Posted on 11/21/2009 1:22:49 AM PST by rxsid
Notice Filed Hollister v Soetoro
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTConsent Motion Hollister v SoetoroA. The Basis for the District Court’s Subject Matter Jurisdiction The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Interpleader Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Alternatively Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 and diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 existed. In addition, in a proposed amended complaint the plaintiff Hollister asserted jurisdiction also for a direct violation of the constitutional requirement in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 concerning the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States if he is not, as is there stated, a “natural born citizen.” Such jurisdiction is asserted under Bivens v. Six Federal Narcotics Agents.
...
II. Issues Presented for Review
1) Did the lower court err as a matter of law and/or abuse its discretion by finding the Federal Interpleader Act and/or the Federal Rule of Interpleader inapplicable when it found that the plaintiff Hollister had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted?.
...
2) Did the lower court fail to take the factual allegations of the complaint as true and thereby err, particularly the alleging of a de facto holding of office by the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama that was not de jure?
3) In so finding the Federal Interpleader Act inapplicable did the lower court ignore the plain language of the Interpleader Act?
4) Did the lower court err when it dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because it was influenced by bias that it exhibited?
5) Did the lower court err and/or abuse its discretion by sanctioning Appellant’s Attorney, John D. Hemenway under Rule 11 and by finding the law suit “frivolous,” particularly by doing so without any inquiry into the prefiling inquiry that was made and allowing the presentation of the evidence alleged in the complaint and the law researched at a hearing and in failing to allow reprimanded counsel discovery?
6) Did the lower court err in failing to allow the amendment of the complaint, and particularly did it err in refusing the addition of a Bivens count as part of the amendment sought?
7) Did the lower court violate fundamental rights of the plaintiff and his reprimanded counsel by not having any hearing before dismissing and reprimanding, particularly when it made a finding of frivolousness?
8) Did the lower court err in the way it treated the attempt of the plaintiff to deposit an amount into the escrow of the court?
9) Did the lower court exhibit improper bias against the plaintiff and his local counsel based upon its attitude toward the two other counsel who signed filings that it exhibited in reliance upon observations from the Internet?
10) Did the lower court exhibit such an improper reliance upon unverified information from the Internet that it rendered its decision invalid and subject to being vacated with a remand?
11) Did the lower court give such an impression and appearance of improper bias that it rendered its decision invalid and subject to being vacated and create an impression of lack of impartiality and disinterest in fair adjudication?
12) Did the lower court improperly and erroneously rely upon undisclosed sources on the Internet and the web site of one of the signatory counsel it refused to admit pro hac vice as if they were some form of res judicata and exhibit reversible bias in doing so?
13) Did the lower court attack what it perceived as the politics of non-local counsel and their participation in what it perceived as a political movement or politically inspired campaign so as to exhibit political bias on its own part that showed disregard for the Constitution and the Rule of Law that was improper and in error from the outset?III. Statement of the Case
On entering the Air Force, Col. Hollister took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” [Appx 9-10] He has reaffirmed that oath. This oath has been construed as one placing upon each member of the Armed Forces a legal duty to obey all lawful orders, but only lawful orders. This is reflected in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
...
For such reasons, if Col. Hollister ever receives an order recalling him to active duty issued by, or under the authority of, Defendant Barry Soetoro (a/k/a Barack Obama) under the auspices of being President of the United States and acting de facto as such, he will be entitled to know whether this or any other orders given by the said defendant are orders which he, Colonel Hollister, has a legal obligation to obey, or an order which he has a legal obligation to disobey. As an officer in the Individual Ready Reserve Col. Hollister has an especial right to the intangible property right of honest services from the said defendant as an office holder de facto or de jure and a right to know which of those two types of office holder the said defendant is. It can’t be both.
As information comes out in this legal system of this federal jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction (the courts of Hawaii, for example) that indicates more strongly that the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama has been all along a constitutional fraud, there is no way it can be predicted whether the defendant Biden will act responsibly to his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution or whether he will avoid that obligation as many seem to be doing at this point.
...
