[update here] As first reported here and here, the Colonel Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, et al, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed in the United States Supreme Court, was denied without comment and with no recusal from jUstice Sotomayor and jUstice Kagan. WND is now reporting that the Supreme Court of the United States will give the case another look. The case was Distributed for Conference on February 16, 2011 and is set for conference on March 4, 2011...
Via WND: - Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look - Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court - Bob Unruh -
The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.
It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.
Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.
At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.
Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.
He also argued that if court members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."
Hemenway wrote the, "We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.
"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.
"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND's request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans. ...Continued here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897
CASE BACKGROUND: This is
|-Marc E. Elias, esq-|
Cycle of Discernment at Free Republic laid out the expensive details;
(Robert Bauer-married to former Obama WH Communications Director Anita Dunn, who professed that Mao Tse-Tung was a personal hero--was appointed last year as White Counsel by Obama and had been the lead atty representing Obama in blocking release of any Obama documents).
The following information was compiled from the official Federal Elections Commission website for disbursements from the Obama campaign to Robert Bauer's law firm of Perkins Coie, which represents Obama in various eligibility suits.
The FEC links follow the entries.
2nd Quarter, 2010, FEC report for Obama for America Perkins Coie: $248483.94
1st Quarter, 2010
Perkins Coie: $261,206.69
|-Click to Enlarge-|
October 2009 quarterly: Perkins Coie: $314,018.06 query.nictusa.com...
July 2009 quarterly: Perkins Coie: $270,754.18 query.nictusa.com...
April quarterly Perkins Coie: $688,316.42 query.nictusa.com...
Year-End 2008 Perkins Coie: $173,052.52 query.nictusa.com...
Amended post-general election: Perkins Coie: $205,323.00 query.nictusa.com...
That adds up to: $2,161,155.11
Robert Bauer's law firm of Perkins Coie has blocked all information from being released.
Bauer has done his best to prevent the American public from seeing a wide range of Obama's records that could prove, or disprove, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born" citizen. ...Source. -snip-
UPDATE 1: Citizen Wells compiled his up to date research on the Obama FEC filings here.
I wonder why the current Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias doesn't have this high-profile case added to his bio; http://www.perkinscoie.com/melias
UPDATE 2: QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN PETITION
1. Did the district court follow the rule that a complaint should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief?"
2. Did the District Court examine the complaint of the plaintiff/petitioner Hollister as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?
3. Did the district court examine the words "or being under any obligation written or unwritten in the amount of $500 or more..." as set out disjunctively at the end of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1335(a) as they pertain to the plaintiff/petitioner Hollister as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve?
4. Did the district court violate the clear language standard for statutory interpretation?
5. Did the district court, as affirmed by the appellate court, examine and apply the de facto officer doctrine as applied?
6. Did the district court, as affirmed by the appellate court ignore the Nuremburg principle IV as amplified by the Statute of Rome and improperly fail to analyze the ability of the defendant Obama to give a lawful order under that principal under the allegations of the complaint?
7. By refusing to consider the issue of the 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 obligation to consider the issues raised by the complaint?
8. Did the district court, as affirmed by the appellate court, take into account the equitable nature of Interpleader when there is no remedy at law?
9. In failing to consider and ignoring the law set out in 1 through 8 above, and instead relying upon extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that: “The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two–year–campaign for the presidency,…” combined with an attack on the petitioner plaintiff because he “wants it resolved by a court,” and that one of the counsel involved in signing the pleadings for the petitioner/plaintiff, a well known Pennsylvania Democrat politician and prominent Hillary Clinton supporter in that state during the primaries, who was attacked by the district court as an “agent provocateur” and also with sarcastic attacks on the plaintiff/petitioner Hollister, did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias based upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?
10. Did the district court seek to deny petitioner Hollister his constitutional right of access to the courts.
11. Did the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit adopt that bias so as to render its affirmation of the district court also void?
12. Did the Court of Appeals, in so adopting the bias of the district court, cite this Court’s opinion in Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) for the opposite of what it holds in an attempt to rationalize its adoption of the bias?
13. Did the Court of Appeals erroneously apply the case law, including its own, in holding that the petitioner/plaintiff and petitioner/counsel could not invoke 28 U.S.C. § 455 at the appellate level?
14. Did the evident bias engaged in below 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?
15. 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?
6. Did the courts below fail to analyze and apply the Bivens doctrine as part of placing the defendant Obama above the rule of law in destruction of the Constitution as the basis of that rule of law?
17. In so placing the defendant Obama above the rule of law and failing to analyze the claims of the complaint and the facts it alleged, did the court of appeals below err in not considering relevant and take judicial notice of the Hawaiian territorial statutes in effect in 1961 and the other matters which the petitioners Hollister and Hemenway sought judicial notice on?
18. Did the courts below create a constitutional rule of law crisis in this country by refusing to consider the intent of the founders in placing the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement for a person to be President?
19. Did the appellate court seek to prevent the public from noticing the harm it was doing to the constitutional rule of law in this country by refusing to publish its opinion on a matter which addressed the very legitimacy of the nation’s Commander–in–Chief?
20. Did the district court, as affirmed, properly assess a Rule 11 sanction against the petitioner/counsel Hemenway in light of the case law of this Court, particularly in the 19th Century and the relevant discourse evidencing the framers’ intent at the time of the founding?
(b) PARTIES: CORPORATIONS
The parties are: The petitioner Col. Gregory S. Hollister, who was the plaintiff in the district court, the petitioner John D. Hemenway, who was sanctioned in the district court under Rule 11 for bringing suit, and the defendants in their capacities as set out in the caption. There are two defendants: the first is the respondent Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack H. Obama, who is an interpleader and Bivens defendant and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., who is also an interpleader and Bivens defendant. There are no corporations involved so as to require disclosure. -snip-
Go to TABLE OF CONTENTS of Cert Petition at Source; http://constitutionalruleoflawfund.org/SupremeCourt2.html
UPDATE 3: WND; Eligibility challenger wants Obama Supremes excluded - 'There is perception judicial appointments have been made with expectation of favors' -At Source.
Previous report here and partially posted below including the previous filings in Hollister v Soetoro...
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.
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?"
...continued at WND here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=233177
Attorney Taitz Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court for Captain Rhodes/Taitz v. Colonel MacDonald/Obama, et al... - More details here.
Supreme Court Denies Kerchner v Obama Petition; Justices Continue Evading Obama's Eligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief. -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].
Colonel Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro - Supreme Court Order List Page 4 - Denied - 1/18/2011
HOLLISTER v SOETORO (APPEAL) - PETITION filed  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