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
Maybe this will be the one as they are not suing Obama they are suing an alias of a seated POTUS. This alone is news.
Can any one cite Chris Matthews or anyone talking in detail about our seated presidents alias Barry Soetoro?
Leave Thomas alone....he is one of the best justices we’ve ever had and one of the smartest. There are reasons we aren’t privy too in this matter. It certainly isn’t the black thing either...it is much more...it kind of reminds me of not convicting Bubba after he was impeached...everyone said it was due to the FBI files when in fact it was to keep gore out of the presidency...which he’d won hands down in 2000, if the Republicans had convicted Bubba.
Hollister filed a "petition for certiorari" (a request that the Supreme Court hear an appeal) from the two lower courts (federal district court and federal court of appeals) which both bounced his eligibility lawsuit. The Government declined to respond to the petition (a response is not required in the Supreme Court; a failure to respond means the responding party--in this case, Obama-- doesn't think the Supreme Court has any interest in the case).
Once a Petition for Certiorari is filed, and either responded to or a response is waived, each such Petition is automatically "listed for conference." That does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court will actually discuss the case; there are dozens-- sometimes hundreds-- of cases "listed" for each conference. Before the conference, each of the 9 justices circulates a list of cases they think are worth talking about. (These lists are private; the public never sees them.) If a case is on none of the 9 justices' lists, it is put on the "dead list" and is automatically denied without the court actually "discussing" it. (The list of denials is published the next business day after the conference. No reason is stated for a denial.).
If any of the 9 justices thinks a case is worth talking about, but the responding party didn't file any response to the Petition for Certiorari, the Court will usually ask the other party to respond, and put the case over for another conference.
If four of the nine justices think a case should be heard, the Court will grant the petition and schedule the case for full briefing and argument. If less that four want to hear the case, the petition will be denied without stating any reason, but the few who wanted to hear it can (but don't always) file a dissent from the denial. (If the case was on the dead list, then no one will dissent).
My prediction: the court will not ask for a response, and the petition will be denied without dissent.
(It will be then be denied without comment, unless the storm brewing over D.C. is actually an indication that Hell is freezing over.)
Or if Sotomayor and Kagan were to recuse themselves, it would only take 3 justices to move it forward.
I saw a letter that Democrats sent around to refute the birth certificate arguments. It was posted on FR a few months ago.
From scanning that letter it seemed to me that the one avenue to resolution is that Obama's next opponent must challenge his eligibility when Obama submits his paperwork certifying his eligibility. His opponent is the one with standing at that time.
I don't think any state has to create a law for this to happen. The law is already there.
If this is indeed the case, then Obama has to settle the BC issue now, or hope to manipulate the republicans to choose a candidate who won't challenge his eligibility.
McCain probably didn't challenge because there were questions of his own eligibility.
I think Sarah Palin would challenge. Maybe that's the reason for the 24/7 attacks against her.
JMO
LOL or the toons want the heat on to slide on in by Biden.
Larry Edler got the memo like Coulter, Boortz, O’Reilly, Beck, Ingraham, Medved, Hewitt and these other puppet entertainers who have attacked birthers. Toe the line and lie for the regime or you will be off the air.
This is another set up being teed up by Abercrombie.
Larry Edler got the memo like Coulter, Boortz, O’Reilly, Beck, Ingraham, Medved, Hewitt and these other puppet entertainers who have attacked birthers. Toe the line and lie for the regime or you will be off the air.
This is another set up being teed up by Abercrombie.
Pelosi certed him. It’s called treason.
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.
Not true; it always takes four, no matter how many recusals there are.
In that case they really did not have the mandate to stop the recount. In this case, they are not only the last hope, they are the ONLY court which can define the term Natural Born Citizen.
At some point - with Barry in or out of office - they will have to define it.
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?
Not true. The Solicitor General never filed anything in SCOTUS in any eligibility case, so Kagan will not recuse.
The preservation of the constitution. That is bigger than Joe or Barry the cretin.
obama’s real parents were probably a black /Arab(light skin) mix, a unwanted child in 1961 Kenya.
The wheels of justice grind slowly...these cases have taken about 2 years to work themselves through the system (circuit court, appeals, SC). Many of them were dismissed due to lack of standing.
why would an 18 yr old SWF want to adopt a multi race child? your story makes no sense at all. something stinks to high hell here, that’s for sure
I think a candidate has to submit paperwork to each state before the elections certifying they are eligible. Even if Pelosi did that it wouldn't matter if no one challenged the information.
At that time, in any state, his opponent can challenge his eligibility, if I understood what I read correctly. I may be wrong on that, thus my post is more of a question than a statement.
I think that's why the statements that the time to challenge was in 2008 keep popping up.
obama “mother” was a liberal. logic does not apply.
Why would a 18 year old child start college a week after giving birth to a child ? Seems highly unlikely. Of course if someone else had that child , it would make a lot more sense.
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.