Recall, the lower court judge had these nuggets of wisdom in his ruling:
The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-yearcampaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.HOLLISTER v. SOETORO - New filings - PETITION for Hearing en Banc, MOTION to publish (FR)...
Many people, perhaps as many as a couple of dozen, feel deeply about this issue.
HOLLISTER v. SOETORO et al (Justia)
"Hollister v Soetoro - DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011 (SCOTUS)"
Our former senator from FL, the “Honorable” Mel Martinez, had the cojones to write me something very similar about Obozo’s eligibility. Only he cited the ELECTION of ‘08 as the crucial vetting process.
He made it sound a bit like jury nullification, which could legally permit the acquittal of a clearly guilty axe murderer.
I really don’t think that Mel liked being senator anyway. Constituents like me made him decide to quit, I think.
Is this the reason for all the “birther” stories in the past week? Maybe the Wise Latina or the lesbian Justice tipped off Obama this was going to make its way onto the SC calendar. I don’t happen to believe in coincidence.
And what action can the Justices take at Conference?
Who is this ‘Soerto’ guy?
I think a lot of American would like to know
Is this why he was forced to give up his law licence? or else be DISBARRED for filing a false affidavit that he never used another name?
Orly’s on the 7th.
Hemenway’s on the 14th.
It’s getting interesting.
The Supremes won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole: they recall all too well the grief they got over the 2000 election, and they feel as stated by Martinez, that the elections WERE the vetting process.
Looking forward, we need to change the laws so that these things are settled BEFORE the elections.
It would only take one major state making it law: my own Texas, for example.
The question is not whether Obama is an American citizen.
The question is whether is a NATURAL BORN citizen.
There is no question that he is not a natural born citizen, becasue his father was not an AMerican citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. Therefore, he does not meet the Constitutional test of eligibility for the President of the United States.
And considering the damage he has doen and contoinues to inflict on the nation we love, he needs to be bounced out of office ASAP.
Are we a nation of law, or of men?
American needs a reset, before this nation goes down the tubes entirely. And that is the sole purpose of the group of Commie clowns in this Administration—to bring America down to the level of every other second rate country in the world.
After all, American exceptionalism is such a passe concept./s
I'd say its a lot more than a couple dozen.
Oh fer cryin’ out loud...
Haven’t you bleepin’ idiots learned a damn thing?
I understand that Elena Kagan was the front lawyer in various court hearings for Obozo re his eligibility issue. If that is fact then she should have no voice in any Supreme Court proceedings on the issue.
How is this case different than the last 25 or so?
Seriously.
Each variation of the name should have been spelled out. I don't know that a mere "et al" is going to cut it with the Supremes.
Someone refresh my memory; but wasn’t Phil Berg (A Hillary Shill during the primaries) one of the one’s who started the birth certificate thing with a lawsuit?
The problem with that stance is only a court of law can "get to the facts."
Vigilant citizenry can talk all they want amongst themselves but these words suggest facts are trumped by action of the voters. When has "Will of the People" stopped a court from striking a voter approved law down as unconstitutional?
The "birther" questions are the easiest ever to settle. It amazes me the issue continues to be presented without having been definitively resolved.
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.
We know if these questions were about a Republican, all records, no matter the law or how tightly sealed, would have been leaked a dozen times over by now.
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.
"Petition for Certiorari: Hollister v. Soetoro"
TABLE OF CONTENTS Questions presented [Edit: Posted below] i
Parties v
Table of Contents vi
Table of Contents (Appendix) vii
Table of Authorities ix
REPORTS 1
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,TREATIES, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE 1
ARGUMENT 9
I. The failure to follow Conley v. Gibson 9
II. The de facto officer doctrine 13
III. The failure to examine the central issue 14
IV. Interpleader is an equitable remedy 15
V. The failure to allow amendment Violated Rule 15 16
VI. The central natural born citizen issue 18
VII. Birth outside the United States 19
And see the second part of the "natural born citizen" argument concerning the concern of the framers over an alien parent 19
VIII. The inappropriateness of sanctions 30
Certificate pursuant to Rule 33.1
Certificate of service 32
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
(i) OPINIONS, ORDERS,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCUSIONS OF LAW
(1) USDC-DC MEMORANDUM
03/05/2009 1
(2) USDC-DC ORDER 03/05/2009 5
(3) USDC-DC Memorandum Order,
03/24/2009USCA-DC Judgment,
03/22/2010 6
(4) USCA-DCJudgment,03/22/2010 18
(ii) OTHER RELEVANT OPINIONS, ORDERS
(1) USDC-DC Order 02/11/2009 20
(2) USDC-DC Order 02/04/2009 21
(3) USDC-DC Order 03/08/2009 22
(iii) ANY ORDER ON REHEARING
(1) USCA-DC EnBancOrder 08/23/10 24
(2) USCA-DC Spec.Panel Order 08/23/10 25
(iv) CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, RULES, ETC.
