Judge delivers rule 11 sanction to "Hollister v 'Soetoro'" attorney

"We live in a free country. Our liberties are manifold and are the envy of the world. In the very top tier of those liberties, enshrined in the First Amendment, is “the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Many of those petitions are presented to judges. Every judge knows that a disturbingly high percentage of them involve petty slights, or imagined injuries, or matters that lie well beyond the reach of the judicial writ, but most judges will agree that it is important at least to listen to them -- especially to the grievances of poor petitioners, or disadvantaged petitioners, or petitioners who do not have lawyers -- even if the courts are powerless to grant relief.

Lawyers who come to court to present grievances, however, are held to a higher standard than disadvantaged or unrepresented persons. For lawyers, there are rules. A lawyer knows that no judge has any business addressing or ruling upon a dispute, no matter how fervently he or his clients may feel about it, unless the judge has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, unless the client has standing to be heard, unless the cause is ripe and justiciable, and unless the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. A lawyer who comes to federal court also knows, because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plainly say so, that his signature on a complaint “certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” the complaint “is not being presented for any improper purpose,” Rule 11(b)(1), and that “the claims . . . and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law,” Rule 11(b)(2)."

"Many people, perhaps as many as a couple of dozen, feel deeply about this issue."

"Attempts have been made to tee the question up for judicial resolution in a number of courts across the country. See, defendant’s motion to dismiss . Mr. Hemenway’s associate, Philip J. Berg, made at least one such attempt, suing in a federal court in Pennsylvania, naming himself as plaintiff. After that suit was dismissed (for lack of standing), and after the Supreme Court declined to hear him, Mr. Berg (apparently) found another plaintiff, a man who retired from the Air Force as a colonel more than ten years ago and now claims to be uncertain about whether -– if he were recalled to active duty -– he would have to obey commands that come from President Obama as commander-in-chief. Mr. Berg (presumably) enlisted Mr. Hemenway in this cause. Mr. Hemenway, Mr. Berg, and Lawrence J. Joyce then filed this lawsuit. Mr. Hemenway signed the complaint, (1) certifying his compliance with Rule 11(b).

(1) Messrs. Berg and Joyce are not members of the bar of this court and were not granted leave to appear pro hac vice."

"I have said nothing, and have nothing to say, about the merits of the “natural born Citizen” question that Messrs. Hemenway, Berg, et al., have sought to present here."

"I have no business addressing the merits, because, having found that Mr. Hemenway’s interpleader suit failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, I have dismissed it. "

"The only question that remains before me is whether Mr. Hemenway, when he signed the complaint, violated Rule 11(b). It seemed to me when I dismissed the complaint, on March 5, 2009, that Mr. Hemenway’s invocation of the interpleader statute as the vehicle for his complaint was completely frivolous. For that reason, and in compliance with Rule 11(c)(3), I ordered Mr. Hemenway to show cause why I should not find him in violation of Rule 11(b), either because he presented the suit for an improper purpose, Rule 11(b)(1), or because his claims and other legal contentions were not “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law,” Rule 11(b)(2), or both. Mr. Hemenway, responding to that order, has filed about 35 pages of argument and self-justification. Most of his submission deals with the merits of his claim, which, again, are not the subject of the present memorandum."

"Mr. Hemenway is 82 years old and takes considerable and justified pride in his patriotic public service and his status as a Rhodes Scholar. He is unlikely to repeat the conduct that gave rise to this proceeding, and in his case the permissible alternative sanction of a reprimand will be sufficient. “Others similarly situated” -– the people who put Mr. Hemenway up to filing this foolish suit – are unlikely to be deterred, except by a penalty that would be unreasonable to impose on Mr. Hemenway alone.(4)

(4)http://www.obamacrimes.info/ (last visited 3/24/09) “02/13/09: PRESS RELEASE - Berg Fighting On. 3 Pending Lawsuits to Expose Obama for ‘not’ being Constitutionally ‘qualified/eligible’ to be President and Berg requests help to spread the word as the major media refuses . . . Request - Everyone who can - Please raise, by asking four <4> friends @ $15.00 each, or contribute $60.00 to us now. You can use PayPal or credit card on our website or mail a check.”

"John D. Hemenway is hereby reprimanded for his part in the preparation, filing, and prosecution of a legally frivolous suit in this court. The order to show cause is discharged. It is SO ORDERED."