Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

muldrake · **Posted:** Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:24 pm

Tes wrote:

Cause as much as I insist on any formal memo or brief being Blue Booked by my favorite most-anal-in-the-world-legal-editor, I cannot convince her to join this thread to correct my errors here

. (She *did* correct the Birther StringCite ... or the parts i let her ... and needed oxygen to calm down when I didn't let her make it perfectly consistent with BlueBook ('cause that would require me to get rid of slip copies/info for laypeople without access to Westlaw).

However, thank you - and they should be now fixed

Maybe you could let her do it, and then provide a parallel monster string-cite for any anal Blue Book weenies who actually want to use that instead.

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:02 pm

I got a little ways in to that thing. Does he at all attempt to explain how this case makes out an interpleader claim?

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:46 pm

Res Ipsa wrote:

I got a little ways in to that thing. Does he at all attempt to explain how this case makes out an interpleader claim?

No, of course not. Obama is ineligible. That should be sufficient. (And, they were mean to Berg.)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23561

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

05/24/2010 Open Document JOINT LETTER FILED [1246221] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 pursuant to FRAP 28j advising of additional authorities [Service Date: 05/24/2010 ] [09-5080, 09-5161]

More "Vattel" and...

Quote:

St. George Tucker emigrated from Bermuda before the Revolution, in
which he fought extensively. He married the widowed mother of John
Randolph of Roanoke, by whom he had two children. He taught law for
years at William and Mary. In 1804 he published the leading American
version of Blackstone of the time, in which he correlated Blackstone with
the Constitution. In the Appendix to Vol. 1, Note D, Sec. 14 he makes clear
that the Framers relied upon Vattel

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 2:12 pm

realist wrote:

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

05/24/2010 Open Document JOINT LETTER FILED [1246221] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 pursuant to FRAP 28j advising of additional authorities [Service Date: 05/24/2010 ] [09-5080, 09-5161]

More "Vattel" and...

Quote:

St. George Tucker emigrated from Bermuda before the Revolution, in
which he fought extensively. He married the widowed mother of John
Randolph of Roanoke, by whom he had two children. He taught law for
years at William and Mary. In 1804 he published the leading American
version of Blackstone of the time, in which he correlated Blackstone with
the Constitution. In the Appendix to Vol. 1, Note D, Sec. 14 he makes clear
that the Framers relied upon Vattel

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

And this wasn't available until May 24, 2010 because . . . ?

. . . MichaelN didn't complete his research until then.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23561

Quote:

And this wasn't available until May 24, 2010 because . . . ?

Because MichaelN had not informed them yet?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23561

Maine...we posted at the same time...great minds and all that.

Jay Bea · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 2:23 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

realist wrote:

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

05/24/2010 Open Document JOINT LETTER FILED [1246221] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 pursuant to FRAP 28j advising of additional authorities [Service Date: 05/24/2010 ] [09-5080, 09-5161]

More "Vattel" and...

Quote:

St. George Tucker emigrated from Bermuda before the Revolution, in
which he fought extensively. He married the widowed mother of John
Randolph of Roanoke, by whom he had two children. He taught law for
years at William and Mary. In 1804 he published the leading American
version of Blackstone of the time, in which he correlated Blackstone with
the Constitution. In the Appendix to Vol. 1, Note D, Sec. 14 he makes clear
that the Framers relied upon Vattel

_________________
So sayeth the Rooster so say we all

verbalobe · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 2:36 pm

Direct link to Section 14:

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htm

It is a rare form of scholarship that can find a printed page, that happens to mention within it both "natural born citizen" and "Vattel," and conclude that the writer is imputing to Vattel everything (or anything) regarding citizenship. I guess I'd call it googlewhack scholarship.

I would like their view of the fact that in the very same note, Tucker treats "native-born" as synonymous with "natural-born." Ah, but we shall ignore that.

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2531

verbalobe wrote:

Direct link to Section 14:

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htm

It is a rare form of scholarship that can find a printed page, that happens to mention within it both "natural born citizen" and "Vattel," and conclude that the writer is imputing to Vattel everything (or anything) regarding citizenship. I guess I'd call it googlewhack scholarship.

I would like their view of the fact that in the very same note, Tucker treats "native-born" as synonymous with "natural-born." Ah, but we shall ignore that.

As I pointed out before Newsweek had an interesting article on why people continue to believe the way they do, even though facts point to a different conclusion. Part of this involves the search for selective evidence.

Cognitive dissonance at its best.

Curious Blue · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 3:30 pm

New Scientist also has a great article on this:

Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true

The best part is this:
How to be a denialist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... bx276061B1

Quote:

Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use....:

1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.

2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.

3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.

4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.

5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.

6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.

(The New Scientist article is concerned with people who deny climate change or evolution, as opposed to birthers... but apparently the basic thought process is the same)

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 3:31 pm

verbalobe wrote:

Direct link to Section 14:

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htm

It is a rare form of scholarship that can find a printed page, that happens to mention within it both "natural born citizen" and "Vattel," and conclude that the writer is imputing to Vattel everything (or anything) regarding citizenship. I guess I'd call it googlewhack scholarship.

I would like their view of the fact that in the very same note, Tucker treats "native-born" as synonymous with "natural-born." Ah, but we shall ignore that.

Great catch. From what I can see, Vattel is being cited for something about international law. For Hemenway to assert what he has asserted seems to be intentionally misleading the court.

