P. 1
HOLLISTER v SOETORO (APPEAL) - PETITION filed [1241041] by Appellant - Petition - Transport Room

HOLLISTER v SOETORO (APPEAL) - PETITION filed [1241041] by Appellant - Petition - Transport Room

|Views: 8,433|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
04/21/2010 Open Document PETITION filed [1241041] by Appellant Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Appellant Mr. John David Hemenway and Appellee Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5161 for hearing en banc. [Service Date: 04/21/2010 by email] Pages: 11-15. [09-5080, 09-5161]
04/21/2010 Open Document PETITION filed [1241041] by Appellant Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Appellant Mr. John David Hemenway and Appellee Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5161 for hearing en banc. [Service Date: 04/21/2010 by email] Pages: 11-15. [09-5080, 09-5161]

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Apr 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/25/2014

pdf

text

original

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 1

No 09-5080 Consolidating No. 09-5161

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, et al., Appellants, v. Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse , also known as Barack Obama, et al. Appellees. Case Below 08-2254 JR

==============
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SUGGESTION FOR HEARING EN BANC

===============

John D.Hemenway D.C. Bar #379663 Counsel for Appellants 4816 Rodman Street, NW Washington DC 20016 (202) 244-4819 johndhemenway@comcast.net

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. CONFLICTS WITH THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER CIRCUITS ………………………………………………. 1 II. NO INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS: THE LOWER COURT OPINION ADOPTED: COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS NOT TAKEN AS TRUE; THE MERITS AVOIDED ………………………… 2 III. EXTRAJUDICIAL SOURCES OF EVIDENT BIAS ………………. 5 IV. RULE 11 ASSESSMENT BASED ON ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT OF LAW: NO PROPER INQUIRY: NO HEARING ….. 10

i

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 3

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 4

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 5

The plaintiff/appellant Gregory S. Hollister and the counsel/appellant John D. Hemenway hereby move for a panel reconsideration and request a hearing en banc by the full court on their case. They begin by asserting as follows in accordance with the rules of the Court. I. CONFLICTS WITH THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER CIRCUITS The decision of the Court conflicts with the following decisions of the Supreme Court: Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506 (2002); Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963); ArkansasLouisiana Gas Co. v. Department of Public Utilities, 304 U.S. 61 (1938); Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994); United States v. Grinell Corp. 384 U.S. 563; Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384; City of Lincoln, Neb. v. Ricketts, 297 U.S. 373 (1936); Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922); Haggar v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 389 (1940); Helvering v. Hammel, 311 U.S. 504 (1941); Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360 (1934); Minor v. Happersett, 88 (Wall.) U.S. 162 (1874); The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814). Consideration by the full court or at least reconsideration by the

1

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 6

panel is therefore necessary to conform the opinion of this Court which is addressed with those decisions. Further, there is a question of exceptional importance here where the court below acted in conflict with decisions in almost every other circuit: Schlaifer, Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323 (2nd Cir. 1999); Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516 (11th Cir.1998); Davis v. Crush, 862 F.2d 84 (6th Cir.1988); Donaldson v. Clark 819 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir.1987); Chamaikin v. Yefimov, (2nd Cir.1991); Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, (9th Cir.1983); Eash v. Riggins Trucking Co., 757 F.2d 557 (3rd Cir.1985). II. NO INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS: THE LOWER COURT OPINION ADOPTED: COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS NOT TAKEN AS TRUE; THE MERITS AVOIDED In its decision of March 22, 2010, the Court affirmed the two decisions below without any independent discussion or analyses. Thus, the Court adopted any errors as well as any correct aspects of those decisions. Thus, the court has effectively adopted the error of the lower court in finding a failure to state a claim which finding is in direct contradiction to the holdings of Twombly, supra and its correct explanation of Conley v. Gibson, as read in light of Swierkiewicz, supra and Leatherman, supra. In this case

2

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 7

there is a set of allegations in the complaint which can be summarized so as to support the claim for relief at issue. Twombly, supra. Here, paragraphs of the complaint, among others, 15, 17-23, Appx. 12-14, when summarized, support, if inferred in favor of the plaintitf/ appellant Hollister as required, support the conclusion that the

defendant/appellee Soetoro a/k/a Obama, is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning and intendment of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 as it uses that phrase so as to be eligible to be elected and serve as President of the United States. Yet the court below did not treat these allegations as true and this Court has adopted that clear error without analysis. The court below did not treat the referenced allegations as true and even went beyond that and found them to be frivolous to the extent of coming under Rule 11, albeit with no inquiry whatsoever into what was known by counsel prior to fling of the complaint as alleged. Indeed, in doing so the court below had to ignore the clear facts set out in the complaint as just mentioned, which were clearly known to counsel before filing the complaint. To hold that there is a failure to state a claim calls for a judgment on the merits. Baker v. Carr, supra. Yet here the lower court stated

emphatically that it was abjuring and avoiding analyzing the merits of the claim at issue, the claim that the defendant/appellee Soetoro a/k/a Obama is

