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

[rolling_stone]

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.

Your funny! How's you City College/matchbook school of Law dissertation coming? I think you might have a chance if you label it fictional fantasy. The second McCain filed suit he would be challenged on his eligibility, and anyway what would his complaint be that Obama was born outside the US like him? RTFM-ROFLMAO.....You an Abercrombie are two peas in a pod and its rotten...You keep rationalizing your thoughts to try and meet your agenda...why should I believe anything you say, you cant even understand/believe that Hawaii still has Long Form BC's available and it's black letter law. Go ahead and post your drivel, we will continue to consider the source.

[jamese777]

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.

---

Judge Robertson’s opinion in Hollister v Soetoro was affirmed unanimously by the US Court of Appeals.
And that included Judge Robertson’s assessment of court costs as a punitive sanction against plaintiff’s attorney for wasting the Court’s time with nonsense.

Don’t try to kill the messenger.

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).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28745277/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-PER-CURIAM-JUDGMENT-filed-Lower-Court-Affirmed-Transport-Room

[mstar]

So Non-S’s newly resurrected persona was banned as well.

No wonder his fanboys are all worked up. . . just real busy pushing boy's high school vulgarity to new levels. One classy group.

Good work MJ & Co.

[AmericanVictory]

As stated, standing was found. You were wrong about that. As stated, Rule 11 deals with pre-filing inquiry, which was not even examined. It is acknowledged in filing for cert the affirmation of Robertson without any further analysis is believed to be an error. It is clear that the appeals panel was successfully intimidated and affirmed clear error. What remains to be seen is whether the intimidation will reach enough justices of the Supreme Court. Only time will tell. You do not deal in reason or the law but rather in the currency of the lickspittle. It is evident that the appeals panel approved the Robertson decision, that does not make their approval free of error, particularly since they adopted without comment or anlsysis his opinion, based as it was on “blogging and twittering.” Obviously you indentify with that reasoning and cannot make an independent analysis of it because of your own bias.

[jamese777]

Your funny! How’s you City College/matchbook school of Law dissertation coming? I think you might have a chance if you label it fictional fantasy. The second McCain filed suit he would be challenged on his eligibility, and anyway what would his complaint be that Obama was born outside the US like him? RTFM-ROFLMAO.....You an Abercrombie are two peas in a pod and its rotten...You keep rationalizing your thoughts to try and meet your agenda...why should I believe anything you say, you cant even understand/believe that Hawaii still has Long Form BC’s available and it’s black letter law. Go ahead and post your drivel, we will continue to consider the source.

---

Has there been a ruling that Senator McCain was ineligible that I am unaware of?

Has any other plaintiff in an Obama eligibility lawsuit been granted Article III standing to sue?

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for you to take my word for anything. Simply do the research and prove me wrong.

Just imagine the worldwide attention that would be drawn to the Obama is ineligible movement if the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit were John McCain, Sarah Palin and the Republican National Committee rather than the anonymous plaintiffs like Hollister, Berg or Kerchner.

[danamco]

I also got a letter from Mel, looks like what Jack Maskell have advised everyone in Washington D.C. (District of Corruption!!!

[danamco]

How can ten bucks solve the problem, when according to the former Hawaiian chief election clerk saying there is NO b.c., none, Nada zilch???

[jamese777]

As stated, standing was found. You were wrong about that. As stated, Rule 11 deals with pre-filing inquiry, which was not even examined. It is acknowledged in filing for cert the affirmation of Robertson without any further analysis is believed to be an error. It is clear that the appeals panel was successfully intimidated and affirmed clear error. What remains to be seen is whether the intimidation will reach enough justices of the Supreme Court. Only time will tell. You do not deal in reason or the law but rather in the currency of the lickspittle. It is evident that the appeals panel approved the Robertson decision, that does not make their approval free of error, particularly since they adopted without comment or anlsysis his opinion, based as it was on “blogging and twittering.” Obviously you indentify with that reasoning and cannot make an independent analysis of it because of your own bias.

---

The following is found on page six of the defense’s Motion to Dismiss in Hollister v Soetoro: “Furthermore, plaintiff does not allege that any injury was caused by defendants, or that it can be redressed by a decision from this court. Because plaintiff has not established standing, the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).”
Judge Robertson made no ruling on standing and dismissed the suit on “failure to state a claim.” The absence of a ruling on standing does not mean that standing was granted.