Further, the doubt that Soetoro a/k/a Obama is constitutionally qualified has spread and may produce other interpleader complainants in the armed services. Under such circumstances the present low morale in the armed forces and the doubt that has spread through them could mestasize absent an orderly lawful resolution. Doubts, in particular could spread up and down the chains of command among the armed services and those all those all along those chains who have sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and not to any person. There could be division within the chain of command above the plaintiff Hollister as to whether Soetoro a/k/a Obama is or is not the lawfully-constituted President and Commander-In-Chief, and all of this may have the most horrendous consequences for our country, including the possible development of a Constitutional-military legal crisis. [Appx 19, 21-22]
...
The two out-of-the- jurisdiction attorneys, Philip J. Berg of Pennsylvania and Lawrence Joyce of Arizona, were characterized by the lower court as “agents provocateurs” and Philip J. Berg in particular was characterized by the lower court as “probably” the “real plaintiff” in the case. App. 209, 211. They were moved to be admitted pro hac vice but the lower court did not grant that motion. App. 220. They did sign the filings in the lower court. In any case they have now resigned from representing Colonel Hollister and are no longer involved although they, along with “blogging and twittering” on the Internet were the focus of much of the lower court’s opinion dismissing the case.
...
This would be the Bauer firm that is so highly favored by Soetoro a/k/a Obama and was heavily involved in his election which Col. Hollister claims was a knowing constitutionally fraudulent exercise. (This subject law firm according to public FEC records, available over the Internet, has been paid over 1.4 million dollars at this point, a good portion of which has been for defending the fraud thus claimed, a fact which we ask the Court to take notice of.)
...
If the allegations of his complaint are found to be true, the conflict between who will be entitled to enforce the “stake” of his obligation as a retired officer subject to such recall will be resolved but until then the conflict as to whom he owes his obligation remains.
...
H. THE FAILURE TO EVEN CONSIDER THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
The lower court’s opinion of March 5, 2009, shows clearly that it took no notice of the amended complaint proposed by the plaintiff Hollister. This relates to Issue Presented 6. At that point no responsive pleading had been filed, only dismissal motions. Yet the court below did not consider the proposed amended complaint as one filed as a matter of right under Rule 15 (a)(1). Nor did it consider it under Rule 15 (a) (2) as a proposed amended complaint with regard to which leave to file should be “freely” given as “justice” so requires. In fact the court below, from what can be seen in the record, ignored the requirements of Rule 15 and the rule itself completely. There is no evidence that it gave any consideration to the proposed amended complaint at all. It does not even require anything except the language of the Rule itself to see that this is reversible error. It is reversible error because the proposed amended complaint sought to add a Bivens count, which the plaintiff was entitled to have considered.
...
I. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD Looking to Issue Presented 7 we point out that the combination of the bias already discussed and the leaping to that bias by relying upon such things as “blogging and twittering” on the Internet by “America’s vigilant citizenry” rather than the law indicates that in this case in particular a hearing should have been held, not only because one was required for the undersigned under Rule 11 “hornbook” law but because it might have illustrated that Colonel Hollister was not some dupe of agents provocateurs as indicated by the court below it its bias. In fact, while the attorney Berg is known to be associated with Secretary of State and former Senator and first lady Hillary Clinton it is a matter of record that while Bill Clinton was serving as President Colonel Hollister protested actions by then-President Clinton that he thought were overreaching under the Constitution and took a risk in doing so. So he takes his oath very seriously indeed and that would have come out in a hearing. He was not a “foot soldier” in some campaign by Clintonite agents at all and a hearing would have clearly so revealed.
...
K. OF BLOGGING AND TWITTERING
It is astonishing and even startling that a United States District Court judge would ignore the enormous body of law on res judicata in its branches of issue and claim preclusion as they are called now and indulge in excessive reliance upon such “sources” while bemoaning the fact that a veteran of the armed forces would actually think that he might go to a court to have serious doubts of constitutional eligibility of a de facto presidential office holder and even the deceptions committed in arriving at that status addressed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22841279/Joint Appellant Brief Hollister v Soetoro
It’s not gaining the slightest bit of traction. The fact that this guy is apparently unable to craft a cogent sentence doesn’t help his case a whole lot.
I think we may be getting some where now.Thanks for the ping Star.
No, but I am concerned when folks who are unable to craft an English sentence, who have no knowledge of history or law and who immediately insult the integrity of anyone with whom they disagree hold themselves out as champions of freedom.
