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
I am also puzzled, since the Supreme Court has repeatedly set out that Rule 11 focuses on pre-filing inquiry that you should assert that that is not the case. Do you think that your predictions about what a judge who, after all, served extensively in the same organization that Obama served on a key board of, override what the Supreme Court holds?
As to the famous statement by Holmes from the Common Law opening that the life of the law has not been logic but experience and his reference to the law as being what judges decide: I will not be surprised if in the Hollister case or some others we begin to see the law again reflect the felt morality of our people and move away from the type of "progressive" bias shared by Judge Robertson and Obama in which it is the allegiance of judges to an elitist view of what the law should be according to dictates not found in the Constitution.
Perhaps you could elucidate, for those not as experienced, all-wise and brilliant as yourself, just what in the Hollister case had no warrant in law or a good faith extension of that law nor any grounding in fact so as to justify Rule 11 sanctions under the clear language of the rule, specifically that is. That should be a cinch for you.
The World Net Daily article is most interesting. We note that the motion points to the issue of how the courts, including the Supreme Court, appear to be neutral, an adoption when 28 U.S.C. Section 455 was amended in the 1970’s, along with the duty of judges to recuse themselves as opposed to having to wait for a motion supported by an affidavit. It will be interesting to see how Freepers, as partcipants in the “new media,” react to the notion that the courts, including the Supreme Court, now have an obligation not to even give the appearance of anything other than strict neutrality.
I made no misrepresentation. The interpleader statute requires conflicting claims (actual, or reasonably anticipated) to tangible property or to monetary obligations. If I am wrong, surely you can find one case in the history of the interpleader statute where it was applied to someone's "loyalty" to the President (or, for that matter, "loyalty" to anyone).
I am also puzzled, since the Supreme Court has repeatedly set out that Rule 11 focuses on pre-filing inquiry that you should assert that that is not the case.
You are again misstating my position. I never said it didn't focus on pre-filing inquiry; I said that, where the frivolity consists of asserting an absurd legal position, rather than a false factual claim, courts can (and most often do) adjudicate sanctions motions without holding an evidentiary hearing into the lawyer's inquiry.
Perhaps you could elucidate, for those not as experienced, all-wise and brilliant as yourself, just what in the Hollister case had no warrant in law or a good faith extension of that law nor any grounding in fact so as to justify Rule 11 sanctions under the clear language of the rule, specifically that is. That should be a cinch for you.
No need to get snarky. I never said I was all-wise or brilliant. I do have 32 years of experience litigating in federal court. Any lawyer could tell you-- and a great many did, as soon as the Hollister case was filed-- that this was not an interpleader case. Interpleader is designed to protect someone from multiple liability when they face competing demands for payment. The prototypical case is the life insurance company whose policyholder dies leaving behing two women each claiming to be his lawful spouse. The insurance company pays the policy amount into court and lets the two wives fight over who gets the money. In this case, Hollister claimed that, even though he was retired from the military, he might get recalled to active duty (highly unlikely at his age), and that, if he did so, Obama and Biden might each claim to be the Commander-in-Chief and would give him conflicting orders. This was a ridiculous legal position because his duty to obey orders is not a "property" or "obligation" that he could pay into the registry of the court; he was not in active duty so the likelihood of his facing competing demands was pure speculation; and even if he were recalled, there is zero possibility of conflicting orders, because, the last time I checked, Biden was not saying that Obama is ineligible and the military should be obeying Biden. Lots of people who are not Obama supporters, including many people who dispute Obama's eligibility, knew (and said publicly from Day 1), that Hollister was the weakest of all the eligibility lawsuits.
I'm signing off for the night; have a happy and healthy New Year!
Thus you began by asserting that the interpleader statute requires "property" that is worth over $10,000." Here, by contrast, is what the section of the statute that Colonel Hollister insists on pointing out says, disjunctively, at 28 U.S.C. Sec.1355(a) at the end of that subsection: ...,or being under any obligation written or unwritten in the amount of $500 or more, if ...
This is in fact the part of the statute that Colonel Hollister has repeatedly insisted was not examined by the judge below in holding as he did. You have thus made a substantial misrepresentation. You may have done so initially because you did not read the statute carefully before responding out of your presumed knowledge or thought that your memory was all-encompassing and reliable, but your persistence, when your error was pointed out, in insisting that you made no misrepresentation indicates that either your ego is such that you will not check accuracy when it is pointed out to you or you are willing to continue to misrepresent matters. Plainly the obligation of Colonel Hollister as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve is such an "obligation" as the statute refers to in plain language. Just as clearly by the plain language of the statute that obligation need be worth only $500 not in excess of $10,000.
