United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 09-5080 September Term 2009 08-cv-02254 Filed On: March 22, 2010 Gregory S. Hollister, Appellant v. Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de
jure President in posse, also known as Barack Obama, et al.,
Appellees ——————————————— Consolidated with 09-5161 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Garland, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009).
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the
sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint.
Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009).
Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
Which of course says nothing about the underlying Constitutional issue.
ROFLMAO I see you are still cutting and pasting in an attempt to fool those who do not read and understand the whole case. You have no shame.
“Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).”
I would say that the brief filed and posted in this thread takes care of THAT. Not that you would notice.