Main Menu

Hollister v. Soetoro et al Denied

Hollister v. Soetoro

Hollister v. Soetoro

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, Plaintiff vs. BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, in his capacity as : a natural person; in his capacity as [blah blah blah] JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his capacity [blah blah blah]

The “interpleader” part of the suit has been dismissed by United States District Judge James Robertson. Judge Robertson’s reason? The case was “frivolous”.

Ah, but that is not the end of the story. Philip J. Berg and co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce moved for the courts permission to appear, although not credentialed,  before the DC court. Judge Robertson left that question open by saying:

The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.

Robinson’s Order

To quote another attorney, “OUCH.”

No doubt the nObamas will spin this to say that the merits of Berg’s allegations will finally be judged on the merits. However, as the court has already declared the case frivolous, this can only be a bad thing for Berg and Joyce, who after all, signed the complaint which is full of rumors lacking evidence. It’s the whole garbage scow: grandmother tape and edited transcript, Indonesian school record, forged COLB, Hawaii registered foreign births in 1961, Obama adoption citizenship loss, bad Indonesian adoption law, Indonesian passport…

Much valid criticism has been leveled against the nObama tribe for reading into court decisions things that weren’t there. It is therefore wise and prudent not to read our own viewpoints into this decision. What will be will be. It could be that Berg withdraws the suit at this point and escapes with his hide intact. It could be that the complaint will be heard even if the interpleader filing is rejected (this is highly unlikely because the complaint itself has been already dismissed in another court before for lack of standing, and the judge has already called it frivolous).

I’m sorry. I’m a liberal and I have to feel sorry for the man.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses to Hollister v. Soetoro et al Denied

  1. avatar
    richCares February 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Berg’s fund raising claimed this case will succeed as Hollister is a Miltary man and therefore has standing, what the judge said is “stand in the corner with your dunce cap”

  2. avatar
    bogus info February 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    Dr. C.,

    Per Patrick at Yes to Democracy:

    “Note – the case IS still alive, this is not a dismissal of the case. It’s denying the interpleader, which is what the case was built around.”

  3. avatar
    bogus info February 5, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    “I’m sorry. I’m a liberal and I have to feel sorry for the man.”

    I feel sorry for the Judge because he has to read this stuff. LOL.

  4. avatar
    bogus info February 5, 2009 at 6:10 pm #

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3475
    Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending Case

    My question is why did the Judge just dismiss the entire case if that is what he’s going to do eventually?

  5. avatar
    bogus info February 5, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    What does this mean?

    “His motionto shorten time for defendants to respond to his complaint [#3]is moot and isdenied”

  6. avatar
    Tes February 5, 2009 at 6:18 pm #

    Why didn’t the Judge just dismiss the entire case if that is what he’s going to do eventually?

    The short answer is: The court only ruled on pending motions for whichthe briefing schedule had been completed.

    The briefing schedule for Obama/Biden’s motion to dismiss is not yet complete. They’ve filed their motion.Now,Hollister, as plaintiff, mayfile an opposition to that motion to dismiss. (I’m not sure when his opposition is due.) Once he files his opposition, Obama/Biden may file a Reply. Then (and, in most cases, only then),the court will rule on the motion to dismiss.

    Make sense?

  7. avatar
    bogus info February 5, 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    Tes,

    Yes it does make sense and Thank you.

  8. avatar
    Tes February 5, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    When he filed the case, Berg filed a motion to shorten the time for defendants to respond to 10 days. Those 10 days had passed whenObama/Biden filed their response (the Motion to Dismiss). Therefore, the motion was moot – i.e., granting or denying it could have no impact.

  9. avatar
    bogus info February 5, 2009 at 7:31 pm #

    “frivolous”.

    Do Judges use this word alot?

  10. avatar
    bogus info February 5, 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    That one makes sense too. LOL.

  11. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 5, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    “Frivolous” is not a term that courts use lightly. Litigants do, but courts do not.

    It is also extraordinary to treat motions for admission pro hac vice in the manner that the judge has. Typically, as long as an attorney is in good standing in the courts of the state where he/she is admitted to the bar, a court will signed the order. I am presently admitted pro hac in four jurisdictions and have never had to do anything more than file a motion and, in some courts, pay a small fee. The fact that Berg and Joyce are being called to establish their credentials and defend their allegations — in open court no less — is highly irregular. It looks to me like Berg and Joyce are being set up for a public flogging and sanctions.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2009 at 11:37 pm #

    Here’s the start of the discussion over at ObamaCrimes: http://obamacrimes.us/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=95#p744

    They are already setting up for failure by saying the Judge is a LIBERAL Clinton appointee who’s in like for a supreme court seat.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    One of the stranger comments I’ve seen over at Berg Land:

    Are the words of the XX Amendment correctly stated below? I got them from the LOC link on Jan 31, 2009. I am concerned that info available through .gov weblinks may no longer be entirely reliable among more serious concerns).

