Replies

Docket No. 10-678
========================================
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.

From: CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW FUND (CRLF)

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.).

Thanks for the post, rxsid. We’ll see what happens a week from Friday.

The Courts, Congress, Obama and his supporters are violating the Law of Nations, chapter XIX.

The Law of Nations has been a part of our law since the United States was Founded.

“Prosecute all crimes against the Law of Nations”, George Washington.

The Courts, Congress, Obama and his supporters are violating the Law of Nations, chapter XIX.

The Law of Nations has been a part of our laws since the United States was Founded.

“Prosecute all crimes against the Law of Nations”, George Washington.

Good to see the ‘two US citizen parents’ included.

.. Ping!

There are two factors that are at issue if the allegations of the complaint are taken as true in relation to the “natural born citizen” eligibility requirement. The first is the location where the person was born. Was it in the United States? The second factor is was the birth in the United States to two parents both of whom were citizens of the United States? The district court was required to examine both of these factors but chose to avoid examining either.

Please, SCOTUS...don't avoid this.

An interesting youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jhx_2TqffE