John David Hemenway speaks!!

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34552
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#101

Post by realist » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:17 am



I apologize if this has been posted before. I did not go back through all five pages of posts. Margaret speaks yet again regarding her father and Bauer. It is claimed there was a letter response to Bauer, but it does not appear in its entirety here, but you get the idea.



Exclusive: Obama Attorney Threatens Distinguished Veteran on Obama Birth Certificate Issue: Why?



Margaret Calhoun Hemenway



Mr. Hemenway's response to the letter was a promise to "write and protest and attack those against the demand that Obama show proof of his birth, and I will continue to do anything I can think of doing that might perhaps deter or injure those who are opposed to “transparency” and “openness” and honesty in governmental operations—all those good and vague promises that Obama threw out in speeches read from his teleprompter."



Mr. Hemenway added, "The lawyer for Obama, Robert Bauer, has abused his privileges as an attorney, because I can regard his premature (and totally inaccurate) threats to seek some sanction against me as a threat to keep me from performing my duty to my client. It won’t work and he will soon see that it has not worked to intimidate me." In his opinion, "many judges and other officials are simply crassly violating their oaths of office. Since I had been in the Department of State and served in Moscow for two years, I am mindful of an expression used by the Russians: “Nada dakazat’ kulak!” (You must show them your fist!)"emphasis mine



Sounds like he'll fit right in with Orly's nonsense.



more here... [/break1]familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2996/pub_detail.asp]http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#102

Post by mimi » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:35 am



"John D Hemenway" seems to have been worried about those commies for the past 40 years or more. Quite a few hits on Hem at google books search. But, as they are congressional hearings and such, only a snippet view is provided.



Meanwhile... he sued his wife's opponent in a race for congress back in '78. Her opponent had published a letter in the Augusta Herald. It doesn't say whether the info was true or not.



[/break1]125.47.132/search?q=cache]HEMENWAY v. BLANCHARD.



User avatar
DrConspiracy
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:04 pm
Occupation: Volunteers with Habitat for Humanity
Contact:

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#103

Post by DrConspiracy » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:17 pm



You have a mistake in your article. Hamilton was never President.Thanks, but anybody on a $10 bill deserves to be president in my book.


Looking for gold coins in a bucket of mud - since 2008.

editorkorir
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:51 am

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#104

Post by editorkorir » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:48 pm



Hamilton is one of the rare currency and college early Americans



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34552
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#105

Post by realist » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:24 am



I caught what I thought was an interesting comment in the post from Berg's Assistant.



by Berg's Assistant on 25 Mar 2009, 22:33

Hi SBA,



Sorry for the delay in responding.



A Procedural Question for Berg's Assistant:



Lisa,



Can Mr. Berg file directly with the Circuit Court of Appeals or do all filings have to be made through your local D.C. counsel, since Judge Robertson never ruled on your pro hac vice application and technically, Mr. Berg isn't counsel of record? Is there a way to appeal Judge Robertson's ruling (or lack of ruling) on the pro hac vice in order to get on the Court's e-mail notice list and get the earliest notice of the Court's communications? It struck me that it was patently unfair for the Judge to say he wanted an appearance in open court before ruling on the pro hac vice application and yet he didn't schedule the appearance. Thanks for your time. I know you're working hard and, as I'm sure you know, there are many who appreciate the time and effort on your part, Mr. Berg's, and others who may assist without public acknowledgment.







We filed the appeal through John Hemenway, however, Phil and Larry are in the process of obtaining their certificates of good standing from their courts to file with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Once they obtain their certificates of good standing, they file a simple application, pay a fee and are members of this particular Court.



We are appealing several issues pertaining to Judge Robertson.



Thank you for your kind words.

That seems to imply they did no have the documents necessary to be admitted pro hac vice in Judge Robertson's court, and proving they were in good standing would have been required there also, whether or not they were required to appear in open court, thus at least one reason they did not try to schedule the hearing.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34552
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#106

Post by realist » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:27 am



Also on a procedural note...



by Berg's Assistant on 07 Mar 2009, 23:39

Thank you Ken, you are too sweet. RX, Phil is currently working on it. Although, we wanted to file the notice of appeal yesterday, we decided to wait and answer the Order to Show Cause. This way, if need be we can appeal both issues at the same time. We will post our answer to the Order to Show Cause and the Notice of Appeal once filed. The way this works is we file a notice of appeal, we then have to file several different forms. The Appellate Court will issue us a scheduling order giving us dates our Briefs are due and dates the Appellee's briefs are due. We will keep everyone abreast. Also, please feel free to ask.



