John Hemenway letter to Rupert Murdock re: barry’s birth certificate

Updated list of birth certificate posts

Persephone here’s the letter.

May 26, 2009

The following letter provided by Family Security Matters is from Attorney John D Hemenway to Rupert Murdock asking him in effect to allow FOX News investigate barry’s eligibility. I don’t know what if anything came directly out of the letter – what Mr Murdock had done himself – but there was a question placed on FOXNation: “Should Obama Release Birth Certificate? Or Is This Old News?” With it was Robert Gibbs’ May 27th press briefing video where he outright lied and said barry’s birth certificate was on the internet.

Mr Hemenway had acted as the local attorney for Philip Berg’s interpleader case Hollister v Soetoro. The case was based on the issue of whether a military man on ready reserve had “standing” in that his potential performance of duty directly hinges on whether barry is a legally qualified Commander in Chief. Of course it didn’t work but the judge – Judge Robertson – took it upon himself to rant at Mr Hemenway, an 82 y/o World War II veteran, Naval Academy graduate and Rhodes scholar for bringing a “frivolous case”. None of the other cases have received sanction. The Judge chose to reprimand Mr Hemenway instead of sanctioning him. Mr Hemenway filed an appeal.

Out of the original ruling, a regular citizen exercised his freedom of speech in regards to Judge Robertson, which then resulted in said citizen receiving a visit from the US Marshal Service. Not kidding. This happened all the way back in March so I don’t think I can find the post in the drafts. I have the Judge’s ruling that I’ll post after this.

The President of the United States has been vetted by sympathetic internet sites and that’s good enough for a judge. Factcheck was also used as a footnote on barry’s filings before the Supreme Court. It’s unfathomable that the man who can obliterate whatever country he wants with an unvetoable push of a button is in that position because of a one-sided piece of green paper.

Nobody would believe it as a novel.

I’m going to highlight the relevant areas because the letter is as much personal as it is professional. It’s actually a very interesting letter to read. The question of the Saudi involvement I had heard before but I didn’t realize it could actually be true.

————————————————

Exclusive: A Letter to Rupert Murdoch on the Obama Birth Certificate Question
Editor’s note: The following is a letter written by John D. Hemenway, Esq. that was sent to NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch via certified mail.

May 14, 2009

Dear Rupert,

You will likely not have retained a clear memory of me from Worcester College in the early fifties. Much time has elapsed from when we both read “P.P.E.” under Asa Briggs and the others. I had looked forward to cementing our friendship when the death of your father caused you simply to “disappear” from those at Worcester.

Much later, during several visits to my Washington, D.C. home, my moral tutor, David Mitchell, filled me in on the magnificent assistance you provided the College. Perhaps you also had something to do with the “Mitchell Building” erected just off Walton Street.

Everyone who shares your views is pleased at the nearly unprecedented success story you have made of your life. I was very pleased when you became an American, even if some persons attributed your motivation as calculated to expand your economic interests. Pure jealousy! You and your accomplishments have been good for us all.

From time to time, I try to keep up with interesting details concerning your news empire. From that reading, I am certain you and I have many opinions in common. I subscribe to the N.Y. Post, which one can acknowledge is “tabloidish,” but describes real N.Y. City life and the Post’s editorial staff certainly offers solid opinions pertaining to U.S. governmental problems. “Fox News” also makes an outstanding contribution to public awareness of the issues confronting the country.

You may recall the vital contribution Worcester’s Provost John Masterman made to the winning of WWII; he was a key figure, as I remember, in organizing the counter-espionage effort against the Nazis. I write you now concerning a problem nearly of that magnitude.

That problem is this: the man now occupying the White House is likely Constitutionally unqualified to hold the office. As an adopted American, you will have studied the U.S. Constitution better than many Americans, and from P.P.E. studies know that the Constitution has flexible clauses and hard, literal clauses. One of the latter is the requirement of Article II, Section 1, which states: “No person except a natural-born citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of the President.”

