'Birther' Interrupts Constitution Reading
Join the discussion below, or Read more at KGTV.
#1 Jan 6, 2011
What a nut! Fine is $100 and spend a day in jail.
#2 Jan 6, 2011
no respect for the Constitution, even tho these crazies prance around draping themselves in it. Burpers are phonies.
#3 Jan 6, 2011
I dont like Obama but give it up he was born in the U.S. Stick to how much he sucks as a president.
Saint Paul, MN
#4 Jan 6, 2011
When is the Bohner going public with his birth certificate? With that skin color we have no idea where he was born. Ship him back to where he came from.
#5 Jan 6, 2011
Birthers are nothing more than nut jobs!
#6 Jan 6, 2011
The display of "I'm more patriotic than you" cost US taxpapayers 1.1 million dollars.
Theres' the start of fiscal conservativism the Tea Party is talking about.
Since: Aug 10
#9 Jan 7, 2011
Another nut job!! What was this person doing there anyway?
#16 Jan 7, 2011
Useful. Take note moron:
Definition of RACISM from Merriam-Wenster
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination
#18 Jan 7, 2011
#24 Jan 7, 2011
How long have you been holding your breath deadman? Sorry, dumb question....you're entire existance. Now try stomping up and down.
#37 Jan 7, 2011
Yup! 40 some years ago, the democrats planned this. They purposely printed the birth of Obama in newspapers. It was all a part of the plan to have him run for president and win 40 some years later. LOL, just like Bush master minded 9/11. We never landed on the moon. The holocaust never happened. ETC. Birthers need to stop, they look and sound stupid. Go to Hawaii and look at the birth statement in the newspaper records and shut up.
#40 Jan 7, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, Plaintiff, v. BARRY SOETORO, et al., Defendants.::::::::: Civil Action No. 08-2254 (JR) ORDER For the reasons set forth in an accompanying
memorandum, the defendants' motion to dismiss [#9] isgranted,
and John D. Hemenway is ordered to show cause within eleven days
of the date of this order why he should not be sanctioned under
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
#41 Jan 7, 2011
This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.
The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force
colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief
(because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is
tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven -- to the
colonels satisfaction -- that Mr. Obama is a native-born
American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be
President. The issue of the Presidents citizenship was raised,
vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
Americas vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obamas two-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court. The real plaintiff is probably Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who lives in Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, and who has pursued
his crusade elsewhere, see Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509
(E.D. Pa. 2008), invoking the civil rights statutes, the Federal
Election Campaign Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and the law of promissory
estoppel. That case was the subject of a scholarly opinion by a
judge who took Mr. Bergs claims seriously - and dismissed them.
Mr. Hollister is apparently Mr. Bergs fallback brainstorm,
essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee Mr. Bergs
native-born issue up for decision on a new theory: If some
value could be assigned to the duties the plaintiff thinks he
might someday be called upon to fulfill under the Commander-in-
Chief, then those duties could be deposited in the registry of
this Court as theres whose distribution is to be decided by a
suit in interpleader!
The filing and service of the complaint required
private counsel to appear for President Obama and for Vice
President Biden (whose citizenship is not challenged but who was
presumably considered a necessary party in a suit seeking to
unseat the President). Those counsel have moved to dismiss,
asserting both that this Court has no jurisdiction
and that the plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief cannot be granted (Rule 12(b)(6)). Plaintiff having invoked both diversity and the federal
interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C.§ 1355, I do have jurisdiction.
Because plaintiffs only claim invokes the interpleader statute,
however, the suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
#42 Jan 7, 2011
I have already called the interpleader claim
frivolous in two interlocutory rulings [#10 and #14], and I do
so again here. As the defendants noted in their motion to
dismiss,interpleader allows a party exposed to multiple claims
on a single obligation or property to settle the controversy and
satisfy his obligation in one proceeding. Commercial Union Ins.
Co. v. U.S., 999 F.2d 581, 583 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is typically
used in insurance cases where the plaintiff holds property on
behalf of another but does not know to whom among several adverse
parties the property should be transferred [#9 at 8]. Resort to
interpleader is inappropriate when it is sought for improper or
ulterior purposes. Wright & Miller § 1707 (3d ed. 2001).
Plaintiff has not cited a single case that lends even
colorable support to the notion that his alleged duties can be
the money or property to which the interpleader statute
applies. The interpleader suits he cites are all about money or
tangible property: American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v.
Construcciones Werl, Inc., 407 F. Supp 164 (D. V.I. 1975) is
about contested HUD monies; Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Nichols,
363 F.2d 357 (8th Cir. 1966), is about insurance proceeds; Dunbar
v. United States, 502 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1974) is about money
seized from the mails. The only interpleader case plaintiff
cites that involves a "duty" is Bank of Neosho v. Colcord, 8
F.R.D. 621 (W.D. Mo. 1949)(Complaint, para. 12), an inapposite
decision declining to strike a cross-claim for specific
performance in an interpleader case that began, as interpleader
cases do, with the deposit of funds. This suit will accordingly
Mr. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce, an attorney who lives
in Tucson, Arizona, signed the complaint in this case.(They
have been filing electronically although they have not been
admitted pro hac vice, see [#10].) They are agents
provocateurs - and any attempt to sanction them for misuse of the public and private resources that have had to be devoted to
this case would only give them a forum to continue their
provocation. John D. Hemenway, on the other hand, is a member of
the Bar of this Court. He may have been enlisted by Messrs. Berg
and Joyce as a foot soldier in their crusade, but he is
nevertheless directly responsible to this Court for the pleadings
that have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. 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.
JAMES ROBERTSON United States District Judge
#43 Jan 7, 2011
#44 Jan 7, 2011
BARRY?- BARACK?- HUSSEIN?- MOHAMED?- ABDULAH?- oBAMA?- SOETORO?
#45 Jan 7, 2011
#46 Jan 7, 2011
REMOVE! Odumber NOW!
#47 Jan 7, 2011
DEATH to OBAMA / SOETORO |||||||
Death to the kenyan!
#48 Jan 7, 2011
"BIRTHER" MATCHING TEST
(simplified so that even birthers can play)
Listed below are several attributes.
STEP ONE: Match the attributes listed below to the category of people most closely described by that attribute:
The Founding Fathers __________
birther-tea crumpets __________
Linux operators __________
(a) Highly Educated
(c) High Social Status
(d) Savvy and Sophisticated
(f) unemployed and impoverished
(g) losers and misfits
(h) very gullible
STEP TWO: Look in the mirror to see if you are one of The Founding Fathers (present at the Creation) or
a birther-tea crumpet [:(].
Add your comments below
|Is Christie or Obama to blame for N.J. getting ... (Feb '16)||Feb '16||Mathematics||2|
|Synthetic turf industry lobbies up in safety fight (Jan '16)||Jan '16||goonsquat||8|
|The Free Beacon Thinks Purchasing Ammunition Sh... (May '15)||May '15||JEFF1234||1|
|EPA blasts GOP's bill to change climate rule (Apr '15)||Apr '15||red and right||11|
|Bringing Predictability and Speed to DEA's Sche... (Apr '15)||Apr '15||Sterkfontein Swar...||1|
|Elections Morning Digest: Robert Menendez defia... (Mar '15)||Mar '15||Joe||1|
|Bruised from midterm elections, Democrats face ... (Nov '14)||Nov '14||Cement Heads||37|
Find what you want!
Search Frank Pallone Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC