[Editor’s note: Barack Obama’s lawyer, Robert F. Bauer, is threatening a D.C. attorney with “sanctions,” because the attorney is simply requesting that Obama show proof of his birth. No legalize on our part. No exaggeration. No political manipulation. Just the facts in black and white. We have the shocking letter dated April 3. The president of the United States is threatening sanctions – and the word “sanctions” is used in the threat -- against attorney John Hemenway. Read on.]

After the flippant dismissal by U.S. Circuit Court Judge James Robertson of the lawsuit to attempt to determine whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, D.C. attorney John Hemenway received a letter from a lawyer representing Barack Obama and Joe Biden, his Vice President.  (Hemenway had joined the suit launched by Hillary Clinton’s ally, Philip Berg, the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and attorney Lawrence Joyce of Arizona, in an attempt to force President Obama to disclose his birth records, currently being protected against public scrutiny by the Obama legal team at a reported cost of as much as one million dollars.)  The entire letter, written by Obama attorney Robert F. Bauer, states the following (and we note that there is no reference in this letter to an existing valid Birth Certificate for Barack Obama, as opposed to a Certificate of Live Birth, and there is no claim that a valid Birth certificate exists which can be shown to the American people, an act that immediately would shut down this query):

“I represent President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden. I write to request that, in light of the District Court’s March 24, 2009 Rule 11 order in Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 08-2254, you withdraw the appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, No. 09-5080. For the reasons stated in Judge Robertson’s order, the suit is frivolous and should not be pursued.

Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to federal Rule Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38.”

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!)”

Hemenway also pledged:

“…to appeal the slap taken at me (the so-called “reprimand”) by Judge James Robertson who tried unsuccessfully to label our efforts as “frivolous” but who did not have the guts to sanction me under Rule 11.  (This would have given me—and others engaged in this important battle —standing in the Court of Appeals.)  I will do my duty to Colonel Hollister, who technically is a client, even though I never agreed initially to follow the case in the Court of Appeals.  The military, as Colonel Hollister’s interest demonstrates, is quite concerned with the basic issue of ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ orders originating from a ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ commander-in-chief.  Recall that Judge Robertson never did admit attorneys Berg or Joyce to practice in his court, never had a hearing and never examined evidence because he didn’t seek any.  The Judge gave the impression that his decision was predicated solely on ‘blogging and twittering’.“

For the many others who have contacted him and expressed interest in this cause, Hemenway invoked Churchill’s admonition:  “If a matter of principle is involved in a course of action, then never give up—never – never – never.”  The most important part of that quote is the “matter of principle.”  It was not just a display of the stubborn nature of Churchill.  Following that advice, we can see that here, we have a grave matter of principle. 

If Obama can break such a basic, fundamental rule of the Constitution, then what is to keep him from ignoring or suspending other basic rights, such as the Writ of Habeas Corpus? 

Last, Hemenway points out: “Mr. Bauer claims his father was an attorney in Vienna who opposed the union with Germany (the so-called “Anschluss”) and promoted anti-Nazi political movements while he was in Austria.   He says his father left Austria in 1940.  Very few people left greater Germany after 1939, when the war started.  In any event, if Bauer’s background includes such a family history of opposition to anti-rule-of-law monsters, how does he explain his support for this Chicago-styled conspiracy to violate a basic requirement of the United States Constitution?”

 

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author