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

scribd ^ | 5/31/2010 | John David Hemenway

[rxsid]

"GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, et al.
v.
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 Obama, et al

MOTION FOR RECUSAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455

The plaintiffs/appellants jointly move for recusal of the judge below pursuant to and the vacation of his opinions as a consequence of the recognition of his bias and appearance of bias under that statute. 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. Details are given below.

...

I. THE STATUTE TODAY

...

Thus, in the present case Judge Robertson was required to himself identify his evident bias which he exhibited freely in the record and the members of this court who wish to or already have adopted that bias are similarly required to recuse themselves.

...

II. THE BIAS IS EVIDENT

The limitations upon the extrajudicial source doctrine are of little significance in the present case, however, because the outrageous bias exhibited in the court below is so overtly derived from extrajudicial sources and, snidely, from the events that occurred in the case itself. This begins at the very outset of the first opinion of the judge below, that of March 5, 2009 (App. 208). He begins the opinion by making it clear that he thinks that the case is absolutely worthless and that he has a clear bias against it. From that point on the reasons that he gives for that opening bias give a clear appearance of bias that history will record, given the very blogosphere outside the record of the proceeding that he then extrajudicially relies upon.

His second paragraph begins with a needlessly snide and less than honest, aspersion cast upon the appellant and plaintiff Hollister. Attached to the Hollister complaint was a copy of Colonel Hollister’s discharge papers showing his honorable discharge from the Air Force after a full career on active duty. Yet rather than acknowledge this fact as thus clearly shown, the lower court feels it has to say that “The plaintiffsays that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief…”

(emphasis added) Clearly the plaintiff Hollister is a retired Air Force Colonel. He does not just say that he is. This gratuitous aspersion and insult starts the internal evidence of bias and certainly an appearance of bias at the very outset. The lower court judge then further continues this needless and insulting bias by the parenthetical phrase: “(because hemight possibly be recalled to duty.)” Surely a judge who himself went through college on an ROTC scholarship and did his time in the Navy is charged with knowing that the Individual Ready Reserve is an important element of our reserve forces, particularly for those with specialized skills like Colonel Hollister.

The facts of the Hollister complaint, if taken as true as is required when dismissing under Rule 12(b)(6), amply allege that the defendant/appellee Soetoro a/k/a Obama is not a natural born citizen as that term is set out in Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. Despite that, the lower court judge states, again snidely, that the situation is that the appellee/defendant Soetoro has not proved his eligibility to Colonel Hollister’s “satisfaction.” We call the Court’s attention to our recently filed Rule 28(j) letter. The fact is that by the appellee/defendant’s own public statements he is not qualified under the Constitution, and he knows it.

Next, at App. 208-209 the lower court judge then engages in what has become and will remain his most infamous indulgence in bias and the appearance of bias from an extrajudicial source. We refer to his statement, which has traveled far and wide and repeatedly on the Internet, that:

The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year- campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

To paraphrase economist Dr. Walter E. Williams: It would not matter if a majority of the citizens wanted the Constitution ignored and violated, it would still be wrong and against the Rule of Law in this country to allow it to be violated. It would be difficult to find a more egregious example of bias with an extrajudicial source than this statement.

...

Then, in completing his opinion of March 5, 2009, the lower court judge further exhibited the bias that was so evident by seeking to assess Rule 11 sanctions in violation of the Rule in a manner that ignored the Rule’s entire focus. He sought to assess the undersigned with the entire cost, including counsel fees,of the appellee/defendant Soetoro’s defense in this litigation. He did this despite the fact that when a court, as opposed to a party, initiates a sanction such assessment is not authorized by the Rule. And he made no inquiry whatsoever into what pre-filing inquiry had been made before suit was filed. Under Rule 11, if followed properly, the entire focus is on pre-filing inquiry. By not making any such inquiry, the lower court exhibited unsupported bias.

The undersigned then submitted a Show of Cause and a supplement to that Show of Cause. As a result the court below issued a second opinion on March 24, 2009. App. 243 ff. Before discussing that opinion, however, we want to point out a feature of the first opinion which is pertinent. At App. 210 the lower court found that it had jurisdiction of the case because of the interpleader statute but then stated that it was dismissing the case for failure to state a claim which is a dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6).

