Hollister v. Soetoro-- Dismissal Affirmed

U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit ^ | March 22, 2010 | U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

[Lurking Libertarian]

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Garland, Circuit Judges

These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint. Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).

[edge919]

Can we vote Orly off the island?

As long as Obama is willing to take her with him.

[presently no screen name]

We vote for YOU off of this site.

You focus your hate on a believer in Our Constitution by wanting her kicked off the island but no mention of Anti-American Barry. What the f as you doing on a conservative site, commie?

[DallasSun]

We can vote both of them off the island!

[parsifal]

Oh no. I specifically refrained from cheering. Or ITYS’ing.

parsy, who is just sitting quietly on the sidelines watching the game. . .

[parsifal]

Thank you, buts its kinda nice not being in the game anymore. No more makeup. No more short dresses. No more getting dropped on my rear-end when I fall off the pyramid. No more cheerleaders for the other team egging my car and rolling my house.

parsy, who is enjoying the quiet. . .and watching the game

[DallasSun]

I can certainly understand.

[edge919]

It’ll be like Obama’s birth day.

[DallasSun]

This could be the start of something big

[edge919]

Yeah, $2 trillion and counting ...

[SERE_DOC]

OK so explain this to me "someone" not specifically LL.

If all these cases questioning BHO birth country are summarily dismissed because of the plaintiff having "no standing"...

at what point do we as Americans determine that the courts having been found corrupt do we declare that they have no authority or standing?

and the remedy?

Someone way smarter than I (which is just about anyone) is going to have to help me with this one

[DallasSun]

Well, yes, there is that........

[tired_old_conservative]

Frivolous is the term applied to the technical merits of the case. That is, it has not been developed in a manner the legal system can meaningfully address.

And the petition is hardly earth-shattering. Even if it has 500,0000 signatures on it, what is that? 0.2% of the country?

[U.S. Army Retired]

we still have Kershner vs Obama which is Mario Apuzzos case that is waiting on a decision by the appeals court.

[DannyTN]

"failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted."

I understand that's the court's cop out. And it's true, the court couldn't order the removal of the President. The most the court could do provide fact finding and a referal to congress.

But I don't think that warrants sanctions, either.

[jamese777]

I understand that’s the court’s cop out. And it’s true, the court couldn’t order the removal of the President. The most the court could do provide fact finding and a referal to congress.

But I don’t think that warrants sanctions, either.

---

The Courts don’t provide “referrals to Congress” either. Congress can undertake its own independent investigation any time that it wants to and Congress COULD have delayed the certification of Obama’s Electoral votes if any two members of Congress had been willing to file written objections to his electoral votes being certified. No two members (one Senator and one Congressman were needed) submitted a written objection.

[little jeremiah]

Frivolous.

Big deal if the President may not meet the requirements to be president as set forth in the Constitution.

No big deal, anyone concerned about it is an airhead and troublemaker.

///

[jamese777]

we still have Kershner vs Obama which is Mario Apuzzos case that is waiting on a decision by the appeals court.

---

After having been dismissed for lack of standing at the US District Court level, it is highly unlikely that the Court of Appeals will overturn the lower court’s dismissal.
Those opposing Obama’s eligibility have been unable to come up with a plaintiff who would have standing to sue. John McCain and/or Sarah Palin are the most likely candidates since they are the only other persons to receive electoral votes and therefore are able to show direct harm rather than indirect harm from Obama’s election.

[DannyTN]

"The Courts don’t provide “referrals to Congress” either. Congress can undertake its own independent investigation any time that it wants to and Congress COULD have delayed the certification of Obama’s Electoral votes if any two members of Congress had been willing to file written objections to his electoral votes being certified. No two members (one Senator and one Congressman were needed) submitted a written objection. "

I don't think there is anything stopping a court from sending a notice to Congress of facts that should be investigated. Congress would be under no obligation to do anything with it, but a court is not limited from doing that.

There were more than two elector college members that wanted to object, but I understand VP Cheney didn't ask for objections like he was supposed to.

Congress is spineless. There was no one that wanted alienate a portion of their constituency by challenging Obama's credentials. That's why it's important that congress and the states each put a process in place to verify the eligibility credentials. Because congress can not be relied on in the heat of the moment.

And that's also why the courts should have at least reviewed the facts and not shirked their responsibility in this case. The courts can't remove a sitting president. But a court could have ordered the records and determined the truth, and let the public and congress do with it what they wanted.

[tutstar]

ping

[LucyT]

. . . . SP Alert.

Hollister v. Soetoro-- Dismissal Affirmed