HOLLISTER v SOETORO updates - Joint Motions (incl. request for oral argument), Joint Response.

Scribd ^ | 12/2/2009 | rxsid

[STE=Q]

Our arguments show that, particularly because we have shown that by the holding of the Supreme Court and the facts that the defendant Soetoro has stated throughout his political career, that his father was not a citizen, his status as a “natural born citizen” is “in doubt.” At the very least, when the Supreme Court has held that an issue is “in doubt,” seeking to have that doubt clarified is a good faith extension of existing law.

I am not an attorney, but if it is so that: "the Supreme Court has held that an issue is 'in doubt,' seeking to have that doubt clarified is a good faith extension of existing law" why is it so hard for the court to render some sort of clarification, in the matter of what constitutes a Natural born Citizen, as regards Obama?

I understand the delicacy that must be exercised in such a rendering but, be that as it may, if the court can't clarify this matter, what authoritative body can?

STE=Q

[Frantzie]

Obama has 2 Perkins Coe attorneys including Bauer.

Is John Heminway working with or for Phil Berg?

[AmericanVictory]

From these materials it appears that Berg is no longer a lawyer representing the plaintiff Colonel Hollister and that in fact he never did do much in the case even before he left it as he would not return the client's phone calls. You may be thinking of another case that he was involved in. There are two other cases that he filed pro se. Neither of them, according to these materials, is like this case.

[BP2]

Is John Heminway working with or for Phil Berg?

No, Hemenway (and Hollister) are trying to distance themselves from Berg. Berg handled the Interpleader case around the time of the Inauguration for Hollister earlier this year.

Hemenway is a Conservative. Here's the list of his filed political contributions:

$250 to Buchanan For President on March 5, 1992
$500 to Woodrow Lovett (Repub - GA) For Congress on October 28, 1992
$300 to Buchanan For President Inc on December 11, 1995
$1,000 to Republican National Committee on November 3, 2004

[Sibre Fan]

In "HOLLISTER v SOETORO - JOINT MOTION - To Schedule Oral Argument", they go into the reason's why the court should allow for an oral argument (something that the courts in these eligibility cases have not been "fond" of to say the least). Attorney Hemenway also bring up the harsh rule 11 sanctions he received from the lower court judge, and how ridicule and name calling in abundant in all circles (i.e. the lower court, the media) objecting to the questioning of Barry's NBC status).

I agree with this summation. I believe that the reason they filed this is because the Court already indicated, in its initial briefing schedule order, that its review of the case indicted that oral argument would not be necessary, and required the parties to indicate on all documents filed that "CASE BEING CONSIDERED FOR TREATMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 34(j) OF THE COURT’S RULES." (The Appellants have violated this order several times so far, by failing to include that on their papers. I can't imagine that the Court is going to look at that kindly.)

And in "HOLLISTER v SOETORO - JOINT RESPONSE in Opposition FILED" they state (& why) they don't want the Amicus Curiae(s) of Berg (Joyce) to be allowed in the case.

I agree with this summation too. I think all this "dirty laundry" airing is - unfortunate. Mario Apuzzo now stands alone as the only attorney who has not trashed other attorneys who are supposed to be on the "same side" of the whole issue. (Joyce "criticized" Hemenway in the Motion to File Amicus Brief; Hemengway responded in his Opposition; Berg "criticized" Taitz in PA, CA, DC (FCA case), and now in the Motion re: Amicus Brief in this case; Taitz "criticized" Berg in PA and CA pleadings, and "criticized" Kreep in CA pleadings and hearings; Kreep "criticized" Taitz in CA pleadings and hearings. It's just ridiculous.

In "HOLLISTER v SOETORO - Joint Motion - To Substitute Reply Brief", they argue that not only do the plaintiffs have standing (citing case law), but the lower court in this case did in fact find they have standing (not word for word). They also bring up the publicly known "fact" that Barry's father was never a U.S. citizen and that should bring into question he NBC status (as the show why in the motion)

I agree with this summation too. But - this one is weird. Why are they asking to substitute a Reply Brief before the Appellees have filed their brief ???? A Reply is intended to give the Appellants a chance to respond to arguments raised in the Appellee's brief. Hollister/Hemenway's Reply is not due until January 5, 2010 -- 14 days after Appellees have to file their brief. This makes no sense to me at all.

