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

[EDINVA]

“Hollister filed a “petition for certiorari” (a request that the Supreme Court hear an appeal) from the two lower courts (federal district court and federal court of appeals) which both bounced his eligibility lawsuit.”

THERE ARE FEW EXCEPTIONS TO A CASE BEING BROUGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT THAT WEREN’T “BOUNCED” IN THE COURT(S) BELOW. ASK THE NEW HAVEN FIREMEN ABOUT THE PROCEDURE ONE MUST GO THRU BEFORE FILING WITH SCOTUS. THEY WERE ‘BOUNCED’ BY THE TWO LOWER COURTS ALSO (INCLUDING A COURT ON WHICH SAT NONE OTHER THAN SONJA SOTOMAYOR). OR YOU COULD ASK PAULA JONES.

“The Government declined to respond to the petition (a response is not required in the Supreme Court; a failure to respond means the responding party—in this case, Obama— doesn’t think the Supreme Court has any interest in the case).”

THE GOVERNMENT DIDN’T DECLINE HERE; THE ATTORNEY AT PERKINS COIE DID. HE IS COUNSEL OF RECORD, AS SHOWN CLEARLY IN THE SCOTUS DOCKET POSTED AT THE TOP OF THIS THREAD.

“...... No reason is stated for a denial.).”

NOR IS A REASON STATED FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI. SOME YEARS AGO MY SAINTED LAWYER SPOUSE HANDLED A CASE THAT WAS GRANTED CERTIORARI ‘PER CURIAM;’ NO REASON WAS GIVEN. THE ORDER GRANTING CERT JUST SET OUT THE PROCESS FROM THERE.

.......

“If four of the nine justices think a case should be heard, the Court will grant the petition and schedule the case for full briefing and argument. If less that four want to hear the case, the petition will be denied without stating any reason, ..... “

THAT IS A TRADITION OF THE COURT; IT IS NOT A SCOTUS RULE. WERE KAGEN/SOTOMAYOR TO RECUSE THEMSELVES, THE REMAINING JUSTICES COULD DECIDE THAT A VOTE OF THREE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.

“My prediction: the court will not ask for a response, and the petition will be denied without dissent.”

YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS ANYONE ELSE’S. LESS THAN 8% OF PETITIONS FILED ARE GRANTED CERT IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.

[EDINVA]

Thanks for the clarification.

[AmericanVictory]

Once again you display your ignorance. Robertson found that he had "jurisdiction because of the statute." It is elementary that a court cannot have jurisdiction over a case in which the plaintiff has no standing. Therefore he necessarily, albeit without discussion of the issue, found standing. Several attempts by Soetoro a/k/a Obama at the appellate level to introduce the issue of standing were not accepted by the appeals court. Therefore, as the case stands standing has been found, although the Supreme Court can raise the issue on its own. But Soetoro a/k/a Obama has chosen not to raise it and have it briefed.

You further illustrate your ignorance of Rule 11 law in your response. Without inquiry into what the pre-filing inquiry was the the finding of a violation of the rule is clearly erroneous as is its adoption by an appellate panel without independent analysis. The opinion of a judge so clearly non-neutral that the suit is "frivolous" is not based on the rule of law. But then that does not concern you, does it? Either that are you simply very poorly informed. Perhaps you are among those who are rewarded for spreading disinformation. Why don't you tell us what that reward consists of.

[AmericanVictory]

Yes, but in all those cases the issue was standing. Here the finding of standing below has not been challenged by Soetoro a/k/a Obama.

[Lurking Libertarian]

1. Sure, every Petition for Certiorari is brought by the party who lost below. Sometimes that party is a plaintiff whose claims were bounced; sometimes by a defendant who lost below. I’m not sure what your point is.

2. You’re right, this was not defended by the Justice Deapartment. Another reason why Kagan is not obligated to recuse.

3. Correct, no reason is ever given for any action on a cert. petition— it’s always either “cert. denied” or “cert. granted,” period. Again, I was just explaining the procedure for someone who asked.

4.The “Rule of Four” has been followed for generations, with no exception ever made even if there are recusals. I don’t see the Court changing that rule for this case.

5. I give this Petition a lot less than an 8% chance of being granted.

[rolling_stone]

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.

Hahaha and if McCain isn't eligible then what? How can he have standing? No one have standing? ROFLMAO standing was not around when the Constitution and term Natural Born Citizen were implemented, thus there was no aditional statement of how to challenge eligibility. Surely we cannot have a requirement for eligibility and not allow eligibility to be challenged..which is what some want us to believe. The USC is just plain chicken and should be impeached for failure to do their job...that makes as much sense as no-one having standing. Catch 22? I think not.

[EDINVA]

1. Your tenor indicated that there was something negative about a party - in this case, Hollister - filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the SCOTUS because the party’s case was ‘bounced.’ No other reason to petition, is there?

2. Kagan and Sotomayor should both recuse themselves from every petition involving their appointor’s eligibility to serve in the office from which they obtained their nomination. Just a matter of public perception of bias. How does it hurt them to recuse themselves? Not sure, but I think the DOJ had an interest in this case below during her tenure as SG.

3. Again, your tenor was that a denial without comment is something negative. They rarely ‘splain themselves. So that is nothing special, and shouldn’t be cast in that light.

4. How many cases have gone to Conference where two Justices recused themselves (assuming both BHO appointees did recuse themselves?) Is there precedence for only 7 Justices deciding for/against cert? I’ve seen several where Kagan recused herself, but none where both did.

5. As I said, your guess is as good as anyone’s. I’m not willing to bet the farm one way or the other on this or any case that goes to SCOTUS.

