warning: the following report is an unexpurgated account of the unfortunate consequences of obama derangement syndrome when left untreated. don't let this happen to you!
united state district court
for the district of columbia
date: 03/05/09 case no.: 08-cv-2254-jr decedent: hollister v. soetoro et. al cause of death: improper procedure; neglect of life-saving procedures; multiple secondary wounds, self-inflicted verdict: accidental, but unable to rule out suicide
on december 29, 2008, the decedent was brought forward by attorneys john hemenway, philip berg and lawrence joyce seeking an interpleader action on behalf of retired ready reserve air force colonel gregory hollister. only hemenway was licensed to practice in d.c., but the others sought permission by filing a routine pro hac vice request.
attorneys argued that hollister, as "subject to presidential recall for the rest of his life", held an asset (his military duty) deliverable only to its lawful recipient, the president, who must demonstrate the legitimacy of his claim to the asset, in order to resolve perceived constitutional issues.
in short notice the decedent developed critical life-threatening complications. on february 4, 2009, decedent's heart, lungs and brains were evulsed:the decedent was then placed on life support pending a competency hearing for the attorneys.plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is denied. his motion to shorten time for defendants to respond to his complaint [#3] is moot and is denied.by this time, opposing counsel had already filed their motion to dismiss.the motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of philip j. berg and lawrence j. joyce are in abeyance until the court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.
ironically, the competency hearing represented the best chance not only for the victim's survival, but for its vindication. the hearing would allow the attorneys to argue the case on the merits. issues of standing that have abruptly terminated the progress every known prior case were suddenly set aside, if only for this one instance. presumably, this development was everything the attorneys (and their followers) had been waiting for. considering the direness of the situation, the worst possible outcome could have been turned into the best.
curiously, the attorneys never administered this critical life-saving procedure. no hearing was ever scheduled. no explanations have been forthcoming.
instead what followed were a series of further unnecessary injuries committed upon the decedent. one is reminded of the criminal malpractice that led to the death of president garfield following his attempted assassination. given the demonstrated skills of the attorneys, the decedent was probably doomed regardless.
instead of responding to the defendant's motion to dismiss, the attorneys refiled what can only be charitably called an amended version of the original complaint. in the judge's words:instead of the opposition plaintiff was ordered to file by 2/13/09 (or defendants' motion to dismiss would be granted as conceded, see [#10]), what plaintiff filed was (a) the affidavit of a paralegal (who works in the office of a pennsylvania lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in this court), complaining about her treatment by an employee of the clerk's office, and (b) many blank pages, decorated only by what appear to be botanical drawings and the illegible photocopy of an hawaiian certificate of live birth. (a) the affidavit was apparently intended as a response to my earlier observation that plaintiff's motion to file interpleader was frivolous, see [#2], [#10], the argument being, "maureen higgins made me do it." what was frivolous about the motion, however, was not the fact that it was filed, but the suggestion that "duties" could be filed in the registry of this court. (b) the blank pages were either somebody's idea of a joke (in which case i don't get it) or a mistake. if the latter, plaintiffs have until 5:00 pm est on 2/26/09 to correct it, by re-filing their points and authorities in opposition to the pending motion to dismiss (in the .pdf format required by the court's cm/edf system), or otherwise to show cause why that motion should not now be granted as conceded. it is so ordered.
the attorneys' response:translation: "hey, don't look at us, yer honor!"counsel for plaintiff would never file blank pages or attempt to play any type of a joke on this honorable court as counsel for plaintiff have too much respect for the judicial system.
twice more the attorneys attempted to submit their response, which continued to be plagued by, at the very least, technical issues. finally, the judge, after having twice extended their deadline to file, simply gave up:translation: "ok, ok! stop sending me this crap! i'll work with what i've got!"plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss [#13] was illegible on most of the court's computers, as was plaintiff's response to the court's order to show cause [#15], because plaintiff filed documents scanned with resolutions so fine that they overwhelmed the court's cm/ecf system. on the court's website, go to ecf filing pointers and then to attorney's checklist, for instructions. the court's order to show cause [#14] is discharged.
having thus successfully demonstrated their competence, the attorneys then filed on 03/02/09 a motion to vacate the competency hearing and henceforth grant berg and joyce permission to litigate sans hearing. because, after all, they've been trying, really really trying, so hard to follow procedure. translation: "ain't none o' this our fault, yer honor ... so, we cool, aight?"
the decedent never recovered from the initial injuries or the subsequent malpractice. the decedent was removed from life-support and declared dead on 03/05/09:from the judge's memorandum:for the reasons set forth in the following memorandum, the defendants' motion to dismiss [#9] is granted ...the judge rendered his own conclusions on the decedent and the attorneys' unorthodox prescriptions and procedures: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 judge then levied court costs and attorneys' fees and legal sanctions against the local counsel:mr. hollister is apparently mr. berg’s fallback brainstorm, essentially a straw plaintiff, one who could tee mr. berg’s native-born issue up for decision on a new theoryit appears mr. hemenway has been left holding the bag. in retrospect, attorneys berg and joyce may have been wise to postpone getting permission to practice in d.c..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...
... 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.
perhaps those two are not quite so incompetent after all ...
what follows are statements from the bereaved. directions regarding where to send flowers and condolences are to be announced:FLOOD THE DOCKETS MY FELLOW PATRIOTS!!!!!!!!!it figures rat judge.ruh roh. sanctions for this attorney are unavoidable. disbarment isn’t out of the question. federal courts don’t play games.i wondered how long it would take for them to use rule 11, to go after the attorneys as a means of protecting barry.JUST WHO IN THE HELL DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR PROOF THAT A PRESIDENT IS ACTUALLY A CITIZEN IF NOT THE US CITIZENS???????????????????it amazes me how judges, allegedly devoted to fair and just proceedings, just blow these cases out the door with no more basis than reading doonesbury.wow. what a surprise...not.it might be impossible to get the decision overturned but I’ll bet any sanctions could be successfully fought. the judge might have been a little too cute for his own goodthis 71-year-old judge has sipped the kool-aid and has decided to drop on bended knee to “The One.”hollister should consider signing onto orly’s lawsuit.
footnote: as tragic as the hollister case might appear, it is not the most severe incident of obama derangement syndrome ever documented. that singular honor belongs to roy v. obama. this filing is not for the rationally inclined. from the judge's dismissal:so if you should find yourself wondering whether the president is an illegal alien or a manchurian marxist, do yourself a favor. check yourself into a hospital — without delay. because ods kills.... utterly confusing, consists of illegible handwritten notations, and is incomprehensible.