    Y’all better hang onto them paper constitutions. At least they won’t change.

    This ironic because I can remember exactly this, government web sites changing under the Bush administration related to scientific information on topics like climate change. It also brings to mind how the Soviets changed history by sending out replacement pages to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The US Constitution, however, is something no US government could slip a change into and get away with it. But listening to some of the natural born citizen arguments, one might get the idea that the other side is working from a different copy.

  14. avatar
    bogus info February 6, 2009 at 7:10 am #

    That was what I thought. Can’t wait. Look for Orly’s to happen in her “Executive Order” lawsuit?

  15. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 6, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    Rule 11 sanctions can be made by the court on its own initiative, but only after a show cause order specifying the conduct in question.

    The complaint in this matter is a circus of strange. Without getting into what’s been debunked, if I were this judge, I would want to simply pick some low-hanging fruit here. Among my favorite allegations are that Maya Soetoro Ng lied about Obama’s place of birth to cover up her own knowledge of his birthplace.

    Maya, of course, is Barack’s younger half sister, and it is thus absolutely clear that she would have utterly no way of knowing where Barack was born in the first place.

    Nonetheless, the complaint accuses her of covering up what she knows to be Barack’s birthplace.

    So, returning to Rule 11, it is fascinating that the judge wants to examine Berg in open court. The judge could, of course, simply have issued a show cause order at this stage, setting up the ball for sanctions.

    The judge appears to be showing extraordinary restraint here. The terse order reeks of “you know what I’m going to ask you about and why”, and seems to be an invitation for the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the case. Because once that open court review starts, the judge can issue the Rule 11 show cause order and sanctions order from the bench.

    Final puzzle – no date is set in the order. Will a scheduling order be forthcoming?

  16. avatar
    bogus info February 6, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    “The terse order reeks of “you know what I’m going to ask you about and why”, and seems to be an invitation for the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the case.”

    If the above is indeed the case, do you think Hollister, Berg or Joyce will “get it?” And may also be the answer for the reason that no date was set in the order?

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    I think Berg will get it, but it’s hard to envision him withdrawing.

  18. avatar
    Tes February 6, 2009 at 3:41 pm #

    This is the first and only court indicating a willingness to examine the factual and legal bases upon which the complaint is based. (The rest of the courts have dismissed the case before even addressing any of the alleged facts or legal arguments other than the jurisdictional elements).

    The people supporting this lawsuit have been clamoring for just such an opportunity – pleading with courts to hear this case.

    How, then could Berg not appear to defend his allegations and conclusions? If he declines to appear, he’s giving up the one opportunity provided to have his case heard?

  19. avatar
    richCares February 6, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    “he’s giving up the one opportunity provided to have his case heard?”

    actually he would be giving up the oppotunity to be ridiculed (and chastised), not good for a guy with foreclosure coming on his house!

  20. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 8, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    Whether Berg “gets it” is an open question.

    I believe you are correct that the Judge assumes that Berg should “get it”, and issued this order as a wake-up call. The Judge isn’t making any decision other than to say, “If you really think this is going to pass Rule 11, then I am going to ask you some questions before I do anything else.”

    It does seem to be an invitation for Berg et al. to withdraw this case.

    If you haven’t seen it, read Donofrio’s “farewell to the birther thing” – a fascinating tale of black helicopters, secret agents, and symptoms of serious derangement.

    If Berg et al. withdraw, there will likely be a similar type of story – in which Berg will explain how he didn’t really withdraw voluntarily, but agents of the conspiracy foiled his valiant effort… something along those lines.

    Given that he solicits donations for this stuff, though, he’s really between a rock and a hard place. I hope he shows up, because any hearing on this is sure to be comedy gold.

  21. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 8, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    Tes, the interpleader is the whole case — once that part is dismissed, there is nothing left. (If you read the complaint you will see there is only a single cause of action). The only reason left to “examine the factual and legal bases” is to lay a foundation for issuing sanctions. (Or “lay a trap” if Berg & Joyce are stupid enough to walk into it).

