is not some wacky conspiracy theory, this is admitted by Obama during the campaign and further in his own autobiography. Your letting your emotions cloud the legal facts.
Now
practical Kat said:
“I said: the Supreme Court LACKED JURISDICTION because Leo’s cases did not raise a federal question.”
Incorrect. The Supreme Court did have jurisdiction because of the NJ Supreme Court holding. The NJ Appellate Division holding was ignored by the NJ Supreme Court. The NJ Supreme Court said that in their decision to deny the relief I requested they “relied on Movant’s Papers”. “Movant’s papers” is the papers I submitted. I submitted two Constitutional issues in my papers:
1. Did the NJ Secretary of State violate her NJ Constitution and the US Constitution – Article Six – wherein she is required to take an oath of office to uphold the US Constitution by allowing ineligible Presidential candidates on the ballots?
2. Were the ballots themselves defective because they included the name of candidates who were not natural born citizens?
To analyze this issue, forget McCain and Obama and just focus on Calero. Calero was born in Nicaragua to Nicaraguan parents. He was clearly not eligible to be President yet his name appeared on the ballots in NJ but not on the ballots of other states where the Secretaries of State removed him. My argument was that, as to Calero, those other Secretaries of State upheld the Constitution by having Calero removed. The NJ SOS did not remove him and therefore she failed her Constitutional oath. I cited case law which says that a Government official who fails their oath is held to be at war with that oath.
This was the central Federal question in my case.
Had the NJ Supreme Court cited a specific part of the lower Court’s decision in denying my relief, ie some State law, and made no other reference…then I would not have been able to appeal to the US Supreme Court. But the NJ Supreme Court did just the opposite, they completely ignored the lower Court decision, didn’t even mention the Judge’s name in their holding and instead relied on both “Movant’s Papers” and the NJ AG brief.
I’m sorry, no disrespect intended, but your legal analysis is completely erroneous.
“Leo was seeking a review of STATE appellate court decisions. The Supreme Court would only consider that if the state appellate court had “decided an important question of federal law”.”
Incorrect for the same reasons cited above. I raised federal questions in my papers. The NJ Supreme Court was asked by me to review those federal questions. In denying my requested relief they said they relied on “movant’s papers”. The did NOT rely on the lower Court opinion. They chose to ignore that decision and all it said, their holding makes clear they didn’t rely on it. For all we know, they agreed with my federal question but denied because they didn’t think they had the authority to stop the election. We just don’t know. What we do know is that they did NOT say they relied on State law. Federal questions were the meat of my case and my papers.
“Leo’s suits raised this question: Does the New Jersey secretary of state have a duty to check the qualifications of Presidential candidates; if so, are all the candidates on the ballot qualified?
The NJ courts didn’t reach the issue, instead deciding: Leo doesn’t have standing”
That’s a complete fiction. Neither the NJ Supreme Court decision nor the NJ Appellate Division holding said that I didn’t have standing. What you wrote is a complete fiction. Nowhere does it say that in either holding. I did have standing. My standing wasn’t even questioned by the NJ Attorney General’s office in their brief. Go ahead and read it.
“Leo needed a plaintiff who was an opposing candidate (perhaps Chuck Baldwin or Jeff Boss);”
Wrong again. I had standing under the NJSA statutes and case law. A complaint in Lieu of Prerogative writs can be brought by a citizen who is owed a duty by a Government official. That’s the part most people don’t understand. I didn’t have to meet federal standing guidelines to have the State court hear my case over the federal issue. I was owed a duty. The SOS failed me as a citizen and I am entitled to sue. I don’t have to be different than any other citizen for State court standing. That’s why my suit was proper but Berg’s was doomed to fail. He had to meet federal standing – much harder to do that.
“he needed to have brought the case in September at the latest, as soon as McCain was nominated;”
Wrong again. The statute in NJ allows me to bring suit within 45 days after the NJ SOS made her NJSA 19:13-22 “statement” to the County Clerks for ballot preparation which required her to only list candidates who were “by law entitled”. I brought my law suit within 45 days of that statement having been made.
“and he needed to go for a TRO to get a fast hearing, well before ballots were printed.”
Wrong again. I was granted emergency standing by the Judge in the NJ App. Division. My case was skipped to the front of the line after the Judge and the Presiding Judge reviewed my application for emergency relief. Furthermore, my case relied on a NJ Supreme Court case which allowed ballots to be changed after they had been printed when Torricelli dropped out of the Senate race a few years back. In that decision, the NJ Supreme Court said that the cost of printing new ballots was not as important as the voters right to have a candidate listed who was actually running. The NJ Supreme Court cited many different jurisdictions, some which allowed ballots to be switched right up to the election.
Losing attorney Leo C. Donofrio wrote,
You’re the guy who changed his appearance to hand-deliver a petition to the Supreme Court right, right? And if I understand correctly, you though an RFID tracker picked up the passport in your shoe, alerting federal agents.
You may have convinced yourself that you are some kind of champion of the constitution, but that’s not reality. It’s an ego trip.
I think you would know by now if you would take adverse court decisions as chances to learn rather than to teach. State officials can check biographical sources and exclude ineligible candidates, but they need not listen to conspiracy theories and legal sophistry.
earl,
Incorrect. What I was doing was purposefully interjecting into a thread between two other commenters. Therefore, I was making it known that I was intruding on said thread. It’s called being respectful.
Then perhaps more than what I’ve just pointed out regarding what both FactCheck.org and FightTheSmears.com is “only more speculation,” to use your phrase and to follow your premise to its logical conclusion. Remember, they said it, not me; if you disagree with their interpretation, take it up with them.
-Phil
Earl says
He most certainly was not. He was born in Hawaii
>>> so was obama’s sister, and she was born in indonesia
really where’s your proof? even if he was, he is still not a natural
born citizen
where you in the delivery room?
who was the doctor?
where was the hospitol?
are you aware that his father was NOT a US citizen
that his mother was in a polygomus (sic) therefore
illegal marriage
and the LAW , yes there is it , THE LAW at the time was such that she was underage and could not pass US citizen via her illicit
and immoral relationship with a foreigner?
who want to follow the law OR NOT?
are you further aware that obama’s paternal grandma saw him born in Kenya??
who do i believe? nona or Earl??
Nona or Earl?
Nona?
Earl?
Nona was there, Earl is an OBOT.
I see, when someone disagrees with what is written here, it is a “Purposeful hijacking of the thread.” You are descending into ridiculosity. You are all about Proof, evidence and even though it is clear that you lack even the most basic understanding of legal process, even you would not consider what was written on a website as proof (evidence) of anything. Neither is anything Donofrio writes proof of anything. Nowhere has the British government confirmed that indeed Obama was a British citizen at birth, it is only more speculation about what the law “must have meant.” No wonder these cases can’t get their foot in the door of a court if this is all the evidence they have.