Replies

So, your point is that because other lawsuits involving different issues in which it was found that there was a lack of standing, unlike in the Hollister case, have not been taken up preliminarily by the Supreme Court the different issues that are raised in the Hollister case have been decided. I would have to disagree. None of those cases, for example, raised a de facto officer issue. So it is not clear how those events answer the question asked. In fact, if fhe Rule of Law were to prevail, they clearly do not. My inquiry was about that doctrine, but, with all due respect, that inquiry does not seem to have been addressed in the responses.

“So, your point is that because other lawsuits involving different issues in which it was found that there was a lack of standing, unlike in the Hollister case, have not been taken up preliminarily by the Supreme Court the different issues that are raised in the Hollister case have been decided. I would have to disagree. None of those cases, for example, raised a de facto officer issue. So it is not clear how those events answer the question asked. In fact, if the Rule of Law were to prevail, they clearly do not. My inquiry was about that doctrine, but, with all due respect, that inquiry does not seem to have been addressed in the responses.”

There is no de facto officer issue until and unless evidence is presented under the FRE during either a trial on the merits or a quo warranto hearing. Hemenway and Hollister only have allegations and opinions that Obama is ineligible that have not yet been substantiated by any court.

You continue to insist that Hollister was granted “standing” which I have repeatedly refuted because Robertson's court is not able to remedy the Hollister’s claim that Obama is ineligible as CIC, but bottom line there has been no evidentiary hearing on any of the eligibility evidence that would refute Obama’s current status as both de facto and de jure POTUS.

The good news is the placement in the court record of HI Law 57, which D’Onofrio can make use of in his quo warranto filing. Unlike Hollister, the Chrysler dealers have a real chance of getting actual legal standing sufficient to justify a quo warranty hearing on the merits with discovery and submission of evidence that could prove Obama to be ineligible.

As to the specific page 17-18 claims by Hemenway in his filing, his interpretation of the de facto officer doctrine seems to be upside-down and controversial by claiming that Obama’s actions are retroactively invalid if he is illegitimate. But the court has no basis for presuming that Obama is illegitimate without a hearing on the merits which this court could only hear before inauguration without violating separation of powers.

I predict Hemenway gets zero votes from three judge appeals panel and zero votes from the en banque appleals panel as well, if he persists. If the court can't fashion a remedy for plaintiff Hollister's claims, Hollister has no standing due to failure to state a justiciable claim and his claims will be dismissed.