3

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 8

not a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution in its opinion of March 24, 2009, stating: I have said nothing, and have nothing to say, about the merits of the “natural born Citizen” question that the Mssrs. Hemenway, Berg, et al., have sought to present here. I have no business addressing the merits, because, having found that Mr. Hemenway’s interpleader suit failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, I have dismissed it. Appx. 256 This Court has now adopted that abjuration and avoidance of the merits as set out in that self-contradictory statement without further analysis. To make clear that it was not going to treat the actual merits as raised by the complaint the court below even went so far as to mischaracterize the principal question of meeting the eligibility requirement set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. In its opinion of March 5, 2009, the court below spoke of the issue as being one of the defendant Soetoro’s “citizenship,” rather than the issue being one of his meeting the specific requirement of being a “natural born citizen.” Appx. 208. This abjuring and avoiding of the merits of the plaintiff’s cause held erroneously not to have been stated directly contradicts the holding set out by the Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra that the Constitution is a law for rulers as well as for the people. Although the

defendant/appellee Soetoro a/k/a Obama is de facto a ruler over us at this time, the allegations of the complaint, as thus properly summarized as
4

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 9

required, make clear that he is not eligible under the Constitution to hold that office and that he does so in a fraud upon that Constitution. As we have pointed out the plaintiff/appellant Hollister takes his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution quite seriously. This abjuration and avoidance

raises a question as to whether the members of this Court do so. Although the rule is well established that courts should not pass on a constitutional question unless that is necessary for the disposition of a pending as set out in Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. v. Department of Public Utilities, supra, the necessary converse is equally binding upon every court: when, as here, a constitutional issue is directly raised as the principal issue of the case and thus must be decided in order to dispose of the case it is the duty of the court to decide upon it. III. EXTRAJUDICIAL SOURCES OF EVIDENT BIAS What we see here in both the opinions below as well as the view that has now been adopted by this Court without analysis is not only an avoidance of the constitutional rule of law as embodied in an important provision the Constitution but a dislike of any litigant or counsel raising that issue. This view reflects a bias clearly derived from extrajudicial sources. It is a bias that should require the judge below and now the judges of the panel that decided to adopt those biases in this court to recuse themselves under 28

5

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 10

U.S.C. § 455. This bias, which is objectively an appearance of bias, and beyond that an actual bias, was reflected in the comments of the judge below in both opinions. The opinion of March 5, 2009, starts off with an initial paragraph indicating and clearly evidencing an appearance of that bias toward the case. Appx. 208. That bias continues in the opening of the second paragraph of that opinion where the court below pejoratively states that the plaintiff Hollister “says that he is a retired Air Force colonel,” suggesting that the plaintiff is possibly an imposter. needless insult giving the appearance of This is clearly a

bias inasmuch as Colonel

Hollister’s military papers were attached to and incorporated into the complaint. The judge below clearly knew this in making the insult in that he himself was an ROTC scholar in college who then served his required stint in the Navy. This is not a “subtle” piece of bias like the refusal in Litecky, supra, to call the plaintiff, a Maryknoll priest “father.” It is rather an overt and snide bias. Even more overtly “extrajudicial” within the meaning of the sources of bias as described in Litecky, supra, and Grinell, supra, was what the judge below then revealed as one of the principal sources of his bias toward the end of that second paragraph, where he stated, in a statement that, thanks to the decentralized communications structure we enjoy today, is destined to

6

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 11

go down in infamy, when the constitutional deception involved here is inevitably exposed by history: The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-yearcampaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court. There has scarcely ever been revealed in a reported case a more overt exhibit of an extrajudicial bias than this passage exemplifies, and this Court’s panel now adopts it without comment. It not only exhibits a bias against the plaintiff and his case, it exhibits a depressing bias that citizens should not have access to the courts to protect and defend against the Constitution, a right long since embraced by the Supreme Court as very fundamental to the rule of law in this country. And even more overt bias based on extrajudicial sources is exhibited in the following paragraph of the March 5, 2009 opinion below. There the bias against the plaintiff Colonel Hollister and his case is exhibited by a display of animosity toward the lawyer Philip J. Berg, who filed an earlier pro se action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania the issues of which, clearly by the lower court’s own statements, were not the same issues as in this case. This further exhibition