[rxsid]

This case is in the United States Court of Appeals for DC Circuit.

As for the Dubai $1+ trillion ponzi scheme...I believe the state of California is part of a bigger ponzi scheme at something like 1.5+ trillion.

[rxsid]

Excellent points, all.
I'm not going to suggest that this appeal will be successful (though I do hope it will be), but I will suggest that...even with the little attention it has garnered at this stage compared to some of the others...the case does have a better chance as the attorney's (now) representing the appeal are more...shale we say, experienced and not looking at this from a "fund-raising" perspective.

[rxsid]

"why is it so hard for the court to render some sort of clarification, in the matter of what constitutes a Natural born Citizen, as regards Obama?"

IMO, fear ... or judges who put party politics above the Constitution. Some of that "fear" may be subsiding now though.

And yeah...if the courts don't have jurisdiction, nor the willingness, to interpret a Constitutional requirement...then who does? I mean, isn't that what the courts do...interpret the Constitution and subsequent laws under it? Sheesh.

[justiceseeker93]

Can someone please explain how use of the Interpleader Act enables Col. Hollister to overcome the lack of “standing” which apparently was the ground for dismissal in the District Court? What would be the applicable language of the Interpleader Act that would enable the plaintiff to assert standing?

Also, how does Nuremberg (the post-WWII trials of the Nazi war criminals) apply to this case, as argued in the plaintiff's brief?

[rxsid]

In "HOLLISTER v SOETORO - Joint Motion - To Substitute Reply Brief",

I agree with this summation too. But - this one is weird.

I inadvertently shortened that title a bit (check the original link in the first post). If I'm not mistaken, this is a correction due to an "ECF error" with the previous MOTION.

[rxsid]

I'm not certain on the language of the Interpleader Act, but (essentially) the lower court did not rule that the plaintiff did not have standing. So, apparently, the issue of "standing", the plaintiff believes, has been overcome by the lower court.

As far as the Nuremberg trials go with relation to this case, basically, a defense of "I was only following orders" is not an acceptable defense if brought up on war crimes type charges.
Col. Hollister maintains that if he were to be called into action (a distinct possibility, no matter how seemingly small) and he were to "follow orders" given to him by his chain of command which includes Barry, if it turns up later that Barry gave unlawful orders because he's a usurper POTUS...Col. Hollister would STILL be personally accountable for following those unlawful orders. If I'm not mistaken, officers are supposed to question an order if they believe that order is an unlawful one. Col. Hollister raises the question via the lawsuit.

[AmericanVictory]

The dismissal of the lower court was explicitly under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim after it found that it did have subject matter jurisdiction. A dismissal for lack of standing would have been under Rule 12(b)(1) rather than Rule 12(b)(6). A rule 12(b)(6) dismissal in effect says that you do have standing but the claim that you have made, even if true, does not entitle you to relief whereas if you had stated a claim under the merits of the subject matter jurisdiction that was found you could go forward into discovery.

[hoosiermama]

WOndoer if the Dubai Ponzie schene is the one referred to in the paper from India a couple of months back:...”An International Ponzi scheme that would make Made-off look like an amateur”...

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[Munz]

>Our arguments show that, particularly because we have shown that by the holding of the Supreme Court and the facts that the defendant Soetoro has stated throughout his political career, that his father was not a citizen, his status as a “natural born citizen” is “in doubt.” At the very least, when the Supreme Court has held that an issue is “in doubt,” seeking to have that doubt clarified is a good faith extension of existing law.<

This has ALWAYS been my main contention. Remember that in the senate confirmation hearings of John McCain that the senate stated:
“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President. “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

 And the resolution read: Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

The First Congress session II Chapter 4 1790 expressly stated what a Natural Born Citizen is and it has NEVER been changed: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons who's fathers have never been resident ion the the United States: Provided also, that no resident heretofore prescribed by any state, shall be admitted as a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed."

