HOLLISTER FILES A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

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

bob wrote:

No indication on the docket of a ruling on Hollister's request for recusal.

I suspect we know the answer to that request.

brygenon · **Joined:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm **Posts:** 425

realist wrote:

bob wrote:

No indication on the docket of a ruling on Hollister's request for recusal.

I suspect we know the answer to that request.

It's up, and to the surprise of no one sane:

Edit: Oops, no, I was answering the wrong question.

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

From WND... :roll:

BORN IN THE USA?
Kagan, Sotomayor blew chance to stop eligibility challenge?
Lawyers say Supremes broke rule, failed to respond to recusal motion
Posted: January 25, 2011
8:01 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Quote:

Lawyers working for a retired military officer who is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president say the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion, thus conceding the point and possibly requiring a new conference vote among the seven remaining justices, including four mostly conservative, on whether the high court will hear arguments over Obama's legitimacy. [of course, that was not before the court]

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fundand website, told WND that the issue arose in the case brought by retired Col. Greg Hollister, who is represented by attorney John Hemenway.

[snip]

The lawyers in the case filed a motion before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking the recusal of justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have an interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.

[snip the eligibility is important, and if he's ineligible everything he's done is null and void BS blah, blah, blah]

Elgin told WND that he and others working on the Hollister case "will be moving ahead with plans to petition SCOTUS for reconsideration. The petition will focus heavily … on the fact that our recusal motion was never responded to and thus, we will contend, should have been treated as conceded, thus conceding the main point of eligibility."

That sounds like Berg, in Berg v Obama (original case) when he so wrongly declared that Obama had not responded to Request for Admissions that he admitted everything in them, which was total BS as there was a motion pending for dismissal and discovery was not at issue in the case... just one of his many lies over the last 2+ years.

In addition Unruh reports...

Quote:

But Elgin confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiori petition was denied without comment. "He received nothing on the recusal motion," he explained. "The Supreme Court rules require motions to be answered 'promptly' and in any case within 10 days of receipt. There was no timely response and we will be examining [this] as an 'intervening circumstance' justifying an additional filing…"

"There seems to be a due process question here." The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.

Coming soon to the Supreme Court another Epic Fail by birthers.

raicha · **Posted:** Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:27 am

realist wrote:

From WND... :roll:

In addition Unruh reports...

But Elgin confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiori petition was denied without comment. "He received nothing on the recusal motion," he explained. "The Supreme Court rules require motions to be answered 'promptly' and in any case within 10 days of receipt. There was no timely response and we will be examining [this] as an 'intervening circumstance' justifying an additional filing…"

Oh, these friggin' idiots.

They are apparently getting this from Supreme Court rules 21.4:

Quote:

4. Any response to a motion shall be filed as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought and any asserted need for emergency action, and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt, unless the Court or a Justice, or the Clerk under Rule 30.4, orders otherwise. A response to a motion prepared as required by Rule 33.1 shall be prepared in the same manner if time permits. In an appropriate case, the Court may act on a motion without waiting for a response.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/21.html

The response time is for the other interested party, not for the Court itself. Otherwise, the last sentence of the rule makes no sense at all.

They got their answer. The Court denied certaki without comment and without noting a recusal by any Justice. Dudes - the answer was "no".

mimi · **Posted:** Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:04 am

Thanks, realist and raicha! I love this forum.

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

John Hemenway has apparently filed a Motion for Rehearing with SCOTUS in the Hollister case, in which he apparently "warns" the Supreme Court not to avoid the "eligibility issue." Of course, he, along with all other birther attorneys, continue to spread the BS that the Court is avoiding the "issue" when the "issue" has never been before the Court. I smell another "DENINED" without comment coming.

What I didn't find was a link to the Motion for Rehearing (but perhaps i missed it).

BORN IN THE USA?
Supreme Court warned: Don't avoid eligibility
Attorney argues justices real problem is getting judges to take oath 'seriously'
Posted: February 08, 2011
6:14 pm Eastern

By [highlight]Bob Unruh[/highlight]
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Quote:

A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."

And he asks whether the justices still are committed to the principle of considering the Founders' intent when ruling on constitutional issues.

The warning comes from attorney John D. Hemenway, who is representing retired Col. Gregory Hollister in a case that alleges Obama never was eligible under the Constitution's requirements for a president to occupy the Oval Office.

A case which never saw the light of day except for Hemenway being issued an admonishment from Judge Robertson.

Quote:

"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."

Unruh then spews the joke between Justice Thomas and Serrano about avoiding the issue of eligibility, furthering it as an admission among the limited-IQ followers of WND.

It's pretty much the "usual" from WND, but yeah, quite a bit more at the link. Nothing shows on the SCOTUS docket... yet.
[/quote]

Read more: Supreme Court warned: Don't avoid eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261393#ixzz1DTBZzzoJ

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

And indeed, it now shows on the SCOTUS Docket...

Quote:

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.
Feb 7 2011 Petition for Rehearing filed.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:08 pm

realist wrote:

And indeed, it now shows on the SCOTUS Docket...

Quote:

Feb 7 2011 Petition for Rehearing filed.

Did it display with an informative icon?