7

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 12

of bias is accentuated by another gratuitous insult to Colonel Hollister.1 The judge makes clear that he views Colonel Hollister as a dupe rather than one who may make a competent decision about a question concerning constitutional eligibility. Appx. 209. The effect of this bias was then made evident when the court below, in the its Opinion of March 5, 2009, ignored the language and law of Rule 11 and sought to make Colonel Hollister’s counsel pay for the legal bills of the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama. These bills as a matter of public record of which this Court may take judicial notice in filings at the Federal Election Commission by the Obama campaign amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The court below had to drop the effort to exact counsel fees when then confronted with the language and law of Rule 11 in the Show of Cause which it ordered, and reduce its Rule 11 sanction to a reprimand but, nonetheless proceeded to exact a reprimand under Rule 11 without heeding the controlling precedent of the Supreme Court controlling any sanction under that rule. The largest portion of the opinion below that was rendered on March 5, 2009, is taken up in an attack on Philip J. Berg, an attorney from
1

This insult was particularly offensive to Colonel Hollister, whose history was clearly not known to the judge below, because in fact he has a history of taking the Constitution seriously with regard to persons occupying the office of President that is revealed in the public record going back to when he was on active duty during the presidency of William Clinton. 8

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 13

Pennsylvania who was initially involved in the case, in a matter in which he was pro se in the federal court in Pennsylvania, as stated, which, as noted had nothing to do with Colonel Hollister’s case but which clearly reflects an appearance of bias by the judge below based somehow on matters beyond the four corners of this case. Statements revealing this extrajudicial bias then continued in the second opinion below that was rendered on March 24, 2009. Again, as in the first opinion the court below gave a clear appearance of bias by referring, inaccurately as it turns out, to public opinion rather than the law as based on the Constitution when it said: “Many people, perhaps as many as a couple of dozen, feel deeply about this issue.” The court then referred to other cases around the country, none of which, we hasten to point out, involved the use of interpleader format. Again he portrays Philip J. Berg as a crusader and the plaintiff Hollister as a dupe. Appx. 254-255. The court below then illustrated its bias even more concretely and did so rubbing salt into the wound of a man who served a full 30 years in the military with distinction and retired honorably and, even when on active duty, had displayed as a matter of public record the same high level of concern for the Constitution and the fealty of keeping his oath to protect and preserve it against those foreign and domestic who do not honor it and seek to undermine it. The

9

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 14

judge below chose to compare Colonel Hollister to the plaintiff in a case which was groundless because it sought to hold our military as commanded by the Commander-in-Chief in an act of war liable in damages. It fact the case concerned an act by the Air Force when Colonel Hollister was serving honorably in it, namely the attack on Libya when Colonel Qadafy attacked us by terrorist acts in a German night club frequented by American service personnel. That case involved an attempt to hold our government

responsible for an act deemed necessary to national security and was thus quite frivolous. The case was brought by Libyans who claimed to have suffered in the bombing runs. The case at bar has nothing to do with a

doctrine that attempts to hold our government liable for an act of national security. The Col. Qadafy case was in truth hopeless from the beginning. The same cannot be said of an officer’s attempt to assure that the de facto Commander-in-Chief has actual authority to exercise the functions of that office de jure when there is information indicating that he does not. Appx. 262-63. IV. RULE 11 ASSESSMENT BASED ON ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT OF LAW: NO PROPER INQUIRY: NO HEARING This abdication by the lower court of its responsibility to examine the merits of the essential claim of the plaintiff Hollister, namely, that the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama is not a “natural born citizen” within the
10

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 15

meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, in which this Court has now joined, bears directly on the question of the assessment of the Rule 11 reprimand against the appellant Hemenway as the counsel who signed the complaint and other filings in this case. In Cooter & Gill, supra, the Supreme Court stated unequivocally that it is an abuse of discretion for a judge to rule that there was a violation of Rule 11 based on an erroneous view of the law. Id. 496 U.S. at 405. Here, since the lower court chose not to examine the central issue in the case it cannot have taken a correct view of the law to base its Rule 11 reprimand upon such a view. And this Court has adopted the abuse of discretion of the lower court without comment. The lower court based its dismissal solely upon its assessment of the use of the interpleader statute and hence its Rule 11 reprimand was based upon that procedural matter. But that assessment was clearly erroneous in that it focused solely upon the concept of property and not the clear word of the statute “obligation,” as pointed out in the briefing. The complaint clearly alleged “obligation” and “duty,” both concepts that are in the clear language of the statute and hence to be taken in their ordinary sense. By ignoring this, the lower court took an erroneous view of the law. Hence, as pointed out the lower court violated Ozawa, supra, Ohio v. Helvering, supra, City of Lincoln, supra, Helvering v. Haggar, supra, and Hammel v. Helvering, supra. The