Further, since we have never before elected someone so willing to engage in constitutional fraud to the Oval Office there can have been no prior case. Your insistence that one be shown is an illogical request relying upon the lack of such an individual prior to this time at such a high level in our national life as "proof" that Colonel Hollister can have no case. It is not a sensible argument.
Moreover, you admit that under the interpleader statute if Colonel Hollister had reason to believe that there might be a difference between Obama and Biden over who could command the calling up of the Individual Ready Reserve (to include Colonel Hollister) there might be an interpleader case. It is a matter of historical record that the opinons in the 19th century of Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, of Justice Story in Shanks v. Dupont and Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Livingston) in The Venus indicate that Colonel Hollister had every reason to believe that, from his perspective a conflict "may" arise betweeen Obama and Biden as interpleader defendants. You have not in fact deminstrated any specific lack of warrant in law or grounding in fact for the filing of the suit. You have merely repeated the unsupported and biased accusation of friviolity that the district court judge engaged in. You have not shown any justification for rule 11 sanctions under such Supreme Court cases as Chromatic Communications.
A further point exposing your misrepresentations, despite your claimed great experience is that Rule 11 law overwhelmingly requires a hearing where one is requested as it was in the Hollister case and one was not granted here though requested. Such as hearing allows the presentation of pre-filing inquiry which is why the case law demands that it be granted. Robertson's refusal of such a hearing was such a violation of established law that it indicated he was relying upon his evident bias based on extrajudicial sources not the law. Further still, there are many cases, also invoked by Colonel Hollister and his counsel that require discovery in such situations. Again, this was refused. Leave alone the issue of where Obama was born according to the allegations of the Hollister complaint, your opinion on Rule 11 ia nor based on the law but on an unsupported ratification of the Robertson evident bias. Perhaps you are not an Obama supporter but one could scarcely tell, for your misrepresentations to support his positions are scarcely distinguishable from those who are his supporters who engage in misrepresentation.
At this point, for those who follow these matters here, it is important that your misrepresentations stand corrected. If you are not an Obama supporter you must surely agree that such misrepresentation as you have engagedin about the interpleader statute should not go unchallenged. Do you still want to insist that the interpleader statute says only that there must be "property" involved worth "more than $10,000?" Or will you agree that that is not what it says based on what it actually does say as set out in the United States Code? Do you still insist that a plaintiff such as Colonel Hollister had no business relying upon such jurisprudential giants as Waite, Story and Marshall and that relying upon them was egregiously silly?
I was posting from home, without the statute in front of me, and forgot that the jurisdictional amount was $500 rather than $10,000. Mea culpa. But the statute still says "any obligation written or unwritten in the amount of $500 or more," which every single reported case in the history of the interpleader statute has construed to mean a monetary obligation. Neither you nor Hollister has ever shown one case to the contrary. Hence the frivolity of the claim.
As to the second prong of the statute, the fact that there may be conflicting dicta in cases as to what "natural born citizen" means is neither here nor there. For that issue to affect Hollister more than any other citizen, he would have to be facing competing demands. It is clear as day that Biden and Obama are not making any conflicting claims against Hollister. If Hollister actually got recalled to active duty (he wasn't) and actually received conflicting orders (he didn't), we could argue if that prong were satisfied, but as of the day he filed his complaint it was frivolous squared. It would be as if I sued you tomorrow because someday you might run me over in your car. Hence the dismissal, sanctions, and the unanimous affirmance by the Court of Appeals. As I stated above, even if Obama were proven ineligible, Hollister's interpleader claim is still frivolous on multiple grounds.
Yet you can cite no case, ever, in the history of the interpleader statute, applying to a nonmonetary obligation.
You also do not even attempt to deal with the fact that Holister's claim is hopelessly premature in that he has never been called up and in that Biden is still not asking the military to obey him rather than Obama.
Both the district court and the unanimous Court of Appeals thought the suit was frivolous. The Supreme Court will deny cert. without any dissent and without even asking Obama to respond.
Let me know when you find a judge who agrees with you.
Was he forced to give it up, really? Curious how do we know that?
"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.).
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.
You weren’t the only one!
Martinez was a nightmare. Many of us FLA.ers were glad to see him gone. Look who we got! The best of the best Marco!!!
.. Ping!
What if his supposed father is not the real father?
maybe he does not know who his father is? other parts of his book are fictional, that may be too. Who knows?
Please, SCOTUS...don't avoid this.
Definitely a possibility, as is him being born a bastard (would be a much bigger deal in 1961 than today).
If either is in fact the case, then he would need to explain why he took all his oaths of office (state Senate, U.S. Senate and twice as "POTUS") under the name "Obama."
Furthermore, the jpeg of the short form on the WWW would clearly be proven a fraudulent government document that was proudly displayed on HIS campaign web site.
I believe both situations are unlawful...and probably felonies.
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.