Reality Check · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:09 pm

So WND is trying to resuscitate this corpse with a complete misrepresentation of the courts rules and processes? Just another day at the Wild Nut Daily. :lol:

Piffle · **Posted:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:17 pm

Yup, taken together with the hoopla in the birferpress, this is political theater, pure and simple. They know there is zero chance of this last gasp succeeding.

Even if the Supremes miraculously were to take one of these suits out of the blue, ya think they'd use a bogus case based on interpleader to modify the standing doctrine? Uh huh. Gimme a break.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:30 pm

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.
Feb 7 2011 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Feb 16 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2011.

It has a shelf life of less than a month.

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3897

The Supreme Court put a new petition on an ordinary hearing calendar, just like they do *all* petitions? Nothing unusual there. So how might a birther try to make that sound like a big deal...

Quote:

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate...

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

Loren wrote:

The Supreme Court put a new petition on an ordinary hearing calendar, just like they do *all* petitions? Nothing unusual there. So how might a birther try to make that sound like a big deal...

Quote:

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate...

Setting aside the obvious lie, that the petition has anything to do with Obama's eligibility, but without even running my cursor over it or clicking the link, there's no doubt in my mind who wrote that tripe... WND. :roll:

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:48 pm

Stunner!!! =))

<action> RC adds to Birther Calendar while suppressing laughter.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:56 pm

Birfers are excited about that WND post. Yippie.

Oh and "Kagen better recuse".

and why are they saying "Agreed to Conference"?

Also, if I put that the Serrano stuff from years ago into a short mp3, can somebody post it somewhere so I can play with some birfers? $\:D/$

Piffle · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:59 pm

realist wrote:

Nothing to show who Hemenway is asking to be recused... perhaps the entire Supreme Court. :-k

I can't think of any reason any Justice should recuse themselves in this case. Anyone?

Soto' and Kagan because they were appointed by the usurper, etc., etc.

Roberts, Thomas and Alito because they don't personally sign all their orders in wet ink.

Breyer, because he dissented in an interpleader case when he was on the Third Circuit bench

Ginsberg, because she thinks SCOTUS should sometimes reference foreign (i.e., Sharia) law and is a feminazi.

Kennedy, because Ginsberg is often seen at the Kennedy Center.

That leaves Scalia. No one seriously believes that Scalia would EVER recuse himself.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:03 pm

Speaking of Serrano (okay... off-topic now)...

Quote:

Serrano: Republicans Don't Respect the President

BY Michael McAuliff

Republicans just don't like President Obama or respect him as the legitimate commander-in-chief, Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano argued today, pointing to attempts to cut President Obama's teleprompter, his policy czars, and even the White House maintenance budget.

"Let's be honest," Serrano (D-Bronx) sad in today's floor debate over an amendment to dump the czars in this year's budget. "This is not about czars. This is about the person who lives in the White House."

"Today, we're going to see amendments that say we should not have repairs on the White House structure," Serrano said, referring to an amendment by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) that says "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for repair, alteration, or improvement of the Executive Residence at the White House."

"Tonight we're going to see an amendment that says, listen to this, that the President should not have -- paid for by the tax payers -- a teleprompter. Can you believe this?" Serrano went on, although he noted that he expected the teleprompter attack to be withdrawn. (It was.)

There's more.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/201 ... -president

I need to thank him.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:06 pm

realist wrote:

Nothing to show who Hemenway is asking to be recused... perhaps the entire Supreme Court. :-k

I can't think of any reason any Justice should recuse themselves in this case. Anyone?

Quote:

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.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897

right?

bob · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Quote:

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate...

Working at WND must be fun -- Imagine the headline if SCOTUS didn't conference the petition: SUPREMES DENY JUSTICE; IGNORE SIMPLE REQUEST!

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

bob wrote:

Quote:

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate...

Working at WND must be fun -- Imagine the headline if SCOTUS didn't conference the petition: SUPREMES DENY JUSTICE; IGNORE SIMPLE REQUEST!

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:42 pm

Yo, that docket in Hollister looks kinda like the docket for this case

Quote:

No. 06-10752
Title:
In Re Jeanne Huber-Happy, Petitioner
v.
Docketed: April 20, 2007

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 18 2007 Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 21, 2007)
Apr 24 2007 Waiver of right of respondent Estate of Pauline Rankin to respond filed.
May 1 2007 Waiver of right of respondent Robert McDonnell, Attorney General of VA to respond filed.
May 9 2007 Waiver of right of respondent J. Nelson Happy to respond filed.
Jun 6 2007 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2007.
Jun 25 2007 Petition DENIED.
Jun 26 2007 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Sep 12 2007 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2007.

which, upon further consideration by the Justices, met this fate (scroll down to the bottom of the list).

verbalobe · **Posted:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:52 pm

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

which, upon further consideration by the Justices, met this fate (scroll down to the bottom of the list).

BB!

That was sooooooo suspenseful!

chinacreekpj · **Joined:** Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm **Posts:** 1334

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
It's Not Too Late To Buy Your Where's The Birth Certificate Merchandise Today!
Order In The Next 5 Minutes And The Hate Is Free!

Lawn Sign - $19.95

T-Shirt - Discount Price: $19.99

Bumper Sticker - $5.95

Post Card - $4.00

Book - Discount Price: $22.95