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

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

[EDINVA]

Wonder how much they’ll make by NOT filing a response.

[omegadawn]

This whole issue has a number of cross plots. I guess it would be possible that grandpa knocked up some young black girl and had Ann pretend to be the Mother until he was able to raise obama himself. It would appear that if this was the deal, he knocked up some Kenyan girl and had Ann bring it home as her own. He or his wife then registered obama as being born in Hawaii.

[Fred Nerks]

Obama has such a resemblance to Gramps Dunham that there has to be a genetic tie between them.

TRY LOOKING AT THEM BOTH AROUND THE SAME AGE, THERE'S NO RESEMBLANCE WHAT-SO-EVER!

[fatima]

Thanks longjack.

[EDINVA]

Standing. The ‘vetting, texting’ judge gave this case standing, and dismissed for other reasons. IIRC, none of the other cases had ‘standing.’ That sets this apart.

[hoosiermama]

CLerical erors are no problems....The locals had by mother’s and father’s name both spelled wrong. My birthdate wrong....When we went to the original “Paper” work is was all correct and easily corrected.

That’s the reason the court only recognizes the original as “legal” for many actions. Clerks make mistakes or just can’t read the writing in the original script.

[EDINVA]

“I don’t know that a mere “et al” is going to cut it with the Supremes.”

Have you ever seen a real SCOTUS petition as it’s filed with the Court ? They are a very peculiar, small size. There are several sections that precede the Petition’s arguments, including a thing called “Parties” where all the parties on both sides are set out fully.

[AmericanVictory]

That is, if the parties are not fully set out in the caption, in which case the parties section is either omitted or is repetitive as a precaution.

[AmericanVictory]

That’s funny, I had thought he was both impeached and disbarred, in addition to having been found to have committed perjury. I guess I must have a faulty memory.

[AmericanVictory]

In Hollister, because standing was found and it was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, it was required of the judge below to assume facts pled as true, which, it is a point of the cert petition, he failed to do. The allegations stated in the complaint about place of birth and evidence therefor, were not taken as true as required.

[jamese777]

Standing. The ‘vetting, texting’ judge gave this case standing, and dismissed for other reasons. IIRC, none of the other cases had ‘standing.’ That sets this apart.

---

A slight correction to the above, “standing” was never raised as an issue by the defense so there was no ruling by the judge on standing.

Obama’s attorneys moved to summarily dismiss the lawsuit for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Judge Robertson granted the motion to dismiss on grounds of failure to state a claim. There was no opportunity to address standing.

The US Court of Appeals For the District Of Columbia then upheld the District Court judge’s dismissal:
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).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28745277/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-PER-CURIAM-JUDGMENT-filed-Lower-Court-Affirmed-Transport-Room

[AmericanVictory]

If even one strongly wants it to be heard there is often further consideration. That would lend additional strength to the contention that such an interest is more likely in the only case to go to SCOTUS so far in which standing is not the issue but the questions presented go to the merits.

[AmericanVictory]

and Kagan and Sotomayor did not recuse.

Does mention of the possibility in a petition amount to a specific request? A specific request would have been better.

[jamese777]

If even one strongly wants it to be heard there is often further consideration. That would lend additional strength to the contention that such an interest is more likely in the only case to go to SCOTUS so far in which standing is not the issue but the questions presented go to the merits.

---

The issues under consideration by the Supreme Court at cert conference are: did the District Court err in its dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” (which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals) and did the District Court err in imposing court costs as a sanction on plaintiff’s attorney for violating the federal rules of evidence (also affirmed by the Court of Appeals).
And finally, did the District Court judge show bias in imposing a court costs sanction on plaintiff’s attorney. (Again, the Appeals Court said that the was no personal bias).

“Merits” are not under consideration by the Supreme Court with regard to this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
If the Supreme Court was to grant cert and if the Court ruled in plaintiff’s favor, this appeal would then go back to the District Court where the issue of dismissal on grounds of standing would most likely be the next legal strategy of the Soetoro/Obama defense.

[AmericanVictory]

The issue of whether or not the merits were set out so as to require their consideration is very much at issue. Therefore the merits as alleged are put forward in the questions presented, unlike in other cases where the questions presented are taken up with standing as the issue. So your assertion is not quite correct. One cannot examine the question of whether a cause is stated without examining the causes that are or are not stated. Try reading Wright & Miller or any other authoritative rules treatise on Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals. A good part of the weakness of Robertson’s opinion in this case, in addition to its evident and egregious bias, is the failure to examine the actual issues claimed due to a preoccupation with one of several disjunctive phrases in the statute in question.

