Main Menu

Hollister v Soetoro appeal rejected

Hollister Appeal

In a brief judgment published yesterday, a three judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the appeal of the plaintiffs and affirmed the decision and sanctions imposed by the DC District Court.

The Hollister v Soetoro case was the famous “interpleader” suit where Hollister tried to force Barack Obama and Joe Biden to litigate who was really president so that he (as military officer subject to recall) would know whom he owed his loyalty (a loyalty valued at $500).

The District Court in DC found the lawsuit silly (my word) and reprimanded attorney Hemenway for filing it. Phil Berg appears to be the real mover behind the suit, but he was beyond the court’s ability to sanction, not having signed the complaint. District Judge Robertson wrote:

This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of the books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do.

4 Responses to Hollister v Soetoro appeal rejected

  1. avatar
    Lupin March 23, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    Like Orly, Hemenway is now asked to explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned.

    Oh, Mario, do you hear the Sound of His Horn?

  2. avatar
    misha March 23, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    This I gotta see.

  3. avatar
    brygenon March 23, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    Lupin wrote:

    Like Orly, Hemenway is now asked to explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned.

    His explanation in the lower court was to cite his previous military service, his learning, and his age. None of that justified his misconduct in filing the frivolous suit, but it was enough to avoid monetary sanctions.

    “Mr. Hemenway is 82 years old and takes considerable and justified pride in his patriotic public service and his status as a Rhodes Scholar. He is unlikely to repeat the conduct that gave rise to this proceeding, and in his case the permissible alternative sanction of a reprimand will be sufficient.” — U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Hollister v. Soetoro

    He’s even older now, his record as veteran and scholar is forever, but the bit saying “unlikely to repeat the conduct” stands refuted.

  4. avatar
    Black Lion March 29, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    Again we have the infamous Post and Fail fanning the flames of the BC issue. However as I always like to point out the posters to the site are always the same you find at all of the other so called pro birther sites. I really do believe that there are about 20 hard core birhters out there that are attempting to make people believe that they are more in number than they really are….

    From the most recent article at the Post and Fail…

    From the radical birther running for office in Nevada Gino DiSimone….You really have to read the entire article and the comments to see how far off the reservation these guys are going…

    “I adjure you, nay, I require you, as the duly elected Governor of my State exercising the duty of Commander in Chief of Nevada, to immediately take action to protect my freedom, liberty, property and wealth, as your duty utterly requires. To this end I require you file a legal challenge, Quo Warranto (D.C. Statute 35 §16-3501), on the authority of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO requiring proof that he is eligible to be President of the United States of America, and he has the constitutional authority to act as President of the United States and to execute the Health Care Bill. This Bill is a direct threat to my freedom, liberty, wealth and property. It threatens nearly every citizen of Nevada and nearly every business of Nevada as it will forcefully extract, under duress, my/our wealth and property. This is an acute direct security threat and I require swift aggressive intervention for assurances of security from my Commander in Chief of this great State of Nevada.

    By virtue of this acute security threat to me and Nevada citizenry and businesses, as Commander in Chief, it is your solemn sworn duty to protect me/us from acute security threats, particularly threats to my freedoms, liberties, health, wealth and property.”

    “1. File (directly from the Governor of Nevada) a legal challenge, Quo Warranto (D.C. Statute 35 §16-3501), on the eligibility and authority of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO requiring exacting legal proof of the specific constitutionally defined and required form, such that he is eligible to be President and has constitutionally granted Presidential signature authority of the legal and correct form – not withstanding substitute documents are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

    2. Submit an Executive Order staying all provisions, actions, or other measures of the Health Care Bill, and further enacting such measures as is required to guarantee the security of the citizens and businesses toward our freedoms, liberties, wealth and property against all efforts to infringe them as is written in the Health Care Bill.

    3. Submit a Proclamation of Resolutions, listed in items a’ through l’ below and adopted in large part from the Resolutions of 1798, making null and void the Health Care Bill, claiming the State of Nevada reasserts constitutional authority and sovereignty over all powers not expressly delegated to the United States nor prohibited to it by the US Constitution.”