Thanks you two!Resident attorneys: Is this correct or are these indeed two separate issues, with two separate rulings, the dismissal and then the reprimand?



The Notice of Appeal filed states it is only appealing from the ruling of March 9th, which is the dismissal. i've seen no reference to appealing the reprimand order of Judge Robertson.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#107

Post by Tesibria » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:17 am



....by Berg's Assistant on 25 Mar 2009, 22:33

***We filed the appeal through John Hemenway, however, Phil and Larry are in the process of obtaining their certificates of good standing from their courts to file with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Once they obtain their certificates of good standing, they file a simple application, pay a fee and are members of this particular Court. ***That seems to imply they did no have the documents necessary to be admitted pro hac vice in Judge Robertson's court, and proving they were in good standing would have been required there also, whether or not they were required to appear in open court, thus at least one reason they did not try to schedule the hearing.I don't *think* so - i.e., I think it's just a different process in the Appellate Court. Well, lemme back up. In the lower court, they get admitted pro hac vice -- and, do do that, they're required to obtain a sponsor and file an affidavit containing specified info.



In the appellate court, they can actually apply for admission (which, once admitted, applies to any future cases). Do do so, they have to submit the required form, along with a certificate of of membership and good standing from the qualifying bar, and the requisite fee. See [/break1]cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Circuit%20Rules/$FILE/Rules2006Rev2009.pdf]Rule 46.


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34552
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#108

Post by realist » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:25 am



....by Berg's Assistant on 25 Mar 2009, 22:33

***We filed the appeal through John Hemenway, however, Phil and Larry are in the process of obtaining their certificates of good standing from their courts to file with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Once they obtain their certificates of good standing, they file a simple application, pay a fee and are members of this particular Court. ***That seems to imply they did no have the documents necessary to be admitted pro hac vice in Judge Robertson's court, and proving they were in good standing would have been required there also, whether or not they were required to appear in open court, thus at least one reason they did not try to schedule the hearing.I don't *think* so - i.e., I think it's just a different process in the Appellate Court. Well, lemme back up. In the lower court, they get admitted pro hac vice -- and, do do that, they're required to obtain a sponsor and file an affidavit containing specified info.



In the appellate court, they can actually apply for admission (which, once admitted, applies to any future cases). Do do so, they have to submit the required form, along with a certificate of of membership and good standing from the qualifying bar, and the requisite fee. See [/break1]cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Circuit%20Rules/$FILE/Rules2006Rev2009.pdf]Rule 46.Thanks, Tes. I only said that because I know Judge Robertson requested documentation of their good standing for the open court hearing. I assumed, maybe wrongly so, that applying for pro hac vice status, if granted without hearing, would have required them to provide evidence of good standing with their respective bars.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#109

Post by Tesibria » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:38 am



Also on a procedural note...by Berg's Assistant on 07 Mar 2009, 23:39.... we decided to wait and answer the Order to Show Cause. This way, if need be we can appeal both issues at the same time. ...Resident attorneys: Is this correct or are these indeed two separate issues, with two separate rulings, the dismissal and then the reprimand?



The Notice of Appeal filed states it is only appealing from the ruling of March 9th, which is the dismissal. i've seen no reference to appealing the reprimand order of Judge Robertson.The short answer is that I'm not sure. The Rule 11 Order is a collateral order - it did not toll the time for filing appeal of the dismissal order. However, while I am not sure of this, I don't *think* that they can tack on an appeal of the Rule 11 Order to their appeal of the dismissal order. (But, again, not sure - want to track this down, but just haven't yet had the time to do so.)


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#110

Post by Res Ipsa » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:35 pm



I assumed, maybe wrongly so, that applying for pro hac vice status, if granted without hearing, would have required them to provide evidence of good standing with their respective bars.Yes. Typically you send the motion and a Certificate of Good Standing. In PA this requires something like $75 and three days.