[TNTNT]

So. I was just giving a Freeper the procedure that a case goes through at SCOTUS. I don't think a miracle will occur in this case, although I could be completely wrong. We will find out in a few weeks. On the day of the cert conference the will release a list of cases where cert was granted and of those cases where a response has been requested. If it is not on either of those lists, then it will be on the list released the next day of cases where cert was denied.

[Lurking Libertarian]

No negative tenor was intended; sorry if it appeared that way. And there have been, over the years, many cases where two (occasionally more) justices recused (usually due to stock ownership); the Rule of Four has never been altered in any such case.

[AmericanVictory]

Quite so. I was just pointing out that in this case there is a bit more of a “handle” than in those where the issue was standing. The odds are still greatly against acceptance as they always are, although in light of the standing finding there are clear violations of SCOTUS precedent not present in the other cases as well as egregious bias and a very weak district court opinion adopted without independent analysis by the appellate panel. Thus here the outright challenge to the constitutional rule of law is present as it is not where standing is virtually the only issue.

[EDINVA]

Thanks. I just never heard of more than one recusal in a case, but don’t claim to be a SCOTUS expert, either. Far from it!

[Labyrinthos]

If one believes there is a problem with Barry's eligibility, now is not the time to give up and go supine on the issue, effectively allowing it to become precedent setting. If one believes there is no problem with someone born owing allegiance to a foreign crown becoming POTUS and Commander in Chief of the armed forces...well, then, there's nothing to discuss further as we see our framers intent and our Constitution in two completely differing views.

I never said, Give up the fight." I said, "Focus the fight in the right place." Challenging the last election is the wrong place because challenging eligibility after the election is a sure loser. I say, "Challenge his qualifications in Red States when he tries to place his name on the ballot for the 2012 election."

[Hotlanta Mike]

I never said, Give up the fight.” I said, “Focus the fight in the right place.” Challenging the last election is the wrong place because challenging eligibility after the election is a sure loser. I say, “Challenge his qualifications in Red States when he tries to place his name on the ballot for the 2012 election.”

---

Ultimately it may come to that. However, every avenue should be explored. Things are in motion and something may break the right way. Unfortunately the wheels of justice grind slowly (already 2 years to get to this point).

[AmericanVictory]

Elections of lower officials have been overturned. Why is an illegal occupier of the Oval Office above the law under which lesser officials have been held accountable?

[Hotlanta Mike]

Absolutely. However in this case there are bigger forces involved here, this is not the work of only one man conning his way into the presidency.

[AmericanVictory]

It would be very interesting to know just how and specifically his backers such as Soros were involved and what they have obtained in return.

[SeaHawkFan]

The SCOTUS receives approximately 5,000 requests for cases to be heard each year. The court accepts approximately 130 of those cases for review.

It's much closer to 80 and the odds of a justice actually reading any petition is close to zero.

[jamese777]

Hahaha and if McCain isn’t eligible then what? How can he have standing? No one have standing? ROFLMAO standing was not around when the Constitution and term Natural Born Citizen were implemented, thus there was no aditional statement of how to challenge eligibility. Surely we cannot have a requirement for eligibility and not allow eligibility to be challenged..which is what some want us to believe. The USC is just plain chicken and should be impeached for failure to do their job...that makes as much sense as no-one having standing. Catch 22? I think not.

---

The operative word in your post above is “if.”

John McCain received 178 Electoral College votes and no court and no ruling by Congress or any other body has declared him to be ineligible. Therefore, he would have standing to file suit against Obama because he can show direct injury from Obama’s election.

There was a federal lawsuit that challenged John McCain’s eligiblity (Hollander v McCain). Hollander also sued the Republican Party for putting up an ineligible candidate.
Both McCain and the Republican Party argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of standing. It was dismissed on those grounds.

There are most definitely ways to challenge a candidate/officer holder’s eligibility to hold office. Way #1 is via a civil lawsuit. All that is required is a plantiff with standing to sue. Good lawyers know how to find such a plaintiff. Bad lawyers don’t.

Way #2 is via a criminal investigation for election fraud and an indictment of a candidate/officer holder who committed such fraud in order to get on a ballot or to be elected.

Way #3 is via a quo warranto writ in the appropriate court, filed by the appropriate governmental officials. In Orly Taitz’s quo warranto claim against Barack Hussein Obama, US Chief Federal District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the US Attorney General and the US Attorney for the District of Columbia are the appropriate federal officials to file for a Writ of Quo Warranto, and if they refuse, then it was Judge Lamberth’s opinion that ANY federal elected official could file quo warranto as “a person of interest.” Thus far, no member of the House of Representatives and no US Senator has filed for a Writ of Quo Warranto challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility and forcing him to show proof that he is eligible for the office he holds.
Instead of whining like schoolgirls about impeaching the Supreme Court (I’m sure Harry Reid will get right on that) the “Obama is ineligible” movement should be trying to recruit a major league, conservative constitutional attorney to take the lead in judicial matters and consolidate the splintered effort into one major judicial thrust; someone of the stature of Judge Robert Bork or former Solicitor General Ted Olsen. Someone who the Supreme Court Justices respect.
The original filing in Hollister v Soetoro was so flawed that the Judge actually made fun of the filing in its misapplication of legal principles. He said: “This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.”

[Lmo56]

Ann (obama’s mother) flew directly from Kenya to Washington State to start college a week later.

There were no direct flights in the early 1960's. I have heard that she would have had to fly to Scotland [the only flights to the UK], then get a flight to the US.

If she passed immigration in Scotland - there might be records of her and the boy ...

[Kevmo]

NonSequitur and Drew68 were suspended due to their behavior defending homosexualism. I don’t understand why they get away with as much as they do, but they do.