Quote:

Hemenway's Letter Represents:
In the Appendix to Vol. 1, Note D, Sec. 14 he makes clear that the Framers relied upon Vattel

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 6:12 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Quote:

Treaties, as defined by Puffendorf 280, are certain agreements made by sovereigns, between one another, of great use both in war, and peace; of these, there are two kinds; the one such as reinforce the observance of what by the law of nature we were before obliged to; as the mutual exercise of civility, and humanity, or the prevention of injuries on either side; the second, such as add some new engagement to the duties of natural law; or at least determine what was before too general and indefinite in the same, to some thing particular, and precise 281. Of those which add some new engagement to those duties which natural law imposes upon all nations, the most usual relate to, or in their operation may affect, the sovereignty of the state; the unity of its parts, it's territory, or other property; it's commerce with foreign nations, and vice versa; the mutual privileges and immunities of the citizens, or subjects of the contracting powers, or the mutual aid of the contracting nations, in case of an attack, or hostility, from any other quarter. [highlight]To all these objects, if there be nothing in the fundamental laws of the state which contradicts it, the power of making treaties extends, and is vested in the conductors of states, according to the opinion of Vattel.[/highlight]

It's all about "treaties." Would Hemenway lie? He wouldn't do that, would he? Oh, I forgot. He's a birfer. They lie as much as they can and hope no one will check their "scholarship."

He's a birfer who googled for subjects, citizens, and Vattel. Which he got. But it doesn't have anything to do with the definition of NBC. I'm wondering about his level of understanding. ](*,)

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 6:22 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

It's all about "treaties." Would Hemenway lie? He wouldn't do that, would he? Oh, I forgot. He's a birfer. They lie as much as they can and hope no one will check their "scholarship."

Maybe they got confused by the part about "conductors of states." When you cannot understand something, the Birfer rule is "ignore it."

An interesting tidbit that they might have overlooked: St. George Tucker was a gradualist abolitionist, as evidenced by his 1796 A Dissertation on Slavery, With a Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It in the State of Virginia. Although Tucker's plan would have retained slavery for 100 years, his ideas about slavery may be an annoyance to some Birfers -- those who reject the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Foggy · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 6:58 pm

When I was practicing law, I was terrified of making a stupid argument like that. Not that I never made any stupid arguments, but jeez ... :roll:

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 9:01 pm

Foggy wrote:

When I was practicing law, I was terrified of making a stupid argument like that. Not that I never made any stupid arguments, but jeez ... :roll:

This wasn't a stoopid argument buried in a brief, maybe after two or three decent arguments. No siree. This was a stoopid argument that Hemenway shouldered aside the rules to make, misrepresenting what was written in a treatise a couple of centuries ago.

Which he apparently just discovered (thus "newly discovered evidence . . ."), by Googling "subject," "citizen" and Vattel" and getting a B I N G O ! As Whatever4 points out, if those 3 words are all found together in the same . . . paragraph . . . that's proof that the Framers meant to use de Vattel's writings on citizenship issues.

Sorry, but that's an argument that I think even MichaelN would be embarrassed to make.

Well, maybe not.

Highlands · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 9:13 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Sorry, but that's an argument that I think even MichaelN would be embarrassed to make.

Well, maybe not.

Sterny, birfers have no shame.

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 9:15 pm

Quote:

"Sterngard Friegen"

Great catch. From what I can see, Vattel is being cited for something about international law. For Hemenway to assert what he has asserted seems to be intentionally misleading the court.

Contemptous, was the word that flew into my head when I saw it.

mimi · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 9:28 pm

Gimme an 'S'

Gimme an 'A'

Gimme an 'N'

Gimme a 'C'

To be continued...

Dallasite · **Posted:** Mon May 24, 2010 9:34 pm

From Volume 1 - Appendix Note D:

Quote:

A president of the United States must have attained the middle age of life, before he is eligible to that office: if not a native, he must have been fourteen years a resident in the United States: his talents and character must consequently be known.

Gee Tucker uses the word "native" when describing "natural born citizen". I guess Hollister and Hemenway missed that.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23561

These people are unbelievable.

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

05/31/2010 Open Document JOINT MOTION filed [1247245] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 to recuse (Response to Motion served by mail due on 06/14/2010) [Service Date: 05/31/2010 by email] Pages: 16-20. [09-5080, 09-5161]

bob · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:33 am

"de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse"

An attorney wrote that? Not Strunk?

PatGund · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:59 am

Take a look at the two letters at the end. They're dating from around 1994 and seem to be Hollister's attempt to find out if Bill Clinton was in office unconstitutionally, or if Clinton was guilty of treason at some point for organizing student protests against Vietnam while at Oxford.

Not to mention Hemenway's complete dismissal of Berg like he had NOTHING to do with the original case, stating that Berg wasn't even admitted pro hac vice and there was no reason for Berg's previous cases to have been cited in the original court documents. I don't think that will work - all that the court has to do is look at the original case documents, with Berg's name on them and almost word-for-word similarities to Berg's cases.

Hemenway can play born again de Vattelist all he wants, but I don't think it will save his appeal. And all the letters from Hollister show is he seems to have a vendetta against Democrats in the White House - which in turn makes his lawsuit against Obama seem even more partisan.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:09 am

Why was this not part of the opening brief? It's b.s., but it should have been in the opening brief. Of course, it has nothing to do with the issue on appeal. It's just another attempt to file more argument. And the silly characterizations of President Obama's office plus calling him Soetoro mark the author as a nut. (Again.)

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

Who is online