Main Menu

Tag Archives | Hollister v Soetoro

When did Greg Hollister check Obama’s SSN?

On February 9, 2011, Greg Hollister (litigant in the Hollister v. Soetoro lawsuit) sent a private email to Orly Taitz, and copied John Hemenway (Hollister’s attorney in the lawsuit), Larry Elgin (Hollister appellate attorney), Susan Daniels (a private investigator assisting Orly Taitz) and Linda Bent (a writer) stating that he had  a web printout from the Social Security Administration indicating that Barack Obama’s social-security number did not pass the Social Security Number Verification System (SSNVS). For background on what that meant, see my March, 2011 article, “More social-security troubles for the President?

Taitz recently published an image of Hollister’s email, but rather than redacting the addresses, I’ll just present the text, making it accessible to search engines at the same time:

Dear Ms. Taitz.

I have been monitoring your efforts at a distance reference the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as POTUS. I see that you are now filing suit reference his many SSNs.

I have a copy of Obama’s selective service card with the SSN affixed. I, as a small business owner have access to the Social Security Number Verification System. As a result, I checked the SSNVS for the SSN Obama used for registering with Selective Service. The SSNVS search resulted in a report sheet that states that number Obama used to register for Selective Service was never issued.

Let me be direct – i have not agreed with many of your tactics in this endeavor. However, I have continued to follow your efforts to see where there may be synergy and this is one.

Therefore if you think the documents will be helpful, please let me know and I will send you the PDF files for both the Selective Service Card and the SSNVS report that states that SSN was never issued.1

Sincerely
Greg Hollister

Gregory S. Hollister, Colonel, USAF, Retired
President, Hollister Enterprises, LLC2

Hollister doesn’t say when he ran the SSNVS check, but the letter suggests a sequence of events.

Continue Reading →

Two very different ballot challenges in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania attorney Phil Berg and Charles Kerchner (Birthers call him CDR Kerchner) are no strangers to litigation against Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States.

Background

The original Berg v. Obama et al. lawsuit codified much of the thinking of the “not born here” Birthers. I wrote about the foundational nature of this case in: “We all came out of Berg’s suit.” Further, much of what I know about the legal doctrine of standing came from Judge Surrick’s scholarly opinion dismissing the case. In addition to speculating that Obama was born in Kenya, Berg also alleges that President Obama became a citizen of Indonesia as a child and thereby lost his US citizenship (if any).

I wrote about Charles Kerchner’s first lawsuit against Obama in an article Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY. Charles Kerchner, aided by his attorney Mario Apuzzo, also filed a federal lawsuit seeking to unseat the President that included many of the ideas of Phil Berg, but in a much longer form, so long in fact that defense attorney compared responding to it to looking for “gold coins in a bucket of mud.” This lawsuit introduced one new element. While little more than a footnote, the Kerchner case suggested that Barack Obama wasn’t eligible even if he was born here.

In the time since 2009, very little has changed in Phil Berg’s approach, but in the case of Kerchner, the “not born here” aspect has been toned down and the question of Obama’s parentage and the definition of natural born citizen has come to the forefront.

In this, Kerchner may be responding to popular sentiment, particularly in the wake of the release of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate at a White House press conference last April, 20111. Republican leaders, most notably Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, came out and said that people who believed that Barack Obama was born outside the United States or was a Muslim “are just crazy.” On the other hand a scholar, Lawrence Solum, said that while the opposing argument was “much stronger,” still those who believe in a two-parent citizenship qualification “aren’t crazy.”

This brings us to two Pennsylvania ballot challenges filed this month, one from Charles Kerchner and one from Phil Berg.

Continue Reading →

Obama’s legal fees

An argument in the form of a question

Central to the birther position is a question that is some variation of:

If Obama has nothing to hide, when why has he spent $81 Berjillion1 dollars on legal fees to seal his records?”

This question actually hides two assumptions:

  1. Obama has spent $81 Berjillion1 dollars on legal fees
  2. Obama is using lawyers to seal his records

Usually, since the argument is made in the form of a question, no one actually justifies the underlying claims in the question. Let’s look at them.

Obama has spent $81 Berjillion dollars on legal fees

Where does this number come from? I’ve seen two arguments. The first involves the fact that the same legal firm, Perkins Coie, represented both President Obama and his Presidential Campaign. Federal Election Commission filings reveal millions of dollars in legal fees spent by the Campaign. If one had the total of all the legal expenses and subtracted all the other campaign legal expenses, what would be left should be what was spent by the Campaign defending Obama eligibility lawsuits. However, since the “all other” number is not known, the answer is just a wild guess. Another approach is to assume that all other campaign legal expenses ended the moment Obama was elected and that every legal expense since them is for defending Obama eligibility lawsuits. However, one need only glance at the FEC page to see hundreds of campaign filings made since November of 2008 and add that to the cost of FEC post-election audits. To top that off, no one has shown (to my knowledge) that any Campaign dollars went to defend Obama eligibility lawsuits. Continue Reading →

More social-security troubles for the President?

Gregory Hollister, plaintiff in Hollister v Soetoro, has put forward a story that pours salt on Barack Obama’s social-security number wounds.

Readers will recall that dentist cum attorney Orly Taitz, Esq. DDS sloppily redacted social-security numbers for Barack Obama and others in one of her court filings, announcing to the world Barack Obama’s number. Journalist Spencer Kornhaber verified that this is the number that President Obama used when registering with the Selective Service in 1980 through a public Selective Service verification web site.

Examiner.com reports that Hollister used the Social Security Number Verification System (SSNVS) provided for employers by the Social Security Administration to verify Obama’s published number with the SSA, and claims that the SSA system said, “SSN not in file (never issued)”. Following is an image that claims to show the verification (or lack thereof) for President Obama:

Alleged SSNVS response for Barack Obama (click to enlarge)


What’s wrong with this picture? Simply stated, what Hollister claims to have done is a crime: Continue Reading →

High court rejects rehearing in Hollister

The denial by the Supreme Court of a request for reconsideration of its previous denial in Hollister v Soetoro1 was considered by me, even here in this den of Obama conspiracy stuff, too unimportant to warrant an article. It was a foregone conclusion; nothing really “happened”.

I wouldn’t be writing about it now except that CNN reported the story and it was picked up by a Fox News station in Kansas City, MO. So if the Supreme Court’s denial is not news, the CNN coverage is.

So, if you haven’t heard, Gregory Hollister asked the two justices appointed by President Obama to recuse themselves, and that the Court reconsider his petition to review the dismissal of his lawsuit over Obama’s eligibility.

However, the Court didn’t even ask President Obama to reply. No recusal, no reconsideration, end of story except that CNN reported it.

See also:


1Birthers can’t stomach the President’s name, much less his office, so they call him “Soetoro” after his Indonesian step father, and a name written on an Indonesian elementary school admission form.

Did the Doc screw up?

On trial for screwing up

If you’ve hung around here long, you’ve seen me say a bazillion times that Hawaii did not allow out of state birth registrations until 1982. I’ve been saying this since a lawyer pointed out the “L 1982″ at the bottom of the Hawaii Revised Statute § 338-17.8 on Registration of out of state births and explained to me what it meant. This was months before this blog began its operation in December of 2008. Not only I, but Obots unnumbered following my lead (or their own research), have said the same thing.

The Claim

A comment on the Free Republic forum reads:

Hawaii’s Territorial Law, Chapter 57 – “VITAL STATISTICS, I”, shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby’s [sic] born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin.

Vital Statistics Law in 1961

The 1955 Territorial Law as amended is indeed is the law in effect in 1961. Continue Reading →