Hollister v Soetoro - DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011 (SCOTUS)

supremecourt.gov ^ | 12/29/2010 | SCOTUS

[rxsid]

"Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)
Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.

Attorneys for Petitioner: John David Hemenway

Party name: Gregory S. Hollister

Attorneys for Respondents: Marc Erik Elias Perkins Coie, LLP Counsel of Record

[El Sordo]

Yep.

[azishot]

LOL!! (nudge, nudge)

[hoosiermama]

Orly’s on the 7th.
Hemenway’s on the 14th.

Do either of these cases have access to all THREE of the Kenyan' BC?

[TrumpisRight]

Anything is better thr BHO!!

[Jedidah]

The issue is not just who is President, but the circle of commie cronies who control him.

Biden might be ineffective, but he would surround himself with much less dangerous advisors.

[Churchillspirit]

I find the whole issue absolutely disgusting....that a President of the United States would allow all this uncertainty, when for the sake of a ten dollar piece of paper, he could end it all.

Shameful!

[DSH]

It is impossible to know, it seems to me, since the "rule of four" is, as it were, an internal rule that the Supreme Court has adopted for itself. If a decision were ever made to grant cert in a case in which fewer than four Justices had desired to hear it, there's no formal mechanism by which we'd ever find out about it.

[rxsid]

"In that case they really did not have the mandate to stop the recount. In this case, they are not only the last hope, they are the ONLY court which can define the term Natural Born Citizen. At some point - with Barry in or out of office - they will have to define it."

Exactly. Even though many (R)'s / Conservatives want this issue to simply be ignored (as do the libs of course), the question has to be addressed...sooner rather than later because this scenario WILL happen again. That is, someone born owing allegiance to a foreign government (inherited from their foreign parent(s)) will be pushed onto the "stage" and will get elected by the sheeple to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces. And next time, the candidate/POTUS can simply point to Barry as having set the precedent with public knowledge at that point that it's OK for someone to be POTUS (& therefore a "Natural Born Citizen") even if they were born with foreign citizenship. At it's core, this is a national security issue...among others.

[El Sordo]

“With 2 recusals only takes 3 according to Kerchner...”

That just shows you how much of an idiot he is.

[rxsid]

"why would an 18 yr old SWF want to adopt a multi race child? your story makes no sense at all. something stinks to high hell here, that’s for sure"

She was a hippie/socialist/wild child from commie parents...could be a reason. She also sojourned to Indonesia for "studies" and married Lolo Soetoro.

[PubliusMM]

I’m not buyin’ it. Clerical errors, or cultural errors on a BC would not have presented issues for 0bama. The American people would be very forgiving, IMO, if the person simply fessed-up and noted that he/she was not responsible for the errors made by parents or bureaucrats, etc.

It is my view that NO Long Form BC exists. And, that is why the divorce docs have been ‘amended’ as well. Most likely is that something there points DIRECTLY to 0bama’s non-NBC status.

There are far too many questions remaining unanswered for this to be simply tossed aside.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Excellent summary. Thank you.

[PubliusMM]

Not sure about the notion that everything he’s touched is void if he’s put out of office. It seems to me that anything requiring the Congress would likely stand (bills, treaties, appointments, etc.), and only his executive orders would be stricken immediately.

Of course, all this is new ground, so...open to interpretation.

[BuckeyeTexan]

No doubt. That Justice Thomas, he’s a closet liberal and he’s black so he must be secretly defending Obama. /s

[rxsid]

"Heard an interesting comment on a radio talk show last night.....

Some guy thinks that Barry was born in Hawaii, but as mixed marriages were frowned upon in the 60s., his race was listed as "white" on his COLB.

That could have come back to haunt him during the presidential campaign.

Interesting theory."

Barry's race wouldn't be listed on an original 1961 HI long form B.C. At least, not if the Nordyke Twin's copy of their long form is any indication.

[bvw]

Reminds me of a soundless eternal forest where no tree ever falls for lack of someone to hear it.

[rxsid]

"Sotomayor and Kagan both have a conflict of financial interest since they were appointed by BHO Jr. If he is not legit, they are not legit as well. Bye Bye guaranteed lifetime income.

Not so. Because of the de facto officer doctrine, Obama's removal from office would not result in the removal of his appointees. In any event, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in another eligibility case last month or so, and Kagan and Sotomayor did not recuse.

--------------------------------------------------------

I'm not so sure your opinion there on the de facto officer doctrine is a 100% shoe in.

"To satisfy the doctrine, the officer must be in the unobstructed possession of the office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper."

http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/SUPCT/160/op92-113.txt

Barry has all the "appearance" of being an "intruder" to the office.

[Retired Intelligence Officer]

Yes but Gov Albercromie is saying he saw little Barack when he was a baby in Hawaii.

[rxsid]

"The possibilities are this is a red herring when there's no issue and it's just seen as good political strategy, or there is an issue. I lean towards the former because it smells like Dem politics."

If that were the case, why wouldn't they have played that card prior to Nov. 2nd when Pelosi and so many others loosing power (or their seat)? Not to mention any change of political momentum (or loss thereof by the Dems) across the country as a whole. That would seem to be terrible strategy.

No, IMO, if it were a red herring...the time to expose it would have been prior to 11/2/2010.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Dude! ...Wait, what?