Friday, November 26, 2010

[update here] This is an update to the Colonel Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, et al, lawsuit that was in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  Once the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed at the SCOTUS is posted online I will embed it below. The two previous filings by Col. Hollister in the Appeals court embedded below. This makes three eligibility cases against Obama now pending before the Supreme Court, more details on the other cases here and here. Got Three's Company!?

Via WND: Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter - Case questioning eligibility says facts don't support Obama story - Bob Unruh

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.

The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.

He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama's tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution's demand that presidents be a "natural born citizen," a qualification not imposed on other many other federal officers.

The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.

"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading.

"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.

"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.

The case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

Besides the sarcasm involved, the pleading states, the very evidence pertinent to the dispute at issues was ignored.

The pleading outlines that information, which challenges Obama's claim to eligibility and his campaign's citation of a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, a document also made available to those not necessarily born in the state, as proof of Obama's eligibility.

It suggests there are "sufficient allegations" that Obama was not born inside the United States, and outlines the law and regulations in force at the time of Obama's birth, in 1961.

"At the time of the birth of the respondent Obama in 1961 as alleged, Congress had … the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Under the applicable provision of that act … for the respondent Obama to have been a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth, were he born of one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, as he has alleged throughout his political career he was, his mother would have had to have been continuously resident in the United States for a period of 10 years preceding the date of his birth and, most importantly, she would have had to have resided continuously for five years preceding his birth in the United State after she had turned 14 years old. Since she was only 18 when Obama was born, this condition was clearly not fulfilled," the arguments said.

It also raised the suggestion that there are sound arguments to the effect that a "natural born citizen" is someone born to two citizen parents, and Obama himself has documented that his father never was a citizen of the U.S.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" [twittering], prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the petition states. .

"A further example of this bias based on extrajudicial factors by the district court was its observation that a lawyer associated with the initiation of petitioner Hollister's case, a prominent Democrat in Pennsylvania who backed Hillary Clinton in her successful primary there against respondent Obama, though never admitted in the case, was 'probably' the 'real plaintiff' in the case and that he and another lawyer who signed filings but was also never admitted … were 'agents provocateur' whose efforts to raise the issue of the respondent Obama's constitutional eligibility in lawsuits were a crusade in which the petitioner Hollister was a dupe," the petition says.

The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:
  • "Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?"
  • "By refusing to consider the issue of 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 obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?"
  • "In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?"
  • "Did the … bias engaged in 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?"
  • "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?"
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

...continued at WND here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=233177

Washington Times: SCOTUS; Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari scheduled for Conference... - More details here.

Attorney Taitz files Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court for Captain Rhodes/Taitz v. Colonel MacDonald/Obama, et al... - More details here.

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

HOLLISTER v SOETORO (APPEAL) - PETITION filed [1241041] by Appellant - Petition - Transport Room
Col Hollister v. Soetoro/Obama Appeal - Motion to Recuse - Case: 09-5080 - 5/31/2010
Obama Ineligible - I tried and lied but it won't go away! Wash Times Natl Wkly 2010-11-08 pg 5



11 comments:

  1. Where in the hell is the media reporting all these cases? This is getting to be bullshit!

    ReplyDelete
  2. YES,,,, WHERE IS THE MEDIA?????

    HAVE THEY ANY SHAME??????????????????

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just arrest the damn bum. As for the media, they should be investigated and prosecuted as well. They are helping to cover this massive fraud up. People should be standing outside the media's headquarters with pitchforks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe they could stitch his bc to his lip?

    ReplyDelete
  5. How many more cases will have to be filed before they do their job? This is complete madness that this has gone on this long!

    ReplyDelete
  6. To all those wondering about the media...it's all about two words...OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD! THE CIA RUNS THE MEDIA AND IT IS FINANCED BY OFFSHORE BANKSTERS!

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

    ReplyDelete
  7. A full boycott of the media is in order, including the quasi conservative Foxnews. Even with all the problems this country faces due to the Progressive agenda, it pales in comparison to the treasonous media. Theiur job is to educate the American public so they can make informed decisions. If the actual truth was reported by these Tass and Pravda like useful idiots there would have been a 10 million man march on Washington in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "A full boycott of the media is in order, including the quasi conservative Foxnews."

    I couldn't agree more !

    ReplyDelete
  9. when do we march and who is our leader?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lol at all of you trailer park trash excited about your mini revolution. It'll be fun and games until the U.S. establishment puts mini bullets in your mini brains.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Please take a new at Obama’s birth cert.
    2 t's are the same, box 5a "August" and box 12a "Student."
    2 l (small L) are the same, box 6a "Honolulu" and box 7a "Honolulu."
    2 more l's are the same, box 6c "Hospital" and l box 7c "Honolulu"
    2 c's are the same, box 11 "Africa" and box 14 "Caucusian"
    2 B's are the same, box 1c "OBAMA" and box 8 "OBAMA"
    2 u's are the same, box 12a "Student" and box 6b "Oahu"

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.