Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court (re: Hollister v Soetoro)
www.wnd.com ^ | 12/31/2010 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 01/01/2011 2:12:48 PM PST by rxsid

"New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court
Attorney calls for recusal of Obama judicial appointees

"There is a widespread perception among 'conservative' media figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin that judicial appointments have been made by the respondent Obama with the expectation of favors in return. This has combined with a campaign of ridicule and 'unthinkability' on these serious issues led by the press spokesman of the respondent Obama among others," said a "motion to recuse" submitted by attorneys working on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired military officer.

The motion cites Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both of whom were awarded the lifetime tenure positions on probably the most influential court in the world by Obama.

"What is very much at issue here is the question of public perception. Will this court be bound by the Constitution and the law that it sets out under the Constitution? It is important that this court, above all institutions, preserves and protects the Constitution and a rule of law based upon it," the motion states.

"We would think that this is particularly the case in light of the historically unprecedented attack on this court's determination to uphold the constitutional rule of law engaged in by the respondent Obama during the State of the Union Address that he gave in January of 2010. It is as if he and those working with him and backing him believe that this court and the federal judiciary can be manipulated and intimidated in the manner that investigations have revealed as having occurred in the courts of Cook County, Illinois.

"We would suggest that this court should particularly avoid the appearance of favoritism as overriding the rule of law based upon the Constitution," the motion said. "

Continued:

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: certifigate; hollister; naturalborncitizen; obama
For reference:

Hollister v Soetoro - DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011 (SCOTUS)

And http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2648964/posts?page=198#198

1 posted on 01/01/2011 2:12:56 PM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...
Ping to the WND article (referenced yesterday):

"New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court (re: Hollister v Soetoro)

2 posted on 01/01/2011 2:14:41 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Sotomayor and Kagan should be informed that they are to go home and stay there until the outcome of the Supreme Hearing Process is achieved. Lets say the Supreme Court decides to hear the case and it is ruled Obummer is unconstitutional and to be removed so too will be Sotomayor and Kagan. All the rulings that they were part of will be recalled for another hearing. I am not an attorney but it seems if their appointments were confered by an illegal would not their appointments and rulings be to considered illegal.


3 posted on 01/01/2011 2:42:20 PM PST by hondact200 (Candor dat viribos alas (sincerity gives wings to strength) and Nil desperandum (never despair))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hondact200

Not smart enough to know the legal merits of this challenge to the Onada usurped presidency. But it looks like the challenges are evolving into ever more difficult arguments for the SC to brush off.

If this test passes muster then it would follow that any strategic order passed down by the military was also invalid.


4 posted on 01/01/2011 2:48:27 PM PST by dools0007world
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
"Unthinkable" is the first stage of public reaction in the Overton Window. The concept that Obama is ineligible for the presidency seems to be edging towards the "acceptable" and "sensible" stages.
5 posted on 01/01/2011 2:56:08 PM PST by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Something must be up, though I’m sure it’s a longshot. Why else would Gov Abercrombie in HI resurface this issue?

Keep in mind that the Democrats believe this is a winning issue for them, not unlike Whitewater was for Clinton. The media makes the sheeple believe that this is the fantasy of those evil, mean-spirited Republicans. So they may be deliberately resurfacing the issue.

Lastly, my crystal ball tells me that in one of these cases, SCOTUS is going to find merit, but frame the decision so it won’t hurt Obama or the office of the Presidency. Not unlike when the WFL sued the NFL and won the princely sum of $1, then promptly folded.


6 posted on 01/01/2011 3:00:22 PM PST by Eccl 10:2 (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem - Ps 122:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hondact200
Yeah..and by-by recess appointments, Executive Orders and a the Czars....just for starters.
7 posted on 01/01/2011 3:03:14 PM PST by spokeshave (Islamics and Democrats unite to cut off Adam Smith's invisible hand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: txnuke

ping

txnuke’s post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2650094/posts

Most-likely scenario? (Re-emergence of the “birth certificate” issue explained)


8 posted on 01/01/2011 3:05:22 PM PST by txhurl (This Is Not America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hondact200
to be removed ... will be Sotomayor and Kagan...

Although I would enjoy that result, I'm not sure it would follow, given a 0' removal. Thinking of how to back out of every decision and signature, seems to me would be impossible and generate a mess. Would all the recipients of the "stimulus" have to repay them back, since 0's signature on that legislation was invalid? Would GM stock be returned to shareholders, and taken away from the unions? If one thing he did was retained, then perhaps all would have to be retained, and then proceed on a different tact: that of new legislation and action to correct the mistakes (ie: every action) of the past 2 years.

