Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

[jem]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Sounds like this one was thrown out because the judge said the case was a waste of the court's time and that their birther case was brought only to harass




Hollister v. Soetoro

On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school). The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass". The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand.On January 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.

Why was the case dismissed and when?
The editorial from the judge is irrelevant.

We know the only time a court was set to review Obama's eligibility... Obama chose to default.

Obama was not even willing to proffer that internet birth certificate you love under penalty of perjury?

 

[jem]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Because it was frivolous

exactly... with respect to the idea of obama's eligibility, bringing a suit on those facts or on that motion was off point.

That court in that case never looked at whether Obama was eligible.

The only hearing on the merits of whether he was eligible... Obama chose to default.

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from jem:


The editorial from the judge is irrelevant.

So the judge saying the birthers case was a waste of the courts time and was only to harass is irrelevant ?....LOL !!!!

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from jem:

exactly... with respect to the idea of obama's eligibility, bringing a suit on those facts or on that motion was off point.

That court in that case never looked at whether Obama was eligible.

"Federal judge Clay D. Land rejected the motion and denounced it as frivolous."


frivolous
 


1.characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.

2.self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.

3.(of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.

4. of little weight or importance b : having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from jem:



The only hearing on the merits of whether he was eligible... Obama chose to default.

Obama chose to default ? I thought it went like this


http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/02/03/judge-soundly-rejects-ga-birther-claims/


“The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations…. None of the testifying witnesses offered persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court concludes the plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”



http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html


"By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski," Malihi wrote. "This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing."

 

[jem]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Obama chose to default ? I thought it went like this


http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/02/03/judge-soundly-rejects-ga-birther-claims/


“The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations…. None of the testifying witnesses offered persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court concludes the plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”



http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html


"By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski," Malihi wrote. "This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing."

Obama defaulted.

The judge also stated in his findings that ordinarily he would have granted a default when the defendant does not show, but plaintiffs wanted a hearing anyway. So he made the decision based on the evidence plaintiff had.

Which technically would be worthless evidence. An internet b.c. not introduce by Obama under penalty of perjury has no foundation and therefore no worth.

Orly got to put on a circus and lost... instead of taking default.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Obama defaulted.

The judge also stated in his findings that ordinarily he would have granted a default when the defendant does not show, but plaintiffs wanted a hearing anyway. So he made the decision based on the evidence plaintiff had.

Which technically would be worthless evidence. An internet b.c. not introduce by Obama under penalty of perjury has no foundation and therefore no worth.

Orly got to put on a circus and lost... instead of taking default.

Default in this case always was and is an irrelevant technicality. It would no doubt have been used as more out of control spin by birthers had one been given, but it wouldn't have changed a thing in the end.

The birth certificate nonsesnse that is put up as some kind of a claim has no legs. It is a ridiculous groundless unintelligent political piece of nonsense, which is perpetuated by those who are easily convinced of just about anything.

Bottom line the Judge would have to decide between no evidence from a few hysterical plaintiff birthers and that of notarized officials under oath from Hawaii , who will testify and have already publically stated, which killed the silly notion years ago anyway, that they have seen the birth certificate and confirm it to be genuine.

It's a no brainer. The judge will accept in law the testimony of officials who have seen it against unfounded claims from those who have not.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Default in this case always was and is an irrelevant technicality. It would no doubt have been used as more out of control spin by birthers had one been given, but it wouldn't have changed a thing in the end.

The birth certificate nonsesnse that is put up as some kind of a claim has no legs. It is a ridiculous groundless unintelligent political piece of nonsense, which is perpetuated by those who are easily convinced of just about anything.

Bottom line the Judge would have to decide between no evidence from a few hysterical plaintiff birthers and that of notarized officials under oath from Hawaii , who will testify and have already publically stated, which killed the silly notion years ago anyway, that they have seen the birth certificate and confirm it to be genuine.

It's a no brainer. The judge will accept in law the testimony of officials who have seen it against unfounded claims from those who have not.

Until there is evidence proffered and authenticated it is unintelligent for you to have a legal opinion on the matter... in that we agree. You have been an loon for having an opinion. So has Orly.

If HI or Obama had produced a document under the conditions you just stated... it would probably have carried the day in court.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Until there is evidence proffered and authenticated it is unintelligent for you to have a legal opinion on the matter... in that we agree. You have been an loon for having an opinion. So has Orly.

If HI or Obama had produced a document under the conditions you just stated... it would probably have carried the day in court.

Evidence proffered and authenticated against what exactly Jem-o-loon?
The thing that keeps carrying the day in Court for around 80 times!! now, is the fact that there is nothing at all to warrant the proffering of evidence for authentication.

Lol. You're still pining over birther birth certificate bullshit. and in law your opinion is clearly proven to be worth jack shit.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Evidence proffered and authenticated against what exactly Jem-o-loon?
The thing that keeps carrying the day in Court for around 80 times!! now, is the fact that there is nothing at all to warrant the proffering of evidence for authentication.

Lol. You're still pining over birther birth certificate bullshit. and in law your opinion is clearly proven to be worth jack shit.

I told you and your loon friends there would be a hearing this issue. you all said never. My prediction was proven accurate.

There was a hearing... Obama defaulted instead of presenting proof of eligibility to be President. All he would had to do was present your beloved birth certificate from HI under oath. He chose to default. If that makes you feel good, you have a warped sense of the rule of law or patriotism.