Thanks pal.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34552
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#111

Post by realist » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:53 pm



I assumed, maybe wrongly so, that applying for pro hac vice status, if granted without hearing, would have required them to provide evidence of good standing with their respective bars.Yes. Typically you send the motion and a Certificate of Good Standing. In PA this requires something like $75 and three days.Very similar to others I know about. I was assuming the D.C. court would be a similar exercise, which is why I was surprised to see that in late March Berg and Joyce were "obtaining" their certificates from their respective state bars, when I would have assumed they would have to have provided them to the D.C. court in normal the course of events. I then made the leap, perhaps unwarranted, that they had no acquired them at the time they applied for pro hac vice status, as would have been required, and then when Judge Robertson ordered them into open court for admittance, they didn't have them and that was one of many reasons they did not request the hearing as required by D.C. local rule.Just kinda thinkin' out loud.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

allison
Posts: 2220
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:28 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#112

Post by allison » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:20 pm



Didn't have what? A license to practice law? I am confused at what you are sayingDon, read the posts more closely. What they are saying is that Berg/Joyce did not have the actual certificates of good standing in their possession (these are certificates one requests from their state bar). People are pointing out that they had to request the certificates from their respective state bars and were waiting on them and would then submit them to the Court for admission.



Patricia
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:28 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#113

Post by Patricia » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:35 pm



You have a mistake in your article. Hamilton was never President.Thanks, but anybody on a $10 bill deserves to be president in my book. He was quite a guy. Had some serious desires to march an army that he would head through Central and South America, which happily fizzled, although sometimes I wonder. . .



allison
Posts: 2220
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:28 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#114

Post by allison » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:36 pm



Don, all anyone is saying is that according to the post ON OC, Berg is now obtaining his certificate of good standing. THAT IS ALL they are discussing. Maybe you are not understanding the process, when an attorney seeks admission in a new jurisdiction they are required to obtain a certificate from their respective state bar saying they are in good standing. One simply puts in a request for such a certificate, pays a fee, and awaits the arrival of the certificate. No one is claiming they cannot obtain such certificates, people are simply commenting on the fact that ON OC there was a post saying they were currently awaiting these certificates.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34552
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#115

Post by realist » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:42 pm



Then explain how he was able to get Pro Hac in Texas?Things are not adding upTexas courts have absolutely nothing to do with the D.C. courts. One has to apply for admittance pro hac vice in any jurisdiction they wish to practice in when they are not licensed in that jurisdiction. My original post was based on a statement made by Lisa late in March, more than two weeks after the dismissal of Hollister, stating that Berg and Joyce were "obtaining their documentation for admittance to the appeals court," which implies, at least, they did not have it available to them at the time of the Hollister case.allison is a NY-licensed attorney. Assuming she is not licensed in PA and wanted to participate in a suit there, she would have to have a sponsoring attorney (just as Berg and Joyce had Hemenway) make application, provide the necessary documents required in that jurisdiction, and pay a fee. It works that way with all attorneys.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#116

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:54 pm



Don wrote:



Then explain how he was able to get Pro Hac in Texas?



Things are not adding upJeebus, don't you do any research? Here, I'll supply the links:



For United States District Court, Northern District of Texas: [/break1]txnd.uscourts.gov/forms/barmember.html#pro_hac_vice]http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/forms/barm ... o_hac_vice



For Texas state court: [/break1]ble.state.tx.us/atty_us/rule19notice2.htm]http://www.ble.state.tx.us/atty_us/rule19notice2.htm



V-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. Each state court and each federal court determines its own requirements for pro hac vice admission. Pro hac in Texas does not guarantee pro hac in DC.



Okay, read carefully. Re-read if necessary:

T-e-x-a-s

s-t-a-t-e

c-o-u-r-t

d-o-e-s

n-o-t

r-e-q-u-i-r-e

t-h-e

a-p-p-l-i-c-a-n-t

t-o

s-u-b-m-i-t

a

c-e-r-t-i-f-i-c-a-t-e

o-f

g-o-o-d

s-t-a-n-d-i-n-g

f-r-o-m

t-h-e

a-p-p-l-i-c-a-n-t-'-s

h-o-m-e

s-t-a-t-e.



See Instruction No. 5 of the Texas form.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#117

Post by Paul Lentz » Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:24 pm



Don wrote:



Then explain how he was able to get Pro Hac in Texas?



