Posted on 02/25/2009 4:55:05 PM PST by rxsid
New Court Order in Hollister v. Soetoro
Filed & Entered: 02/25/2009 Docket Text Order to Show Cause
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12825890/Order-to-Show-Cause
That doesn't look good on Berg (the case).
Leo Donofrio got the same treatment in NJ courts and in SCOTUS. The judiciary is obviously doing everything it can to protect the Kenyan.
Not even close, but your effort is duly noted.
I agree. But they should be on real grounds according to the law. If a Motion of this type wasn’t required; why require it?
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-02254-JR
|
HOLLISTER v. SOETORO et al Assigned to: Judge James Robertson Cause: 28:1335 Interpleader Action |
Date Filed: 12/31/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant |
| Plaintiff | ||
| GREGORY S. HOLLISTER | represented by | John David Hemenway HEMENWAY & ASSOCIATES 4816 Rodman Street, NW Washington , DC 20016 (202) 244-4819 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
|
V. |
||
| Defendant | ||
| BARRY SOETORO in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse also known as BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA |
represented by | Robert Felix Bauer PERKINS COIE, LLP 607 14th Street, NW Suite 800 Washington , DC 20005-2011 (202) 628-6600 Fax: (202) 654-9104 Email: rbauer@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY |
| Defendant | ||
| JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. in his capacity as a natural person; as de jure Acting President in posse; as de jure President in posse; as the jure Vice-President in posse |
represented by | Robert Felix Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| DOES 1-100 Inclusive, Natural and Un-Natural |
||
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 12/31/2008 | 1 | COMPLAINT against BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR, DOES ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616017337) filed by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(tg, ) Modified to re-upload the complaint on 1/5/2009 (tg, ). (Entered: 01/05/2009) |
| 12/31/2008 | 2 | MOTION to File Interpleader and Deposit Funds with the Court by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (tg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2009) |
| 12/31/2008 | 3 | MOTION Requesting an Order Shortening Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (tg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2009) |
| 12/31/2008 | Summons (2) Issued as to BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2009) | |
| 12/31/2008 | 4 | MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Philip J. Berg, :Firm- Law Offices of Philip J. Berg, :Address- 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531. Phone No. - (610) 825-3134. Fax No. - (610) 834-7659 by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (tg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2009) |
| 12/31/2008 | 5 | MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Lawrence J. Joyce, :Firm- Lawrence J. Joyce, Attorney at Law, :Address- 1517 N. Wilmot Road, Suite 215, Tucson, Arizona 85712. Phone No. - (520) 584-0236. by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER (tg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2009) |
| 01/14/2009 | 6 | RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR served on 1/6/2009, answer due 1/26/2009 (nmw, ) (Entered: 01/14/2009) |
| 01/14/2009 | 7 | RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. BARRY SOETORO served on 1/6/2009, answer due 1/26/2009 (nmw, ) (Entered: 01/14/2009) |
| 01/26/2009 | 8 | NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Felix Bauer on behalf of BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR (Bauer, Robert) (Entered: 01/26/2009) |
| 01/26/2009 | 9 | MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden by BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Dismissing)(Bauer, Robert) (Entered: 01/26/2009) |
| 02/04/2009 | 10 | ORDER denying plaintiff's motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court 2 ; denying as moot plaintiff's motion to shorten time for defendants to respond to complaint 3 ; and holding in abeyance plaintiff's motions for leave to appear pro hac vice 4 and 5 . Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 4, 2009. (MT) (Entered: 02/04/2009) |
| 02/09/2009 | 11 | FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against BARRY SOETORO, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR, DOES filed by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER.(nmw, ) (Entered: 02/11/2009) |
| 02/11/2009 | 12 | ORDER that defendants need not respond to the amended complaint and that plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss is due 2/13/09. Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 11, 2009. (MT) (Entered: 02/11/2009) |
| 02/13/2009 | 13 | Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden filed by GREGORY S. HOLLISTER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(nmw, ) (Entered: 02/17/2009) |
| 02/25/2009 | 14 | ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 25, 2009. (MT) (Entered: 02/25/2009) |
When I spoke with Hollister in mid-January, he indicated to me if it didn't get picked up by Inauguration Day, he felt the case might be too "non-standard" in that venue. It's an interesting twist using the Interpleader IMO, but the USDCDC is a pain in the butt to deal with, uncooperative in many regards. Hopefully they will get this fixed quick...
Is this one of those “power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts” moments?
The problem here since we are not privy to what is actually going on; it’s hard to tell except they are playing hardball.
Can the case be appealed to SCOTUS? This is just O’s gang in full court press. His goons control the clerks at SCOTUS as well as the clerks there cheered him when he visited.
bookmark.
It is a raw arrogance moment. The Constitutional contract has been abrogated, so the judges do what is right in their own minds, kind of like the last paragraph in the book of Kings, OT.
The order says what the order says. Doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.
“Doing what is right in their own minds” doesn’t give me any peace of mind....
You are right that it doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.
You are right; it doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.
The OT stated that there was no King in Israel so every man did what was right in his own eyes. Since there is no longer a Constitutional contract between the fed and We The People, every judge can do what is right in his own mind, and in the democrat liberal mind that means whatever they deem utilitarian for the commie agenda.
Would you please explain how the judge could say that Berg can’t practice in his court but then tell him he has until the 26th to show cause?
I am not familiar with fed court doc, we studied state and local. Anyone, correct me if I am wrong...If the clerk made an error, it’s still the atty’s liability—sadly enough. (Correct?)
Hollister is the lead atty, who has standing with the court. He is working on behalf of Berg right? Who is saying that hollister can’t be heard? I’m a bit confused wrt: some of the comments on this thread.
The thread is referring to the filing of facts by a paralegal swearing to how she was rteated. You tried to misconstrue that in your post #6 and blame the attorneys for not filing. Want to try again? ... Have you met Star Traveler?
You are correct.
See post 28. I believe the judge is saying it as Lisa works for Berg.
I’m a bit confused ....
***You and me both.
Si, Esquirette am I. The second issue is an interesting one. Just because an attorney is admitted to the state bar, does not mean he is admitted to the federal bar in that state.
Likely what the court is saying is that the attorney who signed that particular pleading needs to join the federal bar for that district. An alternative would be to file a pro hoc vice petition, where another attorney vouches for the non-bar-member attorney for the purposes of that case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.