I suggest that you read Judge Robertson’s explanation of why the legal theory being presented by the plaintiff of “interpleader” was flawed and does not pertain to presidential eligibility at all. It’s a claim used in insurance cases.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv2254-21

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008cv02254/134576/

[omegadawn]

Part of the issue is that there was a stopover between Kenya and Washington . Ann met several of her friends at the stopover , but the media has blacked outed all reports of the meeting. I believe that it was reported that it was on an island that she met her friends. The obama media seem to pick and choose what information that the American public is allowed to see.

[AmericanVictory]

I have read it very throgougly.. You have obviously not comprehended what he says for it remains the case that he specifically found that he had jurisdiction because of the statute. Obama’s own lawyers in seeking unsuccessfully to bring the court of appeals to recognize a lack of standing acknowledged that he had thus assumed standing without discussing it. You persist in ignoring what Obama’s own lawyers ackknowledged. Further, you clearly haven’t a clue what a Rule 12 (b) (6) dismissal is. In finding no cause Judge Robertson completely ignored and failed to analyze the disjunctive provision of the statute concerning an “obligation” which is a word of clear meaning. Instead Judge Robertson focused solely on the use of the word “property.” Your persistence in misreprentations indicates a mind adhering to the same bias that motivated Judge Robertson, namely, that the present respondent Obama is above the law and cannot be held accountable under the law. Clearly the duty to report as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve if the occupant of the Oval Office is required as C-in-C to call up the ready reserve is an “obligation” and clearly, under the requirement of that part of the statute it is worth more than $500. It is quite revealing that you persist in denying what Obama’s own lawyers acknowledge was so.

[SwankyC]

Yep, and he went to jail for all the chinese money, and selling secrets to China and that chicom over at Los Alamos, and ALLLLL the littany of other lawsuit bullcrap regarding fundraising posted here where everyone did that collective breathe of 'This time he's goin down'. Not so much. The guy was at the Presidential podium a few weeks back and is such the darling that Obama left him there.

Yep, you remembered it right. Yer memory is a little selective though.

[bushpilot1]

The firm represented Abercrombie in an FEC complaint

[bushpilot1]

01.13.2010
Judith Corley is Obama’s New Personal Lawyer
General News
Perkins Coie Partner Judith Corley has replaced former Perkins Coie Partner Bob Bauer, who began work as the new White House counsel this week, as Barack Obama’s personal lawyer. Corley will represent Obama in his non-official capacity, both in personal matters and in his political organization, Obama for America.

11.16.2009
Perkins Coie Names Marc Elias as Political Law Group Chair
Press Release
Perkins Coie announced today Marc Elias will become the new chair of the firm’s Political Law Group. Elias succeeds Bob Bauer who was recently appointed White House Counsel.

11.13.2009
Bob Bauer Appointed White House Counsel
Press Release
Bob Bauer, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Perkins Coie LLP and head of the firms’ Political Law Practice, is leaving the firm to accept appointment as White House Counsel.

http://www.perkinscoie.com/services/Services_Detail.aspx?service=45a5651d-1719-4162-ab90-8d5d021d5e28&op=news&limit=6&affects=np

[jamese777]

I have read it very throgougly.. You have obviously not comprehended what he says for it remains the case that he specifically found that he had jurisdiction because of the statute. Obama’s own lawyers in seeking unsuccessfully to bring the court of appeals to recognize a lack of standing acknowledged that he had thus assumed standing without discussing it. You persist in ignoring what Obama’s own lawyers ackknowledged. Further, you clearly haven’t a clue what a Rule 12 (b) (6) dismissal is. In finding no cause Judge Robertson completely ignored and failed to analyze the disjunctive provision of the statute concerning an “obligation” which is a word of clear meaning. Instead Judge Robertson focused solely on the use of the word “property.” Your persistence in misreprentations indicates a mind adhering to the same bias that motivated Judge Robertson, namely, that the present respondent Obama is above the law and cannot be held accountable under the law. Clearly the duty to report as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve if the occupant of the Oval Office is required as C-in-C to call up the ready reserve is an “obligation” and clearly, under the requirement of that part of the statute it is worth more than $500. It is quite revealing that you persist in denying what Obama’s own lawyers acknowledge was so.

---

I have no interest in re-arguing Hollister v Soetoro on an internet bulliten board. I’m a “bottom-line” kind of guy and the bottom-line for me is the indisputable fact that Judge Robertson was affirmed in Hollister v Soetoro et. al. by the US Court of the Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The word “standing” appears nowhere in Judge Robertson’s opinion nor in the Per Curiam Judgement of the US Circuit Court of Appeals For the District of Columbia. However the word “frivolous” does appear in both Courts’ decisions.

