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

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

[EDINVA]

“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).”

I would say that the brief filed and posted in this thread takes care of THAT. Not that you would notice.

[jamese777]

“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.”

---

Whoever is on the losing side of any judicial issue whines and complains. That’s simply par for the course. Walter E. Williams is a distinquished economist. He’s entitled to his opinion but it carries no legal weight.

I chuckled at your cartoon. Its good to see that you have a sense of humor about the natural born citizen issue and that you don’t take it too seriously.

Particularly with regard to the frivolousness of Hollister v Soetoro, any attorney who doesn’t even have the good common sense to use the correct, legal name for the defendant deserves to have a reprimand on his record for as long as he practices in the profession and that’s exactly what attorney Hemenway earned himself.

[Red Steel]

Whoever is on the losing side of any judicial issue whines and complains. That’s simply par for the course. Walter E. Williams is a distinquished economist. He’s entitled to his opinion but it carries no legal weight.

It's apparent that the judiciary in this country is willfully evading the issue to whether Obama is eligible for office or not. They evade the merits of the cases with legal and biased and frivolous dodges that have been pointed out to you and to anyone else who tries to understand the issue.

I chuckled at your cartoon. Its good to see that you have a sense of humor about the natural born citizen issue and that you don’t take it too seriously.

That's you we are laughing at by all your cut and pasting that you do. The boy eating the paste in the graphic helps illustrate the point.

Jameseeeeee7777777 says yummy!

[jamese777]

I would say that the brief filed and posted in this thread takes care of THAT. Not that you would notice.

---

Psst...the District Court’s decision was already upheld on appeal. Its a wee bit late to be asking the ORIGINAL TRIAL JUDGE to recuse himself!

That’s what I noticed aside from the fact that the word “vacation” of opinion is used incorrectly in the motion for recussal.

“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.”

I think they want Judge Robertson to go on vacation. The correct term would be “vacating.”

[Mr Rogers]

You can post as many pictures as you want, but you are still LOSING in court. And this case was about as maturely presented as your posts...

[Red Steel]

You can post as many pictures as you want, but you are still LOSING in court. And this case was about as maturely presented as your posts...

I'd rather be correct and morally right than win in court. In time, Obama is going down when the truth cannot be hidden about his past.

We've seen your posts that never stand up to logical scrutiny.

[EDINVA]

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.

[Mr Rogers]

“We’ve seen your posts that never stand up to logical scrutiny.”

That’s OK. Your cases never stand up in court.

“I’d rather be correct and morally right than win in court.”

Given your success rate, that is a good attitude to have...

[Mr Rogers]

You can’t get far by accusing all the judges of bias. Nor do they present any credible evidence of bias. For example, they cite ““The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief…”” as proof of bias, since the guy IS a retired officer. However, what the court was referring to in “says” is the “continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief…” - which is bogus. As a retired officer, I don’t feel any “fealty” to Obama at all. I didn’t feel any “fealty” to Clinton while I was in uniform.

That was a very weak attempt at ‘standing’ and it made the case look stupid...although filing it against “Soetoro” had already done a fine job of that!

[Red Steel]

That’s OK. Your cases never stand up in court.

Never say never. We only need one punch to the Obama glass jaw in court. One of these cases in time will go through. This won't end even when Obama is out of office. The laws that he signed would still be subjected to nullification.

[EDINVA]

“The fact that a three judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals ... rejected the appeal of the plaintiff and affirmed the decision ... by the DC District Court speaks volumes.”

Why don’t you tell that to the New Haven firemen? The Court of Appeals in NY spoke volumes, too. Then the Supreme Court smacked them down. That’s what happens as cases wind their way up through the courts. 3-judge panels’ opinions are never the final word.

[EDINVA]

What fealty you may feel, or not have felt, is not the same as Col. Hollister, obviously, Some people take their oaths more seriously than others. Col. Hollister obviously takes very seriously his oath to uphold the Constitution.

However, you seem to have taken that quote (perhaps intentionally) out of context. The bias referred to is explained thus:

“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 plaintiff says 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.”

If the judge’s intent is as you would have it, he would have written “The plaintiff is a retired Air Force colonel who says he continues to owe fealty .....”

Judges craft every word of their opinions with enormous care. Words mean things in judicial opinions more than in any other writings. This judge knew how to write that sentence to state exactly what he wanted and how he wanted it stated. The qualifier was where he placed it because he wanted it there. His purpose was to diminish the plaintiff Hollister because, it would seem, the judge didn’t like his original attorney or any challenge to the defendant - by any name - as to his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

[Mr Rogers]

Officers don’t take an oath of allegiance to the CINC. We owe no President “fealty” - “The fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord.”

Hollister knew that.

The judges were not pretending Hollister wasn’t a retired officer (easily proven), but his claim of fealty. THAT was a stupid claim.

[danamco]

It gives such great comfort that Ms. Rogers no longer in active duty, defending and protecting our CONSTITUTION, yet he still has not unstrapped his combat “Knee-Pads”!!!

[danamco]

The meeting with John Roberts on January 14, 2009 fixed it all so he had trouble stammering through the swearing in process and even Clarence Thomas got the “message,” yet you have some fifth column FINOs here popping the Champagne bottle every time the spineless judges are farting!!!

[EDINVA]

Col. Hollister spoke, in the second page of his complaint that I just took the time to read, that he had sworn an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States ... and ... obey the orders of the President of the United States ... .”

It was the judge who introduced the word “fealty,” and its purported relationship to a CinC, into this case, not Col. Hollister. So, you would have to concede, would you not, that the ‘stupid claim’ to which you refer was made by Judge Robertson, not by Col. Hollister?

Perhaps the stupidity to which you refer thus equals bias, as it is otherwise noted in the posted brief that the judge himself served as a naval officer. Judge Robertson himself should have known better, as clearly Col. Hollister does, and as Col. Hollister so stated in his complaint.

The complaint raises the question: under the Constitution of the United States, is the defendant Soetoro/Obama eligible to serve as President of the United States/Commander in Chief. And, if he is not eligible, what is the obligation of those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United states to obey any order he might give?

[AmericanVictory]

You don’t seem to have much grasp of what was held in the case. There was no finding of lack of stsnding. To the contrary, it was clearly assuemd by the finding that the court did have jurisdiction because of the statute. Moreover, the judge clearly relied upon extrajudicial sources for his decesion against Colonel Hollister demonstrating a clear biase based upon those sources rather than pointing to anythin in the complaint itself. You also seem to be saying tha bias statue in question, in its present form, can be ignored because it was ignored in this case. It’s an interesting perspective that judges are free to ignore such a statute, one that tosses the concept of a rule of law, in this case, of a constitutional rule of law.

[browardchad]

Yummmmy I like paste....

I'm sure you do, Red. It would explain quite a bit. :)

[EDINVA]

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.

[jamese777]

Why don’t you tell that to the New Haven firemen? The Court of Appeals in NY spoke volumes, too. Then the Supreme Court smacked them down. That’s what happens as cases wind their way up through the courts. 3-judge panels’ opinions are never the final word.

---

Thus far seven Obama eligibility lawsuits have reached the Supreme Court for justices’ “Cert” conferences seeking Writs of Certiorari. All seven have been denied those writs. That’s Berg v Obama, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
Hollister v Soetoro has not yet been appealed to the US Supreme Court so there’s really nothing to talk about.