Things are not adding upJeebus, don't you do any research? Here, I'll supply the links:



For United States District Court, Northern District of Texas: [/break1]txnd.uscourts.gov/forms/barmember.html#pro_hac_vice]http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/forms/barm ... o_hac_vice



For Texas state court: [/break1]ble.state.tx.us/atty_us/rule19notice2.htm]http://www.ble.state.tx.us/atty_us/rule19notice2.htm



V-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. Each state court and each federal court determines its own requirements for pro hac vice admission. Pro hac in Texas does not guarantee pro hac in DC.



Okay, read carefully. Re-read if necessary: T-e-x-a-s s-t-a-t-e c-o-u-r-t d-o-e-s n-o-t r-e-q-u-i-r-e t-h-e a-p-p-l-i-c-a-n-t t-o s-u-b-m-i-t a c-e-r-t-i-f-i-c-a-t-e o-f g-o-o-d s-t-a-n-d-i-n-g f-r-o-m t-h-e a-p-p-l-i-c-a-n-t-'-s h-o-m-e s-t-a-t-e. See Instruction No. 5 of the Texas form.Jeez, this is pitiful.



Next thing you know, Don will be inviting us all (again) to "suck his left nut," (he's a perfect fit with the teabaggers) simply because he is too ignorant to understand (and too profoundly lazy to do the research to determine) that pro hac vice admission requirements vary from court to court, from state court to state court, from federal district court to federal district court, and from federal circuit court to federal circuit court, and has already decided to display his profound ignorance in combative "defense" of his hero (Berg) and his fantasy goddess (Liberi), when neither was insulted by the simple foregoing discussion of the facts (including Liberi's OWN POST on OC).



There's a box of rocks out in my yard which shines more brightly.


The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#118

Post by Res Ipsa » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:22 pm



Then explain how he was able to get Pro Hac in Texas?Things are not adding upAs noted, if we are talking about a Texas state court, then one is not needed.However, each time you apply for pro hac status in a court which requires a certificate of good standing, you have to get a fresh certificate.For example, I have been admitted pro hac in proceedings in federal courts in New York, Utah, CA Central, CA Northern, Maryland and Florida Middle, at various times.My state of admission is PA, and like Berg I am also admitted to the PA Eastern District federal court.Each federal district court I've been in has required a certificate of good standing from the PA Supreme Court. You have to get one each time, so it has a fresh date on it, and you submit the original with your pro hac application. You get them here:[/break1]aopc.org/Links/LegalProfession/CertificateGoodStanding.htm]http://www.aopc.org/Links/LegalProfessi ... anding.htm(hmmm... and they are only $25... I could swear my assistant is billing more than that for them....)Anyhow, whether or not he needed one elsewhere is irrelevant to the fact that Berg would need a new one each and every time he applied for pro hac status before a court which requires one.


Thanks pal.

allison
Posts: 2220
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:28 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#119

Post by allison » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:18 am



Not to mention YET AGAIN, that the POINT of even discussing any of this was that people were commenting on the fact (as evidenced by the POST ON OC) that Phil was WAITING for this certificate to arrive. People were therefore SURPRISED that Phil had not ALREADY obtained such a certificate to be used in his pro hac application originally submitted before Judge Robertson. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE CRUX OF THE DISCUSSION, DON. Sheesh. The stupid...IT BURNS!!!!!!!



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#120

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:55 pm



Then explain how he was able to get Pro Hac in Texas?Things are not adding upWhich leads Don to suggest what?... How hard is it to do some basic research to answer this minor mystery? Not much since the follow up shows that the Texas Courts do not require a certificate of good standing.So wrong so often...



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34552
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#121

Post by realist » Tue May 26, 2009 8:14 am



Mr. Hemenway speaks again, this time to Rupert Murdoch of Fox News.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.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. HemenwayMore here... [/break1]familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3320/pub_detail.asp]http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Youtube-said-so
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:15 am

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#122

Post by Youtube-said-so » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:01 am



Editor’s note: The following is a letter written by John D. Hemenway, Esq. that was sent to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs via certified mail.http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp.



User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7764
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

John David Hemenway speaks!!

#123

Post by PatGund » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:05 am



Editor’s note: The following is a letter written by John D. Hemenway, Esq. that was sent to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs via certified mail.http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... il.asp.Why do I suspect this isn't going to help his appeal any?



Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”