[rxsid]

The recent updates in the HOLLISTER v SOETORO (et al) in the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What do it mean?

[rxsid]

Ping...Hollister v Soetoro recent court docs.

[Vendome]

K? Thanks for telling us what we are seeing.

Gotta go make some money.

later.

[rxsid]

Quote:

"What this means is that Larry Joyce who is the Lead Attorney for Col Hollister and always has been has asked the court to remove for his client what was filed by John Heminway who was the sponsoring Attorney for Larry Joyce and Phil Berg. This information that John Heminway filed was in no way filed with Larry Joyce knowing that John Heminway was filing what he did. In fact Larry Joyce filed his own Brief in behalf of Col Hollister. Larry Joyce was recently addmitted to practice law in the DC Circuit court so Larry no longer needs a sponsoring attorney. Pro Hac Vicei is the term for a sponsoring attorney.

Larry's Brief makes a much stronger argument than that of John Heminway. John can use whatever he wants to try and have his sanctioned order although pointed out that the judge cannot sanction Heminway, the threat of the sanction can be remove from the court record and that is what Heminway is trying to do."

by "Admin" on October 19, 2009, 02:25:48 pm
as a response to a question about what the "APPELLANT GREG HOLLISTER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW MATERIALS FILED IN HIS APPEAL ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2009" meant

http://obamaexposed.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,57.msg247.html#msg247

b.t.w. that forum is a "temp" forum since the obamacrimes forum has been "down" for weeks now.

[rxsid]

In the MOTION (09/23/2009), are some interesting tid-bits in which other eligibility cases are mentioned, the DNC certification issue(s) are brought up, Leo's work on the HI statues, Cheney's not calling for objections during the certifying of the EC votes, etc:

"Attachment 1: This is a copy of the statute of Hawaii, circa 1982 which specifically empowers the officials of that state to grant a birth document to a child born outside the state in the preceding year. The statute was the same in the year in which the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama was born."
...
"Attachment 2: Here we present the statutes of Hawaii concerning freedom of information in the situation where a state official, in this case Dr. Fukima, has made a statement. The statutes empower a citizen to have access to the support for the statement. In this instance Dr. Fukima, who is a doctor and not a lawyer or constitutional authority, stated that the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama was a “natural born citizen,” thus seemingly overruling the United States Supreme Court, or purporting to. The New Jersey attorney Leo C. D’onofrio, who has initiated litigation about Obama’s eligibility, through a reader of his blog and web site, after Hawaii officials refused to disclose the information as required by Hawaii law, is preparing a freedom of information suit. It will be filed before this case is finally fully decided and we will call to the Court’s attention the actual documents in the case as they appear in the court in Hawaii."
...
"Attachment 3: This is the statement under penalty of perjury of Lucas Smith supporting a document filed in the related case of Barnett v. Obama, case no. SACV09-00082-DOC (Aux) Judge Carter."
...
"Attachment 5: Here we present documents from the official proceedings of the Democratic National Committee during the proceeding of certifying to the state electoral college officials the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama as official nominee, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, presiding as a party official but still bound by her duty of honest services. She apparently either herself or through someone under her supervision, altered the document to eliminate the specific certification of constitutional eligibility, raising the presumption of irregularity. "
...
"Attachment 6. Here we present excerpts from the proceedings of the United States Senate during the electoral proceedings along with the statutory excerpts showing the requirements and it is clear that the Honorable Vice President Richard Cheney, sitting as President of the Senate, failed to issue the required call for objections, raising the question of whether or not the process was in fact completed or if objections should now officially be called for."

[ExGeeEye]

bookmark.

[Frantzie]

This is Berg’s case? I know Phil Berg and Mario Apuzzo are getting the slow treatment.

[STARWISE]

Thank you.

[SvenMagnussen]

Judicial Notice: Craig v. U.S.

U.S. Native Born have no RIGHT to be named a Natural-born Citizen

Obama pundits argue that all “native born” citizens have the right to be President and that we shouldn’t discriminate based on parental heritage as that would deprive civil rights.

The problem with their analysis is that there is no “right” to be president. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.

And that’s what I’ve been saying all along. POTUS eligibility being limited to natural born citizens is not a an issue of civil rights, it’s an issue of national security.

The Obama eligibility pundits demand that all citizens born on US soil – despite whether they be born of alien parentage – have a Constitutional right to be President in that it would be a deprivation of their civil rights if natural born citizen status is not granted to them.

This is the mantra of those who support that Obama is a natural born citizen even though Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth via his father who was never a US citizen.

But the status of “natural born citizen” is not a right owed to native born US citizens. In fact, it’s not a right owed to any US citizen because nbc status is simply not in any way, shape or form a “right” at all.