Citizens .. plural. Both parents have to be citizens of the United States. Obama's father was a Kenyan national.

Therefore he can NOT be a Natural Born Citizen.

 Even on his OWN website Obama states he is: "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."
A native citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen. Do you really think that the constitutional lawyer, all the people who he has working for him, all the lawyers he has on staff looking at every thing that is written, made this "mistake"?
hell no, it is obfuscation

 It is easy enough to understand and clearly Obama is not eligible to be president because of this simple fact. They just need to push this one argument and forget the rest. He is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because his father was a Kenyan.

[rxsid]

Exactly! A foreign national parent “passes” their foreign citizenship on to the child. The framers never intended (post “grandfather” clause) someone owing foreign allegiance to become the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. For obvious reasons I would add.

[paraleaglenm]

While researching for Orly Taitz, I found that Judge Carter’s clerk misinterpreted Ashwander vs. Tennessee Valley Authority (the third case cited in the dismissal) in order to assert that Barnett had no standing.

Natural Born Citizen, as a term of art, appears only once in U.S. law, Article II of the constitution. It is not a naturalization issue, and therefore not covered under congressional uniform naturalization law powers of Article I. Note, that the 14th Amendment mentions a child born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen mother and father is a citizen at birth, but does not define it as a ‘natural born citizen.’ Cf. 14th Amendment author Sen. Bingham’s comment on what a natural born citizen is, ‘according to the constitution.’.

Similarly, ‘natural born citizen’ appears nowhere in naturalization and nationality statutes. It is not defined in 8 USC 1101, nor enlarged upon in 8 USC 1401 (1952 INA 301).

In addition, in “general law” or case law/common law, natural born citizen has been discussed from Minor v Happersett to Perkins v Elg, but the cases are not specifically on point and are noncommittal to the terms accurate use.

Therefore, under Ashwander, the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is not discretionary under ‘statutory or general law,’ but mandatory as an alleged violation of constitutional law.

My contribution is in #11 of the Barnett Motion to Reconsider.

For more of my research on the ‘birther’ issue, see http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/diagramming-the-grammatical-structure-of-article-ii-%c2%a7-1-cl-4/

The only native born sons of British subjects eligible to be president were born prior to the adoption of the constitution. Thus, the subordinate adjective clause after the main clause describing ‘natural born citizen.’

[rxsid]

Thank you for your research!

Let's hope that Judge Carter does see that his court must hear the case...although, I'm betting he doesn't.

Regarding the work on your web site, I'd like to follow up with some questions on the issue of weather or not his parent's marriage was bigomous.

1. Do we have proof (that would hold up in court) that Sr. was in fact still married in Kenya to another woman(s)? Proof that would "override" the court documented divorce record for Sr. and SADO?
and
2. If there is such proof in #1, do we know for a fact that the marriage between Sr. and SADO took place in HI and not in Kenya (or "similar" country)?
and
3. If there is proof that the marriage took place in HI, do we have proof that it was a bigamous marriage and not a polygamous marriage? Is there a difference in 1961 British (for oversea's citizens) and HI marriage law?

Or, is much (all?) of the above based on assumptions and/or hearsay(aside from the court divorce document)?

Thanks much.

[rxsid]

"Is there a difference in 1961 British (for oversea's citizens) and HI marriage law?"

That really should read "Is there a difference in British (for oversea's citizens) and HI marriage law for the time at which the marriage took place?"

[paraleaglenm]

My only proof of a bigamist marriage to ‘sado’ is the citation of the Hague Conventions in that blog. Britain in Kenya was highly organized. Thus, any marriage, and especially any birth, would be recorded.

If a simple village wedding, as Phil Berg claims, the Hague Conventions would still apply. Obama, Sr. returned to Kezia and had several children.

It is my opinion that Obama, Sr. married ‘sado’ only for purposes of removing appearances of statutory rape in Hawaii. Hawaii did not consider the impregnating of 17-yr old ‘sado’ statutory rape, but other Eastern states such as where Harvard was located might. Sr. did not want to jeapordize his visa.