  22. avatar
    bogus info February 8, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    Oh I hope you are right and Orly will not be far behind.

  23. avatar
    richCares February 9, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    Amazing, I went to Berg’s site and checked their blog on Hollister vs Soetero, not a single mention of Judges order, evry comment is attuned to this case being successful, Berg’s a bad lawyer but a good fund raiser. he knows his supporters are easy to mis-lead (they call him a great American but forgot the suffix “idiot”))

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 9, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    One of the posters (no not me) said that they had heard some ruling had been made. The reply was that an announcement would be coming soon.

    I was thinking that if they came up with announcement, they would have to do a heck of a lot of spinning in a short time, which reminded me of the fairy tale of Rumpelstiltskin. Do you think that if we all said “Rumpelstiltskin” three times, Berg would go away?

  25. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 11, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    There was a post on another site which claimed that Berg, on an internet radio program, said that he intends to amend the complaint.

    Questions:

    1. If Berg’s pro hac motion is being held in abeyance, he can’t amend the complaint, yes?

    3. If Berg writes an amended complaint, will his local sign off on it?

    4. If Berg is not admitted pro hac, can he be sanctioned by the court?

    The only attorney admitted in the proceeding is Berg’s local (whose name escapes me). It’s interesting that the Judge wants to evaluate Berg (and the other guy). What’s the background of the local counsel?

  26. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 11, 2009 at 12:51 am #

    Not surprising. Days before Judge Surrick made his decision on Berg v Obama, the bergbots were openly declairing victory. (One reporter actually jumped the gun in reporting it). And then when the rulling came down and it wasn’t what they had expected, there was immediate claims of bribery, shady business, any excuse they could think of.

  27. avatar
    tes February 11, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    1. If Berg’s pro hac motion is being held in abeyance, he can’t amend the complaint, yes?
    Hollister, not Berg, “owns” the complaint and, thus, Hollister can amend the complaint. (Hemenway also could submit the amended complaint.)

    3. If Berg writes an amended complaint, will his local sign off on it?
    Good question!! Only time will tell. It’s worth noting that Hollister’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due Feb. 11 under local rules. That opposition is still, as of this morning, not reflected on the docket sheet.

    4. If Berg is not admitted pro hac, can he be sanctioned by the court?
    That’s a good question too – and I’m not sure the answer to it. My instinct is that the court could sanction “the plaintiff and/or his attorneys” – and leave them to fight out who has to pay any assessed costs. The Court could also include in his order, an order that the PA Attorney Disciplinary Committee be notified of the order, leaving it to them to investigate and assess any consequences. (In Holsworth, the case where the court severely critized Berg and assessed sanctions, etc. (now on appeal), the Court order included that the PA Board must be notified of its order and also ordered Berg to take a designated number of hours of ethics classes.

  28. avatar
    A. Kibitzer February 13, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    Check PACER – ROFLMAO – I’ve never been able to look at a docket and see an angry judge.

    The plaintiff tried to moot the motion to dismiss by filing an “amended complaint”. I glanced at it, and don’t see much amendment there. The judge didn’t see it either, ordered that the defendant need not respond, and gave plaintiff until today to file a response to the motion to dismiss.

  29. avatar
    mimi March 5, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    Doc, I think you’ll enjoy the dismissal. That judge has a way with words.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/13033154/Hollisterdismissal

  30. avatar
    Bob March 5, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    Crafty; a shot across the bow to anyone thinking about filing anything (say, an application for a writ of quo warranto) in the DC district court.

  31. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 6, 2009 at 3:05 am #

    I don’t think potential sanctions are problem for Donofrio’s quo warranto action because he is very clear on proper procedure and seems to be sticking within it, according to his blog. He will probably lose, but on the way to losing he is playing by the rules.

    Part of Hemenway/Berg’s problem is that they abused process by trying to file an “interpleader” — which simply doesn’t apply in the case. Then Berg compounded one error with another by a series of botched or inappropriate filings, definitely taxing the judge’s patience.

    Quo Warranto has to be initiated by the AG or US Attorney — there’s a multistep procedure whereby a private party can request permission of the court to proceed if the AG turns it down, but Donofrio has signaled his intent to stick to the correct procedure. So we can anticipate that (1)AG + US Attorney will turn down case, and (2) court will deny permission to Donofrio to proceed. (I’m 100% opposed to these cases, but I think Donofrio is well within his rights to attempt to raise the issue by asking the appropriate authorities nicely).