There have now been 88 dismissals, denials, or rejections of Obama eligibility lawsuits in courts at every level of the American judiciary, including nine denials of cert or denials of applications for injunctions/writs at the Supreme Court of the United States.

I think that instead of going round and round with you, I’ll just patiently wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling on Cert, which we should have in a couple of weeks. That will be the ULITIMATE “bottom line” on this case.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

I beg to differ-- this was an eggregiously silly case, because it attempted to invoke the interpleader statute, when none of the elements of that statute existed here-- no property worth over $10,000; no competing claims to that property; no deposit of the property in the registry of the court; etc. Hollister avoided the standing issue only by invoking a statute that clearly had no application to this case, which is why the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions. Obama could have been born on Mars and this would still not be an interpleader case.

[bvw]

I think that instead of going round and round with you, I’ll just patiently wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling on Cert, which we should have in a couple of weeks.

That kind of patience is wise.

[AmericanVictory]

You seem unfamiliar with the statute. It does not require property worth $10,000. As mentioned before, the language in the statute at issue here states explicitly otherwise with regard to the “obligation” that was at issue here, which is clearly worth more than the $500 that the statute requires. A motion to deposit 5 times the required amoung in money into the registry of the court was refused. The statute does not require existing dispute between the interpleader defendants only that there “may” be conflicting claims. Perhaps you are driven by something other than a desire to logically analyze. Either you are not familiar with the statute or you are consciously misrepresenting it. You apparently believe that decisions about frivolousness can be made based on evident reliance upon extrajudicial factors not relevant to the case or the claims of the plaintiff rather than, as Rule 11 requires in all reported cases, an analysis of pre-filing inquiry, of which there was none. Rule 11 is not a license for a judge to decide that a case is “frivolous” without such an inquiry. You never post, I notice, but to seek to justify Obama. Are you instructed to make these misrepresentations or do you come up with them on your own?

[American Constitutionalist]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=245753

[Lurking Libertarian]

You seem unfamiliar with the statute.

I have litigated several interpleader cases in federal court; how many have you tried?

It does not require property worth $10,000. As mentioned before, the language in the statute at issue here states explicitly otherwise with regard to the “obligation” that was at issue here, which is clearly worth more than the $500 that the statute requires. A motion to deposit 5 times the required amoung in money into the registry of the court was refused. The statute does not require existing dispute between the interpleader defendants only that there “may” be conflicting claims.Perhaps you are driven by something other than a desire to logically analyze. Either you are not familiar with the statute or you are consciously misrepresenting it.

As soon as the case was filed, I posted here on FR my prediction that the case would be dismissed, and I correctly predicted the reasoning the district court would use. That reasoning was also affirmed unanimously by the Court of Appeals. As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote, if you ask a lawyer "what is the law?", you are asking for nothing more nor less than a prediction of what the courts will rule. By that standard, I told you what the law is.

You apparently believe that decisions about frivolousness can be made based on evident reliance upon extrajudicial factors not relevant to the case or the claims of the plaintiff rather than, as Rule 11 requires in all reported cases, an analysis of pre-filing inquiry, of which there was none. Rule 11 is not a license for a judge to decide that a case is “frivolous” without such an inquiry.

Nonsense; if a claim is legally frivolous, i.e. based on a legal theory with no support in the caselaw, no factual inquiry is necessary. If I sue you for $1,000,000 for violating my constitutional rights by wearing brown shoes with a blue suit, I will be sanctioned under Rule 11 without any factual hearing into the scope of my prefiling inquiry, because the frivolity of the claim is itself evidence that no sufficient legal inquiry was conducted. Agan, I have litigated dozens of Rule 11 motions over my 32 years as a lawyer; factual hearings on such motions are the exception, not the rule.

You never post, I notice, but to seek to justify Obama. Are you instructed to make these misrepresentations or do you come up with them on your own?

I have posted 7,720 replies on FR since I joined during the Clinton Administration. Surely not all of them support Obama. Moreover, to discuss which methods of opposing Obama will work legally and which won't is hardly "supporting Obama." I think Obama is a lousy President and I would like to see him defeated for re-election, but that doesn't mean I have to cheer on people filing frivolous lawsuits based on legal theories which my education and experience tell me are legally untenable. (I have also, BTW, posted my views on legal strategies which could be used to keep Obama off the ballot in 2012.)

[rxsid]

Ping to the WND article which writes about this case, and the filing of a formal motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan from decisions on Colonel Hollister’s case.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=245753