Posted on 12/29/2010 10:49:16 AM PST by 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
Good question is gives me a headache thinking about all of this. Why doesn’t the jackass just unseal all of his birth and college records?
And truthfact,SOROSOWNED.org’s weak explanation of this won’t due for me.
Is there any media or court that can investigate why this archived cache was deleted?
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
I’m not defending Bambi, but I guess I’d just as soon see a Republican in office in 2012 and THEN see Bambi prosecuted for knowingly taking the office of POTUS illegally.
With 2 recusals only takes 3 according to Kerchner:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-ineligible-obama-i-tried-and-lied.html
U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who had in my opinion a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have! Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after. Imo, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it’s the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it’s then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.
Hillary’s tool...he was a staunch HRC supporter.
I disagree with that attitude. It is not so unprecedented that the rule of law should be overlooked just because Biden is an idiot, or just because anything... Country before politics...period.
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.
He says it, but he doesn't cite any support for it. There is no exception in the Supreme Court rules to the "rule of four."
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.
I guess that is what I find amusing with the left calling everyone on the right "brithers" and the likes. It STARTED out of their own party!
Attorneys for Respondents:
Marc Erik Elias
Counsel of Record
Perkins Coie, LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
melias@perkinscoie.com
;)
When I think of Stanley Ann Dunham, the son the father never had, makes me think of Stanley Dunham fathering an out of wedlock child with a black woman. Then pawning it off on Stanley Ann.
Bingo!
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.
Yeah there is lots he is hiding. His Indonesian citizenship has never been questioned. How many passports does he have?Why was a key witness involving passportgate found dead?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot//
Nothing. Nada damn thing. Just like it didn't in the DOZENS of others posts like this or the ones about Clinton.
Don’t think that’s the issue.
Many of the judges that have ruled against hearing these eligibility cases stated that disclosing the information in his birth records would be extremely embarassing to the president. Kind of like when you weave a life narrative of being the son of an Kenyan nationalist and intellect and being found out to be only the son of Stanley Dunham with a local black woman. Yeah, I guess that may prove embarrasing.
In fact, as you are no doubt aware, the "rule of four" is itself not something that is actually set forth anywhere in the Supreme Court's rules or otherwise formally "codified." It is merely longstanding Supreme Court practice. So to say that, with recusals, some sort of "rule of three" would apply is a bit of a non sequitur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.