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

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2357

Okay... I admit to being a little behind on this one. So help me keep this straight.

The case in on Appeal, right? Judge Robertson's work is already done.

What possible reason would they have for him recuse himself at this point? I mean, unless the Court of Appeals sends it back down to District Court?

Tes · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:38 am

Epectitus wrote:

Okay... I admit to being a little behind on this one. So help me keep this straight.

The case in on Appeal, right? Judge Robertson's work is already done.

What possible reason would they have for him recuse himself at this point? I mean, unless the Court of Appeals sends it back down to District Court?

Well, yes, technically, it's still "on appeal" -- but -- the D.C. Cir. has already been AFFIRMED the trial court's opinion(s) -- in March!!

Since the affirmance, Hemenway/Hollister have filed:
1. PETITION for hearing en banc. [04/21/2010]
2. MOTION to publish (the per curiam opinion) [04/21/2010]
3. LETTER advising court of additional authorities [5/24/2010]
4. MOTION to recuse (trial court judge AND suggestion that those involved in per curiam affirmance also "consider" recusing themselves) [5/31/2010]

Tes · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:40 am

PatGund wrote:

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.

Yes. Hemenway referenced that in one of his briefs - something re: how could Robertson question Hollister's sincerity/patriotism when Hollister has been seeking to uphold the Constitution for years, including with prior presidents. ... ...

muldrake · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:45 am

Tes wrote:

PatGund wrote:

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.

Yes. Hemenway referenced that in one of his briefs - something re: how could Robertson question Hollister's sincerity/patriotism when Hollister has been seeking to uphold the Constitution for years, including with prior presidents. ... ...

So let me get this straight. This nutjob is arguing the below:

Nutjob wrote:

He begins the opinion by making it clear that he thinks that the case is absolutely worthless and that he has a clear bias against it.

In other words, any judge who rules that a case has no merit is automatically biased. Judges aren't allowed to make that ruling. Perhaps this should be one of the Federal Roolz of Birfer Procedure.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:54 am

It seems to me that someone who is so concerned with whether or not the President is able to give lawful orders to the military would possibly have questioned Bush's fitness to be CiC given the evidence indicating he may have been AWOL for most of his TANG "service" (I use the term loosely.) It may not have been enough to render him ineligible to be President, but to a *true* patriot, you'd think he'd at the very least demand that it be looking into as well. IF, of course, that were actually his primary concern.

Highlands · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:15 pm

mari wrote:

Why do I suddenly expect Obama to be in chaps and a cowboy hat?

Not that the above would necessarily be a bad thing. ;;)

$\:D/$

Adelante · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:19 pm

Highlands wrote:

Not that the above would necessarily be a bad thing. ;;)

$\:D/$

Reality Check · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:58 pm

Will the court just ignore this idiocy or is Hemenway headed for more than just a reprimand this time? It seems to this non-lawyer that accusing a federal judge of being biased is kind of a big deal.

Jay Bea · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:18 pm

Reality Check wrote:

Will the court just ignore this idiocy or is Hemenway headed for more than just a reprimand this time? It seems to this non-lawyer that accusing a federal judge of being biased is kind of a big deal.

It's hard to believe, but Hemenway is a lawyer. He's also 82 years old, which is why the Judge that he now wants recused cut him some slack by not issuing monetary sanctions.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10650

Wow, what a hot mess. Hemenway has about as much understanding of rules of evidence and appellate procedure (and substance) as Orly does. If he is, indeed, the "brains" behind the Lakin court martial [-o<

, Leavenworth should be adding an O.D. to its ranks soon.

Dallasite · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:22 pm

Tes wrote:

PatGund wrote:

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.

Yes. Hemenway referenced that in one of his briefs - something re: how could Robertson question Hollister's sincerity/patriotism when Hollister has been seeking to uphold the Constitution for years, including with prior Democratic presidents. ... ...

FIFY

mimi · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:14 pm

Gorefan wrote:

_________________
Yes We Can! ~ Thomas Jefferson

Tes · **Posted:** Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:56 pm

New Docket Entries:

Quote:

08/23/2010 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER, En Banc, filed [1261905] denying petition for rehearing en banc [1241041-2] Before Judges: Sentelle, Ginsburg, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith and Kavanaugh. [09-5080, 09-5161]

Quote:

08/23/2010 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1261907] denying petition for rehearing [1241041-3]; It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for recusal [1247245-2] be denied to the extent that appellants seek recusal of the above named judges. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to publish [1241042-2] be denied. Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Garland. [09-5080, 09-5161]

FINALLY links provided...hey, I have a life and a real job too. Also.
Not Tes' delay, realist's.

Tes · **Posted:** Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:17 pm

Links soon, hopefully, but ... the orders are short and sweet:

On the PETITION FOR REHEARING:

Quote:

BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Ginsburg, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
[center]O R D E R[/center]
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied.

On the MOTION FOR RECUSAL & MOTION TO PUBLISH

Quote:

BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Garland, Circuit Judges

[center]O R D E R[/center]
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing, the motion for recusal, and the motion to publish, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for recusal be denied to the extent that appellants seek recusal of the above-named judges. Appellants have not demonstrated the court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). To the extent the motion seeks recusal of the district court judge and vacatur of the decisions that are the subject of the petition for rehearing, the motion is denied for the reason given in the court’s judgment of March 22, 2010: 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). Finally, the motion is dismissed as moot insofar as it seeks to remove the district court judge from the underlying civil action inasmuch as the case was terminated in March 2009.

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to publish be denied. The judgment does not meet the criteria for publication under D.C. Circuit Rule 36(c).

mimi · **Posted:** Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:53 pm

Is it finally dead? Or can it be resurrected? Somebody get a wooden stake.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:07 pm

mimi wrote:

Is it finally dead? Or can it be resurrected? Somebody get a wooden stake.

Silly question.

mimi · **Posted:** Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:51 pm

okay. And thanks. Maybe Ducky can be his PR person and have the Patriots all bombard clerks and get this thing off right. [More sanctions would be a nice touch.]

No Pilikia · **Posted:** Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:19 am

mimi wrote:

Is it finally dead? Or can it be resurrected? Somebody get a wooden stake.

IANAL but one thing I think I've learned from Birtherism & Orly, is that no lawsuit is ever dead to a delusional Birther. The wooden stake is a great idea mimi but I don't think that would work either.

Tes · **Posted:** Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:18 pm

New Docket Entry:

Quote:

09/03/2010 MANDATE ISSUED to Clerk, District Court [09-5080, 09-5161]

(No link)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23558

Moved the discussion on the recent Hemenway Petition for Writ of Certiorari

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=5087

FUTTHESHUCKUP · **Joined:** Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:20 pm **Posts:** 27

Now it's official

No. 10-678
Title:
Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)
Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.
Dec 30 2010 Request for recusal received from petitioner.
Jan 18 2011 Petition DENIED.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 10-678.htm

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:30 pm

Well that was a surprise.

FUTTHESHUCKUP · **Joined:** Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:20 pm **Posts:** 27

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Well that was a surprise.

I'm sure it is to some, Sterngard, like those with a non-functioning cerebral cortex for example.

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:13 am

For completeness, of course, a petition for re-hearing was filed, as if the result is going to be any different.

Of course, that gets the idjits believing there is some sort of dramatic turn in store:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2684601/posts

It's depressing that the knuckle-dragger brigade never understood how stupid the form of action was in this case in the first instance - using interpleader to determine the "owner" of Hollister's hypothetical duty as a thing being held in trust.

everalm · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:07 pm

DENIED.....

How not suprising

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cour ... 711zor.pdf

page 11

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

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

Who is online