(v) REQUIRED BY 1(g)(i) NONE N/A
vii
(vi) ANY OTHER MATERIAL NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND FROM DISTRICT COURT
(1) COMPLAINT, 12/31/2008 42
(2) EXH. A, DOD, 23/31/2008 65
(3) AMENDED COMPLAINT 70
(4) Rule 28(j) letter, 05/24/2010 105
(5) MOTION FOR RECUSAL
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455
05/31/2010 108
viii
[Edit: The questions presented]
Docket No. 10-678From: CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW FUND (CRLF)========================================
In The
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
------------------------------------------------
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, et al.,
Petitioner,
v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al.,
Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
To the United States Court of Appeals
For the District of Columbia Circuit
----------------------------------------------
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
------------------------------------
John D. Hemenway
Counsel for Petitioners
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Did the district court follow the rule that a complaint should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief?"
2. Did the District Court examine the complaint of the plaintiff/petitioner Hollister as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?
3. Did the district court examine the words "or being under any obligation written or unwritten in the amount of $500 or more..." as set out disjunctively at the end of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1335(a) as they pertain to the plaintiff/petitioner Hollister as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve?
4. Did the district court violate the clear language standard for statutory interpretation?
5. Did the district court, as affirmed by the appellate court, examine and apply the de facto officer doctrine as applied?
6. Did the district court, as affirmed by the appellate court ignore the Nuremburg principle IV as amplified by the Statute of Rome and improperly fail to analyze the ability of the defendant Obama to give a lawful order under that principal under the allegations of the complaint?
7. By refusing to consider the issue of the defendant Obama not being a “natural born citizen” as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution did the district court violate its obligation to consider the issues raised by the complaint?
i
8. Did the district court, as affirmed by the appellate court, take into account the equitable nature of Interpleader when there is no remedy at law?
9. In failing to consider and ignoring the law set out in 1 through 8 above, and instead relying upon extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that: “The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two–year–campaign for the presidency,…” combined with an attack on the petitioner plaintiff because he “wants it resolved by a court,” and that one of the counsel involved in signing the pleadings for the petitioner/plaintiff, a well known Pennsylvania Democrat politician and prominent Hillary Clinton supporter in that state during the primaries, who was attacked by the district court as an “agent provocateur” and also with sarcastic attacks on the plaintiff/petitioner Hollister, did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias based upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?
ii
10. Did the district court seek to deny petitioner Hollister his constitutional right of access to the courts. v 11. Did the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit adopt that bias so as to render its affirmation of the district court also void?
12. Did the Court of Appeals, in so adopting the bias of the district court, cite this Court’s opinion in Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) for the opposite of what it holds in an attempt to rationalize its adoption of the bias?
13. Did the Court of Appeals erroneously apply the case law, including its own, in holding that the petitioner/plaintiff and petitioner/counsel could not invoke 28 U.S.C. § 455 at the appellate level?
14. Did the evident bias engaged in below lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent/defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?
15. Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?
iii
6. Did the courts below fail to analyze and apply the Bivens doctrine as part of placing the defendant Obama above the rule of law in destruction of the Constitution as the basis of that rule of law?
17. In so placing the defendant Obama above the rule of law and failing to analyze the claims of the complaint and the facts it alleged, did the court of appeals below err in not considering relevant and take judicial notice of the Hawaiian territorial statutes in effect in 1961 and the other matters which the petitioners Hollister and Hemenway sought judicial notice on?
18. Did the courts below create a constitutional rule of law crisis in this country by refusing to consider the intent of the founders in placing the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement for a person to be President?
19. Did the appellate court seek to prevent the public from noticing the harm it was doing to the constitutional rule of law in this country by refusing to publish its opinion on a matter which addressed the very legitimacy of the nation’s Commander–in–Chief?
20. Did the district court, as affirmed, properly assess a Rule 11 sanction against the petitioner/counsel Hemenway in light of the case law of this Court, particularly in the 19th Century and the relevant discourse evidencing the framers’ intent at the time of the founding?
iv
(b) PARTIES: CORPORATIONS
The parties are: The petitioner Col. Gregory S. Hollister, who was the plaintiff in the district court, the petitioner John D. Hemenway, who was sanctioned in the district court under Rule 11 for bringing suit, and the defendants in their capacities as set out in the caption. There are two defendants: the first is the respondent Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack H. Obama, who is an interpleader and Bivens defendant and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., who is also an interpleader and Bivens defendant. There are no corporations involved so as to require disclosure.
CRLF is a new non-profit corporation dedicated to the purposes of preserving and defending the Constitution of the United States and the principles which it enables as set out in the Declaration of Independence as the working foundation of our legal system. It is started by three individuals to include Colonel Gregory S. Hollister (USAF Ret.).
When tomorrow, do you think, will we hear their decision?