9 posted on 01/01/2011 3:05:51 PM PST by C210N (0bama, Making the US safe for Global Marxism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; AmericanVictory

Ping.

I swear I’m not gonna get my hopes up...


10 posted on 01/01/2011 3:16:39 PM PST by txhurl (This Is Not America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hondact200
“...if their appointments were conferred by an illegal would not their appointments and rulings be to considered illegal[?]”

Yes!

11 posted on 01/01/2011 3:17:36 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks rxsid.
There is a widespread perception among 'conservative' media figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin that judicial appointments have been made by the respondent Obama with the expectation of favors in return.

12 posted on 01/01/2011 3:20:10 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

No. If Obama is found to be ineligible, the de facto officer doctrine will apply. All appointments, executive orders, legislation signed by Obama, etc. will stand (remain in place).


13 posted on 01/01/2011 3:29:54 PM PST by Padams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

What I fail to understand is that given the very real possibility that Obama IS an illegal president, WHY haven’t the states taken action to put a law into effect that prevents an ineligible candidate from getting on the ballot? To date, isn’t Arizona the ONLY state that has done so?


14 posted on 01/01/2011 3:48:34 PM PST by teletech (Say NO to RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Padams

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886).

“The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted).


Yeah, but CINC acts? That’s a little different, don’t you think? Certainly there has to be redress somewhere.


15 posted on 01/01/2011 3:54:16 PM PST by txhurl (This Is Not America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: teletech
WHY haven’t the states taken action to put a law into effect that prevents an ineligible candidate from getting on the ballot?

Because Democrat legislators think such laws are anti-Obama and Republicans think suppporting such laws makes them look bad.

Should strong evidence emerge that Obama was born outside the US, the likely reaction will be legislation that declares that birth to a US citizen anywhere in the world and regardless of age of the US citizen parent or nationality of the other parent retroactively confers NBC status; legislation which solid majorities of Republicans will vote for and which the courts will refuse to overturn considering it a political question. (Nationality-of-father arguments won't provoke any reaction by themselves because they are nearly-universally disregarded, and no court will intervene.)

Obama is beaten at the ballot booth or not at all.
16 posted on 01/01/2011 4:14:17 PM PST by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

The de facto doctrine is designed to cover someone elected in good faith, who had no knowledge of issues regarding eligibility. The issue of obama’s eligibility has been ongoing since 2004!. obama knows that he is not eligible to be President , therefore there is no “good faith”. All acts ( appointments,bills )signed by obama would be voided.


17 posted on 01/01/2011 4:18:20 PM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Padams; SatinDoll
"No. If Obama is found to be ineligible, the de facto officer doctrine will apply. All appointments, executive orders, legislation signed by Obama, etc. will stand (remain in place)."

I don't think the de facto doctrine applies to Barry:

"To satisfy the doctrine, the officer must be in the unobstructed possession of the office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper."

http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/SUPCT/160/op92-113.txt


18 posted on 01/01/2011 4:19:17 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

Precisely!


19 posted on 01/01/2011 4:20:48 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; omegadawn

Thank God.


20 posted on 01/01/2011 4:39:50 PM PST by txhurl (This Is Not America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Photobucket to Photobucket Photobucket
21 posted on 01/01/2011 4:55:15 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Whatever mess it makes will be a very, very small price to pay for the mess that leaving all that marxist insane s*** in place will cause!


22 posted on 01/01/2011 5:10:24 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Photobucket
23 posted on 01/01/2011 5:18:16 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/12/27/visitor-to-lt-col-lakin-turned-away/


24 posted on 01/01/2011 5:26:48 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Padams; SatinDoll

Maybe, maybe not. I’ve read otherwise, since the de facto officer doctrine may or does not apply to fraud, especially fraud that many people knew about at the time.

So it’s not really so much that he will be “found” to be ineligible, as much as he will be “revealed” to be ineligible, and that many, many people knew about it all along and indeed, committed crimes to get him where he is.

That is different than a regular old de facto officer doctrine.


25 posted on 01/01/2011 5:35:33 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

can you make a new thread on this..pls..I will probably screw it up.

