Gregory Hollister (and lawyer Philip J. Berg) is suing President Obama and Vice-President Biden to force them to settle their dispute over which one of them is really president. The action is called an “interpleader” suit, typically used by insurance companies to force the issue of who they should pay a policy to by bringing a suit against the claimants so that the court decides the issue.
The suit is before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Hollister/Berg alleges that retired military officer Hollister is subject to recall and he needs to know who he should pay allegiance to as Commander in Chief, Obama or Biden.
Obama and Biden have to today filed their response.
The response argues, of course, that the suit should be dismissed on a number of grounds which the interested reader can see in the response. It may be that Obama’s lawyers were trying to entertain the court with some of the cases they cited.
Hollister v. Soetoro et al. doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being heard.
Well almost right. The motions in the case were denied except plaintiffs’ council’s request to be admitted before the court for that one case in DC. Berg and Joyce were invited to have their credentials and their evidence examined. I’m still betting that it’ll never happen.
Thanks for that.
A theory is something that must be proven. So, THE ONE being an NBC is just that, a THEORY!
I suppose you actually being human, rather than say a space alien, is also just a theory.
Berg should not even plan on oral argument. This patently silly suit will be dismissed without hearing.
Try a thought experiment with me.
Suppose there really is an Easter Bunny and that Ed Hale through FOIA turns up US Customs record of Stanley Ann Obama leaving the United States right before Obama was born, and returning after Obama was born. With a smoking gun like that, how would one oust a constitutionally ineligible president? Let’s assume in the scenario that Obama didn’t know before, and so he couldn’t be impeached for a crime.
I think that the assumption that that would be a “smoking gun” may not be true.
I’m reminded of Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892). There, the elected governor’s eligibility was challenged on grounds that he’d never officially become a US citizen: his fathernever took the legally required steps to make him (or his son, the gov-elect) a citizen, and the Gov-Elect had never taken the legally-required steps to become a US citizen.
The Gov-Elect argued that he’d believed since a minor that he was a US citizen by virtue of his father’s application for US citizenhip (which, apparently, was never actually processed).
It just so happened that he’d been elected to multiple elected positions (citizenship required) in the past.
In a – what some would say was a “result-oriented” decision, the US Supreme Court held that he *was* a citizen even if his father/he had never completed the legal/procedural requirements to become one officially.
Also made me think of Rogers v.Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), in which the US Supreme Court created a third type of “non-constitutional” citizenship, holding that a person who attains his/her US citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to a UScitizen is not a “Fourteenth Amendment first sentence citizen” and, as such, is not entitled to the protections of the 14thAmendment.
Of course, that opinion did NOT stop the Senate from unanimously passing SR 511, which held that McCain *was* a constitutional/natural born citizen.
The fact is/appears to be that the Court (and, in some cases, Congress) – bends over backwards to uphold citizenship (with the odd exception of Rogers, noted above). It is really not realistic to expect any Court to find Obama not to be a citizen under that circumstance.
Yes, the COLB is “only” prima facie evidence of Hawaiian Birth. Presented with US custom papers vs. a Hawaii COLB, and the other evidence consistent with statement on COLB that he was born in Hawaii – the Court would likely grant the COLB greater evidential weight than a US customs paper.
Just my view, of course …
George W. Bush being an NBC must have been a theory too. Also the store accepting this dollar bill in my pocket when I try to use it in 2010 is a theory. It’s silly to try to prove everything; life’s too short.
This comment from ObamaCrimes.com:
“I suggest this Obot “lawyer” Bob Bauer be disbarred for falsely accusing Mr. Berg of “shoehorning” in Hollister v. Soetoro.”
1 : to force to be included or admitted <shoehorned irrelevant arguments into his essay>
Here are two of Linda Starr’s responses from Berg’s blog:
“Shoehorning” Bob Bauer’s profile – brief disses Phil Berg
written by Linda Starr, January 28, 2009
“Instead of making Barry prove his eligbility, he’s dissing Phil for all the other poorly written suits that have been dismissed. Pig! If I were in DC, I’d like to get a group together and protest him at his office and home. Now that mental image makes me feel a bit better. I bet people around him wouldn’t be too happy if people showed up to protest him at work and at home. And I mean a lot of people. I keep thinking of the protest by Michael Moore (no I don’t like him, but this one thing is funny) of Ken Starr where they dressed up like Pilgrims and protested him at his house and hollered at him. I think it would be great to dress up like Pilgrims and make replica Constitutions to protest this miserable person. Give him a little taste of how we feel so frustrated.”
Robert (Bob) Bauer | Partner
Firmwide Chair, Political Law Practice
Robert Bauer is the Chair of the Political Law Group of Perkins Coie LLP. In Bob’s 30 years of practice, he has provided counseling and representation on matters involving regulation of political activity before the courts and administrative agencies of national party committees, candidates, political committees, individuals, federal officeholders, corporations and trade associations, and tax-exempt groups.
Bob is the author of several books — United States Federal Election Law (1982, 1984), Soft Money Hard Law: A Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2002) and More Soft Money Hard Law: The Second Edition of the Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2004) — and numerous articles. He also serves on the National Advisory Board of Journal of Law and Politics. In 2000, he received the prestigious “Burton Award for Legal Achievement” for his legal writing. Bob is a 1976 graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was named Hardy Dillard Fellow in legal writing.
Bob is currently counsel to Obama for America and the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees, and has served as co-counsel to the New Hampshire State Senate in the trial of Chief Justice David A. Brock (2000); general counsel to the Bill Bradley for President Committee (1999-2000); and counsel to the Democratic Leader in the trial of President William Jefferson Clinton (1999). He has co-authored numerous bipartisan reports, including “Report of Counsel to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee in the Matter of the United States Senate Seat From Louisiana” in the 105th Congress of the United States (March 27, 1997); “Campaign Finance Reform,” A Report to the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the United States Senate (March 6, 1990); and “The Presidential Election Process in the Philippines” (1986), a bipartisan report prepared at the request of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Bob is also the author of the Weblog, http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com, on which he writes about campaign finance and other issues of interest to the political community.
Listed as one of the “100 Most Influential Attorneys” by National Law Journal, 2006
Listed in Chambers USA, “America’s Leading Political Law Lawyers,” 2006
Listed in The Best Lawyers in America
Received the Burton Award for Legal Achievement, 2000
Peer Review Rated AV in Martindale-Hubbell
American Bar Association, Advisory Commission on Election Law
University of Virginia, Journal of Law and Politics, National Advisory Board
Election Law Journal, Editorial Board ”
written by KatLawson, January 28, 2009
“What does this mean that Robert (Bob) Bauer is “dissing” Mr. Berg’s case? He’s objecting? I would imagine that is standard practice.”
“I’m sure he’s just throwing a little tantrum while tossing & turning all night long. Oh, and sweating & wringing his hands, too. ”
Hollister v. Soetoro: Defendant Motion to Dismiss