There are indications that Obama cannot meet that requirement. As an attorney, I facilitated a lawsuit (Hollister vs. Soetoro et al.) in the United States District Court (D.C. Circuit) demanding that Obama produce his birth certificate or satisfactory substitute evidence.n my case, U.S. District Court Judge Robertson (a Clinton appointee), who summarily dismissed the case, and is rumored to be seeking an Obama appointment, wrote that Obama’s eligibility had been “blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry.” In other words, he accepted internet “blogs” in lieu of actual evidence. There are about 20 similar lawsuits across the nation. I

He ordered me to “show cause” why I should not be sanctioned for promotion of a “frivolous” lawsuit. (It is significant that, although dismissed, none of the twenty odd similar legal actions have been designated by the responsible judge as “frivolous.”)

Other lawsuits have usually been dismissed for “lack of standing” including a lawsuit brought by Presidential candidate, Ambassador Alan Keyes. If anyone has standing, it is an actual Presidential contender. I provided Judge Robertson 37 pages of explanation as to “why I should not be held in contempt” and he decided to “reprimand” me instead of his threatened sanctions. That case is now under appeal.

Any rational person with even partial knowledge of the facts must know that Obama-cum-Soetoro is desperate to conceal something he does not want known. I believe he is hiding the fact that he and his campaign conspired to assert eligibility for the Presidential office to which he well may not be entitled. In other parts of the world, this would be known as a coup d’etat.

Yet, “mainstream” news services, members of officialdom, judges, including justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have all failed to demand documentation to prove or disprove Obama’s qualifications to serve in the White House.

It is as if a 53% vote is a substitute for an actual determination of the legal qualifications of Obama to be President. It is also evident that consequential people in America all believe the “vetting” of qualifications to be a presidential candidate should have been someone else’s responsibility. Revelation of this massive collapse of the fundamentals of the electoral process (ensuring candidate eligibility) at this point would make some very important people look hopelessly incompetent and inept.

Sadly, that includes your “Fox News.” There are reports that top management of Fox instructed its commentators to stay away from the subject – a strange position for a service that deservedly won a reputation for “fair and balanced” reporting. I cannot believe that you would issue such an order, with your good sense. Was it Roger Ailes or someone else? When I worked with Accuracy in Media (AIM) several decades ago, news manipulation by Ailes never filled the staff with confidence. On May 1, Sean Hannity referred to Ailes as his “boss!”

It is also disturbing that a report circulates that a Saudi national who bought enough stock to win a seat on the board of Fox’s parent company, a Saudi prince, asked you to stop Fox from referring to Muslim youth unrest as “Muslim” riots – he boasted later at a conference in Dubai, that after a phone call to you, thirty minutes later, Fox removed the banner from the bottom of its screen, “Muslim” riots. Given this revelation, many FOX devotees are wondering why the eligibility issue has been ignored by your network.

This constitutional question is one of vital importance to the U.S. It is not as if we wanted to startle our contemporaries with actions calculated to stir up our contemporaries as you once did at Worcester with your bust of Lenin. Or as I did when ruffling feathers of our stuffy dean (who guarded the door of “his” library from allowing anyone actually to touch one of his rare books). After you left for Australia to tend to family problems, I hung a huge American flag from the windows of the Nuffield Building on the 4th of July. The dean’s order (conveyed to me by my scout) still rings in my ears, “Take that damn thing down!”

The “natural-born” clause in our Constitution is a rigid, not a flexible clause. In that respect, it is analogous to the banning of “cruel or unusual” punishments, a clause dear to the hearts of our founding fathers. They certainly heard tales from their grandfathers drawn directly from English experience of ingenious cruelties accompanying the crime of “Regicide” after “dictator” Oliver Cromwell died peacefully in his bed. The fact that the English could not devise a way to govern themselves without inviting the king back may suggest that you modify somewhat your prediction (which I read somewhere) that this will be the last British generation that will live under a monarchy! I recall the first review of my educational “progress” at term’s end in “Hall” at Worcester when David Mitchell described my understanding of English history as limited to “King John was a bad king!”

Since you are now an American, and a good one, too, I have no doubt that you will seek to support the Constitution every way you think wise. Consider that, having won election on a campaign that promised “openness and transparency,” Obama now has spent close to $1 million for concealment of his birth and academic records, which are the only means to prove his eligibility. A birth certificate would cost less than $20.00 to request from the State of Hawaii.