The Supreme Court has made it clear repeatedly that when a Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim is at issue all of the factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true. See,e.g.,Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). This is the first principle of Rule 12(b)(6). Equally important here is second principle that the Supreme Court has set out:“courts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss,…”Tellabs, Inc. v. Major Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2509, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007).

...

At App. 256 the lower court, in its second opinion, said it had not said anything and would not say anything about the actual constitutional phrase. What it then said was quite illogical: “I have no business addressing the merits, because, having found that Mr. Hemenway’s interpleader suit failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and I have dismissed it.” There is no way to analyze whether a sufficient claim has been made without considering the merits of the claim. The contention to the contrary is an absurdity and illustrates that the lower court was not operating on a study of the facts at issue and an analysis of the law as applied to those facts. By the time of its second opinion it seems to have been operating solely on its evident political bias.

Further evidence of this bias in the second opinion of the court below is found at App. 254 where it says:“Many people, perhaps as many as a couple of dozen, feel deeply about this issue.” Again, we would point out that the importance of a constitutional violation is not a function of popular sentiment. Further, this assertion is factually inaccurate. Major surveys have been conducted for the political left and right by reputable analyst firms and they indicate that the number concerned about this issue has been steadily growing and that something like half of the population feels that there is something suspicious about the appellee/defendant Soetoro’s hiding of the documents of his birth and education and every other aspect of his life.

...

We now see that with the rise of the blogosphere and the springing up of countless independent websites not part of the centralized command media that arose in the initial days of nationalized broadcasting in the 1930’s and 1940’s and 1950’s. We see today meetings in which ordinary citizens know more about what is in the details of a bill than their Member of Congress or Senator does. The dissemination is instantaneous and the rise in independent decision-making about officeholders and their doings is overwhelming. One result is a never before seen, at least since the founding days themselves, interest in the Constitution and adherence to it as a basic principle of our Rule of Law.

This inevitably has an effect upon the insistence upon an objective appearance of an absence of bias which 28 U.S.C. 455 in its present form commands. In this case the court below has become widely known in the country and will go down in history as the “blogging and twittering” judge, one for whom a sort of affirmative action progressivism is more important than protecting and preserving the Constitution sufficiently to actually analyze the issues it presents. However, in the present structure of communications,Orwellian “memory holes” become very difficult to operate despite earnest efforts.

The defendant Soetoro has in a never before seen maneuver, used a State of the Union address to try and openly intimidate the Supreme Court into not carefully adhering to the Constitution, like a Cook County politico with the courts there. He has announced at a prayer breakfast that it is not “allowed” to know about his birth documentation. Mr. Justice Thomas has observed that the issues here are being avoided. So the message has been received. Politically orchestrated “unthinkability” of course, is no substitute for the application of the Rule of Law. It presents at the very least the spectacle of decisions being made on the basis of political bias. History will not be escaped. It will reveal whether this audacious and knowing attempt to get around the Constitution and one of its most specific requirements will succeed through a tactic of seeking to intimidate and control the courts to prevent them from applying a constitutional rule of law or whether its judges will take their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution as seriously as those who have sworn the oath to preserve and protect in the military such as Colonel Hollister do. In a very real sense it is our system of a constitutional rule of law that is on trial here, and that is under attack. Those who will not defend and protect as they have sworn to do should recuse themselves. Their decision, in adopting the opinion below, should they chose to do so, without analyzing the actual issues, is a political one echoing the bias we have set out. As such it presents at least the appearance that violates 28 U.S.C. § 455 and they are, therefore, bound to recuse themselves.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

JOHN D. HEMENWAY
Counsel for Appellants"

Entire motion can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32337931/Hollister-v-Soetoro-Joint-Motion

[rxsid]

Attny Hemenway & COL. Hollister continue to seek truth and justice!

 

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

 

Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

...

the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro *	NOT Obama / Soetoro
* This assumes HI birth. A citizen of 2 countries at birth.

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).

Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
 

==============================================================================

 
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

Prior to the Constitution

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."

Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."

Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].

Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.

Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:

"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.

The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations for ex.).

The Constitution

The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

...

Article 1. section 8, clause 10:

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"

Again, those phrases are not from English common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."

After the Constitution is penned

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).

[rxsid]

Ping!

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

[phockthis]

sfl

[Vendome]

Well that’s readable. LOL

I think the real reason Barry OilBama went to Chicago was to find his long form birth certificate.

