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

To: Mr Rogers

What fealty you may feel, or not have felt, is not the same as Col. Hollister, obviously, Some people take their oaths more seriously than others. Col. Hollister obviously takes very seriously his oath to uphold the Constitution.

However, you seem to have taken that quote (perhaps intentionally) out of context. The bias referred to is explained thus:

“Attached to the Hollister complaint was a copy of Colonel Hollister’s discharge papers showing his honorable discharge from the Air Force after a full career on active duty. Yet rather than acknowledge this fact as thus clearly shown, the lower court feels it has to say that “The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief…” (emphasis added) Clearly the plaintiff Hollister is a retired Air Force Colonel. He does not just say that he is.”

If the judge’s intent is as you would have it, he would have written “The plaintiff is a retired Air Force colonel who says he continues to owe fealty .....”

Judges craft every word of their opinions with enormous care. Words mean things in judicial opinions more than in any other writings. This judge knew how to write that sentence to state exactly what he wanted and how he wanted it stated. The qualifier was where he placed it because he wanted it there. His purpose was to diminish the plaintiff Hollister because, it would seem, the judge didn’t like his original attorney or any challenge to the defendant - by any name - as to his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.


32 posted on 06/01/2010 10:11:06 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: EDINVA

Officers don’t take an oath of allegiance to the CINC. We owe no President “fealty” - “The fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord.”

Hollister knew that.

The judges were not pretending Hollister wasn’t a retired officer (easily proven), but his claim of fealty. THAT was a stupid claim.


33 posted on 06/01/2010 10:16:14 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: EDINVA

The meeting with John Roberts on January 14, 2009 fixed it all so he had trouble stammering through the swearing in process and even Clarence Thomas got the “message,” yet you have some fifth column FINOs here popping the Champagne bottle every time the spineless judges are farting!!!


35 posted on 06/01/2010 11:25:00 PM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

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