11

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 16

ignoring of the assertions of obligation and duty in the complaint violated Twombly, supra and Conley v. Gibson, supra and was clearly an erroneous view of the law by the lower court which has now been endorsed by this court. Further, it was also made clear in Cooter & Gell that Rule 11 mandates that a judge applying it must conduct an inquiry into the facts of the pre-filing inquiry made by counsel. Here the lower court made

absolutely no effort to make such an inquiry and this Court has now adopted that position. The lower court based its rule 11 reprimand solely upon its erroneous view and did not inquire into the law at issue. Therefore, its assessment of any Rule 11 sanction was clearly erroneous. It refused to have a hearing to find out what the pre-filing inquiry had been and asked no questions at all about that inquiry. Thus it acted in contradiction to all the cases from other circuits cited above, Schlaifer, Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323 (2nd Cir. 1999); Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516 (11th Cir.1998); Davis v. Crush, 862 F.2d 84 (6th Cir.1988); Donaldson v. Clark 819 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir.1987); Chamaikin v. Yefimov, (2nd Cir.1991); Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, (9th Cir.1983); Eash v. Riggins Trucking Co., 757 F.2d 557 (3rd Cir.1985). All of these cases, as pointed out, make it

12

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 17

clear that no Rule 11 sanction should be levied without a hearing and some say it is a violation of due process to do so and some also add that there must be a particularized notice of what justifies the sanction, which did not happen here. Donaldson even points out that sanctions, without proper process, approach denial of access to the courts. We have pointed in our briefing that the 19th Century decisions such as John Marshall’s opinion in The Venus, supra, and Minor v. Happersett, supra, point out how it was that the concept of “natural born citizen” from Vattel’s treatise on the Law of Nations was what the founders had in mind. Just recently the records have been located that reveal that George Washington himself never returned his copy of this treatise that he borrowed from the New York Library. This court is obliged to coordinate with those 19th century decisions. Without ascertaining this, the warrant in law that they assert gives a Rule 11 sanction no validity. Respectfully submitted,

John D.Hemenway D.C. Bar #379663 Counsel for Appellants 4816 Rodman Street, NW Washington DC 20016 (202) 244-4819 johndhemenway@comcast.net

13

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 18

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1235943 1241041

Filed: 03/22/2010 04/21/2010

Page: 1

United States Court of Appeals
F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

____________

No. 09-5080

September Term 2009
08-cv-02254 Filed On: March 22, 2010

Gregory S. Hollister, Appellant v. Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse, also known as Barack Obama, et al., Appellees -----------------------------Consolidated with 09-5161

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE:

Henderson, Tatel, and Garland, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT

These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint. Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1235943 1241041

Filed: 03/22/2010 04/21/2010

Page: 2

United States Court of Appeals
F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

____________

No. 09-5080

September Term 2009

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. Per Curiam

Page 2

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 1

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________

No. 09-5080
Consolidating with 09-5161

September Term 2008
1:08-cv-02254-JR 1:08-cv-02254

Gregory S. Hollister, John David Hemenway, Appellants v. Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural person; de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse, also known as Barack Hussein Obama, et al. Appellees

CERTIIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES (A) Parties and Amici: The plaintiff below and the principal

appellant in this Court is Colonel Gregory S. Hollister (U.S.A.F. Ret.). The counsel for Colonel Hollister below who is appealing his reprimand in that court and is thus an appellant in this Court is John D. Hemenway, Esquire. The defendants below and the appellees in this court are Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama who was sued in his capacity as a natural person, de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., sued in his capacity as a natural person, as de jure Acting

1

Case: 09-5080

Document: 1241041

Filed: 04/21/2010

Page: 2

President in posse, as de jure President in posse; as the de jure VicePresident in posse. There are no Amici and there are no intervenors. (B) Rulings Under Review: The Rulings under review, all of

which were made by Judge James Robertson in the court below are: (1) ORDER of March 5, 2009, dismissing the plaintiff’s case and assessing a Rule 11 violation against John D. Hemenway, Esquire and ordering him to file a Show of Cause why it should not be enforced against him. App. 222; (2) MEMORANDUM containing rulings accompanying Order of March 5, 2009. App. 216; (3) MEMORANDUM ORDER of March 24, 2009. App. 262; (3) ORDER of February 26, 2009. App. 203; (4) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE of February 25, 2009. App. 157; (4) ORDER of February 11, 2009. App. 118; (5) ORDER of February 4, 2009. App. 65. None of the rulings, opinions or memoranda were reported in the Federal Supplement. Respectfully submitted, /s/ _______________________ John D. Hemenway Counsel for Appellants 4816 Rodman Street, NW Washington DC 20016 (202) 244-4819 D.C. Bar #379663 johndhemenway@comcast.net

2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->