Obama has produced no documents at all that would support his claim to eligibility to office. Is it no longer responsible to claim that “the public has a right to know the truth?” Moreover, even if born in Hawaii, as he claims, Obama’s travel to Pakistan (when Americans reportedly were banned from travel there) in 1981 raises other, complicated issues.

Why did his supporters produce a misleading “certification of live birth” instead of an actual vault birth certificate? Forensic experts have testified that the Certification of Live Birth is a forgery; written on a laser printer, when such printers were not available in 1961.

This evokes shades of Richard Nixon’s problems with typewriters (not just once, re: Alger Hiss; but a second time, when Nixon was caught back-dating documents for the I.R.S.) It makes me proud that in his secret tapes, Nixon referred to me, saying, “Fire the son-of-a-bitch, he’s done this before!” – a reference to my testimony before the Senate against incompetent or dishonest Nixon appointees, such as Helmut Sonnenfeldt (known locally as “Kissinger’s Kissinger) who failed confirmation as Deputy Secretary of Treasury because of my testimony before the Senate Finance Committee.

I also testified against the first “career” foreign service officer ever to fail confirmation in the 182 year history of the U.S. Senate: Howard Mace, who was Director of Personnel of the Department of State, who lost his appointment as Ambassador to Sierra Leone. Senate testimony may ultimately prove useful in this Obama matter, despite the composition of the Congress at this time.

Nixon’s firing order directly led me to study law at Howard University, the prestigious largely African-American University in Washington, D.C. Nixon’s denunciation of me, in fact, boosted me in the eyes of the Dean at Howard and got me to this point.

In conclusion, I can tell you this as fact. America badly needed your brilliant creation: Fox News. But if Fox News really is to be a voice for rational conservatism in the United States, it cannot ignore this vital constitutional question: We have a man occupying the White House who refuses to disclose the very documents that would legitimate his Presidency. Was it not a cover-up that undid Richard Nixon? Please instruct your personnel from Roger Ailes on down that they are encouraged (not forbidden) to report all of the news, including that pertaining to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

With best regards, your supporter, friend, and admirer,
John D. Hemenway

Judge James Robertson’s rant re: Hollister v Soetoro

Persephone – I was able to find all three things.

Here’s Judge Robertson’s rant. He ruled Mr Hemenway should show just cause for why he brought this “frivolous” case. He only went after Mr Hemenway because he was the local attorney and because “any attempt to sanction [Phil Berg & Lawrence Joyce] 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.”

That was March — they’re still at it.

He ended up just reprimanding Mr Hemenway, which is presently under appeal.

Emphasis added

=============

Updated list of birth certificate posts

March 6, 2009

Hollister v Soetoro

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 08-2254 (JR)
MEMORANDUM

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 colonel’s satisfaction — that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be President. The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

[A district court judge would rather the case - whether the POTUS is eligible to hold the Office - be tried on the internet and through tweets than in a court of law.]

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. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them. 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 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 the res 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 (Rule 12(b)(1)) 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 plaintiff’s only claim invokes the interpleader statute, however, the suit must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

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 be dismissed.

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 pleading 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

Judge Robertson sends US Marshals after letter-writer

Persephone here’s the poor citizen who happened to upset Judge Robertson. I can’t believe I found it. I just had to find the source.

Updated list of birth certificate posts

March 17, 2009

Mr Jesse Merrell, regular American, wasn’t happy with Judge Robertson’s rant about how barry’s birth certificate issue was “raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”

Who wouldn’t be a tad upset when a judge defers to the vigilant – I think he meant vigilante – citizenry to vet the President of the United States? The whole this is quite mad. So Mr Merrell wrote the good judge a letter – maybe even a rant – of his own only to be visited by the US Marshal Service on behalf of the judge. It’s clear the judge has issues. One wonder if he’s short and wears small shoes…

According to John McCaslin at the Washington Times, “Mr. Merrell says one of the marshals cited “some obscure law which made it illegal to say anything that caused ‘emotional distress’ to a federal judge.”

MR MERRELL: “I was visited by two U.S. marshals … after I had written a letter to Judge Robertson for his rant threatening sanctions over lawyers who filed a suit challenging Obama’s right to be president over the ‘natural born’ citizen clause in the Constitution.

I told them unless the First Amendment had been repealed, or they were going to arrest me, we had nothing to talk about.

Don’t you wonder what the Marshals were thinking?