[rolling_stone]

Where did the BC Mcain submitted say he was born? Coco Solo Navy Air Station or Colon Hospital, Colon, Panama? Accoding to Senate Resolution 511 he was born on a military base. According to certified records of the Panma Railroad Company and its attorney McCain was born in Colon Hospital.

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States

dueling birth certificates...

pdf:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/McCain-SurreplyEx-7-21-08.pdf

first birthers were libs..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html

Birth Certificate? We don't need no stinking birth certificate...

[AmericanVictory]

How is it frivolous to advance claims that were given credence by John Marshall, Mr. Justice Story and Chief Justice Waite? What independent consideration did the appellate panel give these matters other than adopting wholesale the bias of the district court judge? Moreover, how does a judge legitimately find a frivolous failure to make the pre-filing inquiry that Rule 11 requires without even finding out what the pre-filing inquiry was? Obviously you too think the man occupying the Oval Office should not be held accountable to the rule of law under the Constitution as testified to by your evident distortions of these matters.

[jamese777]

The issue of whether or not the merits were set out so as to require their consideration is very much at issue. Therefore the merits as alleged are put forward in the questions presented, unlike in other cases where the questions presented are taken up with standing as the issue. So your assertion is not quite correct. One cannot examine the question of whether a cause is stated without examining the causes that are or are not stated. Try reading Wright & Miller or any other authoritative rules treatise on Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals. A good part of the weakness of Robertson’s opinion in this case, in addition to its evident and egregious bias, is the failure to examine the actual issues claimed due to a preoccupation with one of several disjunctive phrases in the statute in question.

---

Roberterson was affirmed, unanimously by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Hollister v Soetoro was a frivolous lawsuit and court costs SHOULD have been imposed as a sanction. I predict the Supreme Court will do the exact same thing with this cert request as it has done with the other Obama eligibility appeals: deny cert.
Let’s check back on January 15 to see who’s right!

There is only one person in the entire United States of America who would have standing to sue Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro on eligibility grounds. That person is John Sidney McCain, the only other person to receive Electoral College votes and therefore the only person in America to have a legitimate chance to be elected president. Senator McCain can show direct and immediate (not conjectural) injury from Obama’s election, a requirement of standing.

If I strech my imagination a bit, I guess I could see Governor Palin or the Republican National Committee also being granted standing as lead plaintiffs in a class action suit against Obama, but I’m much less sure about that.
In any event, neither McCain, Palin or the Republican Party has chosen to sue Obama. That leaves impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors as the option.
In my humble opinion, the way to resolove the Obama eligibility issue is via a Grand Jury investigation, just like what was used in Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Savings and Loan Scandal, Whitewater and the CIA Leaks-Scooter Libby affair.
There are no issues of standing or “failure to state a claim” or political question/justiciabliity in a grand jury investigation.

[TNTNT]

Since Obama waived response to the petition, before SCOTUS will even consider the petition at the conference, at least one justice will have find some merit in the petition and request a response for the Appellees. If that is not done, then the petition will be denied without any discussion. That is what has happened in the previous 10 cases filed with SCOTUS. If a miracle occurs and a justice requests a response, then the cert conference will be postponed until the response is filed. So far not a single justice has seen even the need to discuss this issue at conference, let alone agree to grant cert.

[Hotlanta Mike]

What was the date that both were in Wa?

---

There was so much blogging after the nominations leading up to the presidential election in Nov. ‘08.

Start here, it has some historical information.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html

Be sure to read down and see the connections between Malcolm X and people in Kenya.

Also, look at the physical characteristics of our president, BHO Sr. and Malcom X. Similar build and features with X, wouldn’t you agree?

Here is another link:

“It is believed that in 1960 Malcolm X was in Seattle, where he founded the Nation of Islam Temple No. 67. The 35-year-old Malcolm X was already married and the father of a daughter. How coincidental that the Dunham’s and their now-18-year-old daughter Stanley Ann were also in Seattle and shared Malcolm X’s radical anti-American philosophy and friends in common – possibly among them Frank Marshall Davis – who would have happily arranged for them to meet in Seattle.”

http://obambi.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/who%E2%80%99s-your-daddy-who%E2%80%99s-your-mama/