From the filing:
“The two out-of-the- jurisdiction attorneys, Philip J. Berg of Pennsylvania and Lawrence Joyce of Arizona, were characterized by the lower court as “agents provocateurs” and Philip J. Berg in particular was characterized by the lower court as “probably” the “real plaintiff” in the case. App. 209, 211. They were moved to be admitted pro hac vice but the lower court did not grant that motion. App. 220. They did sign the filings in the lower court. In any case they have now resigned from representing Colonel Hollister and are no longer involved although they, along with “blogging and twittering” on the Internet were the focus of much of the lower court’s opinion dismissing the case.”
Now that the case is in the appeal phase, Berg and Joyce have “resigned from representing Colonel Hollister”.
Appeals law is a very different specialization from trial law practice, in my limited experience. Trial law practice involves influencing the “finding of fact” by the trier of facts (judge or jury) to achieve the desired legal outcome for the plaintiff, often live before the judge or jury.
Appeals law practice involves challenging the “conclusions of law” that were applied to the facts (evidence) by the judge in the lower trial court. My understanding is that the appeals court generally won't or can't reverse the lower court on its findings of fact, but only on its conclusions of law (law applied to the facts).
Appeals are not primarily done live, but in detailed written filings, such as we see here, with limited oral argument usually allowed. You can see that the new appeals lawyer has presented a long list of what he claims are erroneous conclusions of law or disregard of the law by the trial court.
My understanding is that a federal appeal goes first to a three judge panel, hopefully with a majority that doesn't regard blogging and twittering to be sufficient legal fact-checking of claims to presidential eligibility. Then a losing party can request an "en banque" hearing by the full circuit court panel, then on to SCOTUS.
Any lawyer is invited to fine tune or refute my comments, please!
Why don’t you give some specific examples? Maybe I can assist your comprehension, which, realistically, seems quite limited. By the way, do you have any substantive comments? Your position seems to be that the law is determined by whether or not an attorney emulates the style of Ernest Hemeingway. That does not seem the position of one with much substantive comprehension. I aaked you a substantive question and you did not answer. What do you maintain is patriotic on your part when you offer apologetics for constitutional fraud? Is it you think that it is okay to violate the Constitution with impunity?
What seems most interesting is, in the Statement of the Case, where Hemenway points out that the court below found that Colonel Hollister had “standing.” He did this, as noted, by finding that he had jurisdiction but then dismissed on the grounds of failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Soetoreo a/k/a Obama and Biden did not cross appeal the finding of standing by Judge Robertson. Why do you suppose this was since every other case that has been focused upon, over 20, have been dismissed for lack of standing? Why would not Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden have cross-appealed that finding of subject matter jurisdiction?
OK, assist me in understanding what a “leave of case” is.
My point would be that an attorney, if indeed this thing was written by an attorney, who cannot craft a cogent argument in support of his position (as by following accepted norms of grammar) isn’t going to be taken very seriously.
Do you ever discuss the facts? Can you discuss the facts?
For sure when you bring up the past it totally negates what is going now. /sarcasm
NOT in your wildest dreams.
I have always thought the lack of standing was a easy dismissal. The courts are saying you have not proven you are harmed.
The people have no standing because Obama has not personally harmed them. To legislate socialists policies and redistribute wealth is not against the law. It is the progressive party principles and the people must bow down to the party who WINS! So millions are out of work while Obama wants trillions to go to the UN. That’s not the courts problem to solve.
Military have standing. They have a right to know their Commander in Chief is legitimate and they swore to uphold the Constitution and protect the U.S from the enemy. But have they been harmed? Courts would say no. You signed up for the military so you go to your assignment. Nothing has changed, we have two wars, you knew you might have to go. Military does not have the responsibility to prove Obama’s NBC status.
We know this is not the point. We know no one wants to go war if they think POTUS may be a terrorist sympathizer or ally.
Alan Keyes has standing. He ran against Obama and if Obama was out of the way maybe he would have won. The courts would say that can’t be proven. No harm, no standing.
I believe the judges are all under threats to not do anything. Seriously this admin cares nothing for rule of law and I am sure phone calls, letters have been made similar to the media reports we have seen and heard. You take this on or even speak about it and your career is over.
What I feel should happen is the court should petition congress to redress the grievances and answer all the questions. That in itself would start another round of dismissals. Pelosi and the progressives who have wanted power for a long time are holding on tight. They are not going to venture anywhere near NBC. And I don’t know a judge who is willing to fight a administration. Especially one where they demand one party rule and obfuscations. 2010 may be Obama’s final stand when the party lines are more equal.