You know the one he found his mother’s belongings when she died in 1995.

[cvq3842]

Book marked! thanks.

[MarineBrat]

I’ve thought of dozens of ways that we could solve all of this quite quickly, but it invariably starts with me and our Communist Mack Daddy being locked in a room...

[so_real]

Bump

[bgill]

Amazing how so many are so afraid, judges included, of this case that they’ll do anything no to have it heard.

[jamese777]

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 09-5080 September Term 2009 08-cv-02254 Filed On: March 22, 2010 Gregory S. Hollister, Appellant v. 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 Obama, et al.,

Appellees ——————————————— Consolidated with 09-5161 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Garland, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
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).

[El Gato]

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.

Which of course says nothing about the underlying Constitutional issue.

[circumbendibus]

God bless our military officers, like COL Hollister, who stand up to the usurper.(Also Major Cook, CPT Barnett, CDR Kirchner, etc). See tagline.

[B4Ranch]

I’ll guard the door to make sure nobody intrudes on your mission.

[rolling_stone]

ROFLMAO I see you are still cutting and pasting in an attempt to fool those who do not read and understand the whole case. You have no shame.

[Red Steel]

Amazing how so many are so afraid, judges included, of this case that they’ll do anything no to have it heard.

It seems to reach across the spectrum when it concerns Obama as when Federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin was fired by Obama last year where we see another judge is covering Obama's butt by obstructing justice.

Court accused of covering for Obama in 'Walpingate'

[jamese777]

Don’t try to kill the messenger.

Cutting and pasting the ENTIRE ruling of the US Court of Appeals puts this current letter from the losing side into proper legal perspective.

[jamese777]

“Which of course says nothing about the underlying Constitutional issue.”

---

An “underlying constitutional issue” is ajudicated in a serious lawsuit and not in lawsuits deemed “frivolous” where the plaintiff’s attorney is reprimanded by the Court for filing a silly lawsuit. The fact that a three judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the appeal of the plaintiff and affirmed the decision and sanction imposed by the DC District Court speaks volumes.

The Hollister v Soetoro case was the famous “interpleader” suit where Hollister tried to force Barack Obama and Joe Biden to litigate who was really president so that he (as military officer subject to recall) would know whom he owed his “loyalty” (a “loyalty” valued at $500).

The District Court in DC found the lawsuit to be “frivolous” and reprimanded attorney Hemenway for filing it. United States District Judge Robertson wrote:
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed,
would deserve mention in one of the books
that seek to prove that the law is foolish
or that America has too many lawyers with
not enough to do.”

[Red Steel]

ROFLMAO I see you [jamese777] are still cutting and pasting in an attempt to fool those who do not read and understand the whole case. You have no shame.

It does not.

Yummmmy I like paste....

[Red Steel]

The District Court in DC found the lawsuit to be “frivolous”

Robertson's opinion was 'frivolous' and biased:

"We call the Court’s attention to our recently filed Rule 28(j) letter. The fact is that by the appellee/defendant’s own public statements he is not qualified under the Constitution, and he knows it.

Next, at App. 208-209 the lower court judge then engages in what has become and will remain his most infamous indulgence in bias and the appearance of bias from an extrajudicial source. We refer to his statement, which has traveled far and wide and repeatedly on the Internet, that:

The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year- campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

[jamese777]

“Robertson’s opinion was ‘frivolous’ and biased:””We call the Court’s attention to our recently filed Rule 28(j) letter. The fact is that by the appellee/defendant’s own public statements he is not qualified under the Constitution, and he knows it.

Next, at App. 208-209 the lower court judge then engages in what has become and will remain his most infamous indulgence in bias and the appearance of bias from an extrajudicial source. We refer to his statement, which has traveled far and wide and repeatedly on the Internet, that:

The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year- campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”

---

Not according to a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Judge Robertson was affirmed on appeal.

[Red Steel]

Not according to a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Judge Robertson was affirmed on appeal.

"To paraphrase economist Dr. Walter E. Williams: It would not matter if a majority of the citizens wanted the Constitution ignored and violated, it would still be wrong and against the Rule of Law in this country to allow it to be violated. It would be difficult to find a more egregious example of bias with an extrajudicial source than this statement."

jamese77777777

Yummy!