STAND UP FOR THE CONSTITUTION

STAND DOWN FROM ALL UNLAWFUL ORDERS

Make this your Number One resolution of the New Year on:

LTC LAKIN DAY – January 1, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oUM8BbQQhk&feature=player_embedded


26 posted on 01/01/2011 5:38:29 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

Note my reply about this just above.


27 posted on 01/01/2011 5:41:37 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I want a bumpter sticker that says that.


28 posted on 01/01/2011 5:46:40 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

That is different than a regular old de facto officer doctrine.


If this isn’t Usurper territory - which is clearly addressed in the Constitution - I don’t know what is.

And rolling back 0’s acts wouldn’t be any constitutional crisis, it’d just be a .... rollback.


29 posted on 01/01/2011 5:51:17 PM PST by txhurl (This Is Not America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Photobucket
30 posted on 01/01/2011 6:07:16 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

The only reason the Tea Party has been so successful in taking over the House, getting function control of the Senate, and setting the political agenda for the country is because it managed to marginalize and eclipse the Birthers, freaks, and Joseph Farah-type hucksters who make a living off idiotic conspiracy theories.

If the Birthers did not exist, James Carvile and Rahm Emmanuel would invent them, because to the extent that they have any influence, all they manage to do is make the Right look like idiots.

Question to ponder: What’s the media outlet that publicizes the Birthers the most? Answer: MSNBC. It shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out why.


31 posted on 01/01/2011 6:28:52 PM PST by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
The only reason the Tea Party has been so successful in taking over the House, getting function control of the Senate, and setting the political agenda for the country is because it managed to marginalize and eclipse the Birthers, freaks, and Joseph Farah-type hucksters who make a living off idiotic conspiracy theories.

If the Birthers did not exist, James Carvile and Rahm Emmanuel would invent them, because to the extent that they have any influence, all they manage to do is make the Right look like idiots.

Question to ponder: What’s the media outlet that publicizes the Birthers the most? Answer: MSNBC. It shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out why.

What "conspiracy theory" are you calling idiotic?

32 posted on 01/01/2011 7:00:44 PM PST by rolling_stone ( *this makes Watergate look like a kiddie pool*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

NOT rolling back everything he signed, all appointments etc - now that WOULD be a constitutional crisis! There is no easy simple way through this. But dragging him out after the nasty truth is made public and then undoing all the crap he did is the only way to fix it. Hope the Rs in Congress and elsewhere have courage and wits and stop giving a crap what the media or Dems think about anything.


33 posted on 01/01/2011 8:24:11 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I think one day a week should be LTC Lakin Day. I have great respect for that man. Nauseated me on threads where people insulted him.

That’s easy to do from a keyboard.


34 posted on 01/01/2011 8:39:24 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66

You are out of your mind. Totally.


35 posted on 01/01/2011 8:40:16 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: teletech

...”a law into effect that prevents an ineligible candidate from getting on the ballot?”

Call me naive, but don’t such laws already exist and why does it seem to me that lately we are always needing new laws to enforce the laws we’ve already got?


36 posted on 01/01/2011 9:21:14 PM PST by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote! ~ DeMint, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG
Call me naive, but don’t such laws already exist and why does it seem to me that lately we are always needing new laws to enforce the laws we’ve already got?

Maybe they do at the Federal level but not so sure about the states. We have all seen how eager the Feds are to enforce the law now haven't we?

37 posted on 01/01/2011 10:01:33 PM PST by teletech (Say NO to RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; rxsid; Red Steel

The 1st & 2nd paragraphs.

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000025717&catid=15&a=1


38 posted on 01/01/2011 10:40:29 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: teletech

so true!


39 posted on 01/02/2011 12:05:27 AM PST by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote! ~ DeMint, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; little jeremiah; rxsid; Red Steel

Whoa!


40 posted on 01/02/2011 12:51:39 AM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

Second, Obama should fly back home for Christmas, spend quality time with Mama Sarah, quaff a beer or two at Nyalenda and watch our TV stations and read our newspapers. In one short week, he would have gathered more knowledge on political science than they taught him at Harvard for years.”

For starters, I can’t figure out why he allows Sarah Palin, that misguided politician of the Tea Party fame, to hop from one political rally to the other hurling insults at his wise leadership. Who is this silly OCPD who licenses her meetings? Why hasn’t he issued orders from above to have her tear gassed and arrested for issuing inflammatory statements aimed at rousing ethnicity and social unrest?