Oh hey, when the great 2010 dem party vote out happens, then the others up for vote in 2012 figure out they are next, we may get some dems stand up for truth too.
Someone posted in this thread that eventually Obama will do something and then his NBC status will be important. I think that is already happening. Truth always comes out. So much has come out and the communist healthcare power grab will do in his whole party. Add that to the liberals climate change hysteria to finalize the total control of the people, ACORN and the voter fraud, KSM terror trials and people figuring out Holder’s firm has ties to defending them, I think Obama will do himself in. I think those willing to put their neck out there will do similar things like the climate change hackers. Those who are suppose to shred documents simply won’t.
But that’s not to say I want any of these court cases to cease. I applaud these true Patriots. They are the same types who stood up for liberty and freedom and fought in our wars. I think all has to be done or America will not be the same for our children and grandchildren.
Anyone who mentions impeachment to Pelosi is going to get a broom up their A**! Hee!
“Do you ever discuss the facts? Can you discuss the facts?”
Yes, I can discuss the facts and the fact is that Phil Berg believes that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are responsible for the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks.
Here is what your hero, Phil Berg wrote:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in a letter to the nations throughout the world:
“It is time for the nations of the world to come forth and take the leadership because of the failure of the United States Government and the States where crimes were committed on 09/11/01, where no thorough investigation and indictments occurred, to investigate, arrest and prosecute the people responsible for the murders on 9/11/01, specifically including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. ”
Berg continued there is overwhelming evidence that:
“Bush and his cronies made 9/11 happen or let it happen. And, if they let it happen, then they made it happen. Either way, they are responsible; and more important, they have completely and unequivocally covered-it-up!”
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/philip-berg-seeking-the-truth-of-911
You cannot absolve Phil Berg of those words.
Not once did I say Berg is my hero. Yet another way liberals deflect attention to their inability to discuss the issues. My point was specifically to your not being able to discuss issues.
What Bush did or what Berg did, has nothing to do with a POTUS who just does not wanna show his BC to prove his eligibility. In court past actions would not be brought out. Unless idiots like Judge Land make everything a issue to make a point in his dismissal.
Your honor, this should be dismissed because at one time the attorney had another case that was insulting.
Really,that would be most attorneys!
You may want to make note that I did not reference any work that Berg may have done for a client in a case against Bush and Cheney, but rather I cited a letter Phil Berg wrote to the "Nations of the World."
That letter was not written for a client, but rather it was just a statement of Phil Berg's belief that Bush and Cheney were responsible for the 9/11 Attacks.
I don’t care about your vent on Berg. It is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
I have faith we haven't heard the last of Orly Taitz
“Bush and his cronies made 9/11 happen or let it happen. And, if they let it happen, then they made it happen. Either way, they are responsible; and more important, they have completely and unequivocally covered-it-up!”
Notice the lawyerly parsing logic of the statement “made 9/11 happen or let it happen”. Berg was a partisan Democrat Hillary supporter at the time trying to conflate alleged failure to stop 9/11 (let it happen) with intentionally making it happen (made 9/11 happen). Typical Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left carried over the top.
Berg was not a Truther who claimed that Bush actually carried out 9/11 and the towers were imploded and the Pentagon hit by a missile instead of a plane.
As far as I am concerned the enemy of my enemy is my friend and when Berg filed his first case against Obama to benefit Hillary, he became my “friend” for that purpose.
While prior actions and statements of Berg might “impeach” him as a witness, it is a logical fallacy to state that his prior actions alone falsify his current actions and representations.
That’s okay. I don’t care if you want to stand side by side with a man who writes a letter to the “Nations of the World” claiming that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be prosecuted for the Attacks of 9/11.
However, I will stand with Dick Cheney, Chief Justice Roberts, Michele Bachmann and Ann Coulter all of whom have said or taken actions that prove that they understand that Obama is a natural born citizen.
“It is time for the nations of the world to come forth and take the leadership because of the failure of the United States Government and the States where crimes were committed on 09/11/01, where no thorough investigation and indictments occurred, to investigate, arrest and prosecute the people responsible for the murders on 9/11/01, specifically including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. ”
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.