Hollister v. Soetoro - Joint Motion (seeking recusal of Judge Robertson & voiding of his opinions)

If you were to read the brief you might notice that it asks that the appellate judges on the panel whose opinion you posted recuse themselves, having ‘embraced’ the lower court’s bias.

It’s the SECOND SENTENCE .. not too deep into the brief:

“They also request of the members of this Court, particularly those who have embraced the bias of the court below, that they consider their obligation to recuse themselves if they present even an appearance of bias under that statute.”

So how much DID you read or comprehend? You caught them out on the improper use of a single word? tsk tsk.

When was the last time that you heard of ANY case in entire history of American jurisprudence in which a judgement was rendered, an appeal was filed, an appellate level judgement was rendered and THEN the original trial court AND the appellate court recused themselves AFTER THE FACT?

I agree that any judge ‘texting and twittering’ is absurd for a judge to mention in an opinion. However, he refers to the ‘vigilant’ citizenry having conducted a proper vetting of then-candidate Obama.

I must confess, I didn’t watch all the debates or pressers thru the primaries. Was then-candidate Obama ever questioned in a debate by other candidates or the media panels or moderators, or in any press conference, about his natural born citizen status? And, if so, how did he respond? Is there any evidence the question was ever raised in any venue or circumstance that might be considered semi-official, rather than the “texting/twittering” of an allegedly vigilant citizenry?

It’s hard to imagine that the other candidates (or their staffs) or the media did not read his autobiographical book without some red flags being raised due to his father’s citizenship. I really would like to know if that extent of vetting was ever done.

Don’t you remember that famous moment at a McCain town hall meeting when a woman said that Obama was not an American but “an Arab” and McCain had to defend Obama?
Here’s a reminder: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14479.html

It was because of the questioning about his natural born citizen status from his primary opponents and general election opponents, namely the Hillary Clinton campaign and Alan Keyes that Obama launched his “Fight the Smears” website and posted a copy of his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth on that web site.
Here’s a reminder:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

It was a Hillary Clinton campaign operative who uncoverd the Honolulu Public Library microfiche files of Obama’s birth announcements in both major Honolulu newspapers.

Many of the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility were filed before the 2008 general election but none of them went anywhere. Several states’ Secretaries of State were sued for not properly vetting Obama’s (and even McCain’s) eligibility but none succeeded.

As you correctly point out, Obama wrote about his dual citizenship and his father’s citizenship status in a book that became a number one best seller that was written in 1995, 13 years before he ran for president.

“When was the last time that you heard of ANY case in entire history of American jurisprudence in which a judgement was rendered, an appeal was filed, an appellate level judgement was rendered and THEN the original trial court AND the appellate court recused themselves AFTER THE FACT?”

The very well known Microsoft case in this very court made it very clear that under 28 U.S.C. Sec 455, as opposed to 28 USC Sec 144, a party may raise the issue of bias on the part of the District Court judge as long as the case is pending in the Court of Appeals.

Your question seems to assume that this case is not still pending in the court of appeals. As long as it is under reconsideration, it is still pending in the Court of Appeals.

Section 455 REQUIRES a judge him/herself to recognize even the appearance of bias to the objective observer. Robertson clearly derived his bias from extrajudicial sources, and he did it in spades. The panel that upheld Robertson aimply adopted his bias without any analysis; the SCOTUS opinion they cited does not uphold them. Therefore, as Col. Hollister claims, they ‘embraced’ his bias.

Your question seems to assume that this case is not still pending in the court of appeals. As long as it is under reconsideration, it is still pending in the Court of Appeals.

But the US Court of Appeals already rendered its opinion in Hollister v Soetoro.
What part of “ORDERED AND ADJUDGED” don’t you understand in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s DECISION in Hollister v Soetoro?

One more time for the slow reading group: “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.
(Capitalizations for emphasis, mine)

See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28745277/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-PER-CURIAM-JUDGMENT-filed-Lower-Court-Affirmed-Transport-Room

And what part of “Petition for Reconsideration and Suggestion for a Hearing En Banc” do YOU not understand?

This case is before the panel for reconsideration in light of their unsupported opinion that is contrary to Supreme Court precedent in many ways, AND is also before the entire panel of the court for consideration by the full court for the first time.

Such a Petiton and Suggestion is the normal course and is, as a practical matter, required before seeking Supreme Court review.

And what part of “Petition for Reconsideration and Suggestion for a Hearing En Banc” do YOU not understand?

Such a Petiton and Suggestion is the normal course and is, as a practical matter, required before seeking Supreme Court review.

I’ll think that I’ll just wait patiently until the petition is denied. Recusals do not come after judgements and lawsuits that do not bother to file under the legal name of the defendant are frivolous and lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits aren often reprimanded.

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.