And what are Kenyans with green cards doing while their man gets roasted all over the place? Why can’t they organise mass action and arrange themselves into US versions of Baghdad Boys, Sungu Sungu, Amachuma, Mungiki and other militia to sort out Obama’s enemies?

Obama also needs to fire his advisors. It is extremely reckless to hire people just because they have six degrees. He should fire the whole lot and replace them with Americans of Kenyan origin.”

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000024420&catid=621&a=1


41 posted on 01/02/2011 1:55:01 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Did you see this today?

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000025838&cid=4&;

“US link to youth activities unveiled”

From the article, “Between November 10 and 12, It’s speculated a Special team from the US may fly in this February to boost the ‘Yes Youth Can’ initiative and the NYF mobilisation and advocacy ability.”


42 posted on 01/02/2011 10:54:14 AM PST by daisy mae for the usa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
And if the Supreme Court says he is CONSTITUTIONALLY the president?

What then?

43 posted on 01/02/2011 1:29:19 PM PST by walsh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn
“...obama knows that he is not eligible to be President , therefore there is no “good faith”. All acts ( appointments,bills )signed by obama would be voided.”

Good point Omegadawn. I expect that we will hear the usual arguments to misdirect as anger with Obama grows. I did not realize that there were public arguments as early as 2004. There was the incident, now scrubbed from the Internet, wherein Obama was challenged by Alan Keyes, with Keyes asserting that Obama couldn't run for president and Obama pointing out that it didn't matter since he wasn't running for President! (I was one who heard the discussion, but, not anticipating the aggressive scrubbing of inflammatory evidence, didn't think to save the YouTube video!)

Of course, having every Senator sign a Resolution, SR511, in 2008 affirming that being born of two citizen parents was equivalent to natural born citizenship, makes it clear that both parties are complicit. This now includes the military, which has imprisoned one of a few officers, Lt-Col Lakin, who honored his sworn duty to preserve and protect the Constitution by refusing Obama’s order to redeploy (Lakin has been in combat zones many times). A JAG judge has informed the military that the Officer's oath to preserve and protect the Constitution is inferior to obeying the orders of the Commander in Chief.

One respondent suggested that the Supreme Court will simply define Natural Born Citizenship and the issue will be resolved. That, and I'm not arguing with you, is not what our Constitution intended. Definitions were never intended to be part of the document. Definitions came from our common law at the time of the Framers so that anyone could read and understand the principles upon which the Republic of laws is based. Changes in those provisions may only be made by amendment. A Supreme Court decision which is contradicted by a provision is invalid.

Even English Common Law, Blackstone, depending upon the date of the citation (a charming attribute of English law is its flexibility in that the Royal Court, controlled by Lords, often changes statutes to suit the needs of some member of the Royal Family), requires that parents be natural born subjects in order that the foreign born child be deemed a natural born subject (as Obama was, since his wife became a subject by marriage). But English subjects are not eligible to be King or Queen. In fact, from what little I know about English law, marriage of a Royal to a commoner removes the possibility of succession to the throne.

There is too much agreement from G. Washington, four Chief Justices, 14th Amendment Bingham, and 100 U.S. Senators, that a natural born citizen is born of citizen parents, and on our soil, though the Senators in Apr. 2008 chose not to mention the jus soli requirement. This issue is complex enough to have been successfully obfuscated by the state-run media and the Obots who troll this and other blogs with the mission of derailing clear discussion.

44 posted on 01/02/2011 3:04:01 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Good post ! McCain based his right to be a Natural Born citizen on the Naturalization and Citizenship act of 1795. CHILDREN OF CITIZENS THAT MAY BE BORN OVERSEAS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN. While this may be a loophole for McCain to claim Natural Birth, There is nothing in the Constitution or our laws that allows a child born to a foreign father and a American mother to claim Natural Born status. I believe that obama was born in Kenya and therefore is not even an American citizen( mother was underage, was not able to convey citizenship in 1961).


45 posted on 01/02/2011 5:46:39 PM PST by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: walsh

If the Supreme Court decides that someone born owing allegiance to a foreign country is considered a “Natural Born Citizen”, it means our Supreme Court is more corrupted than previously thought. Meaning, we’ve got a whole lot more work to do to restore the Constitutional Republic.


46 posted on 01/03/2011 4:36:20 PM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Cert. was denied, per the Supreme Court’s order list published today. No dissents, no comments.


47 posted on 01/18/2011 11:02:09 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson