Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41888
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#251

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon May 24, 2010 2:12 pm

[quote name=realist]New Docket Entry...





05/24/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] JOINT LETTER FILED [1246221] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 pursuant to FRAP 28j advising of additional authorities [Service Date: 05/24/2010 ] [09-5080, 09-5161]




More "Vattel" and...





St. George Tucker emigrated from Bermuda before the Revolution, in


which he fought extensively. He married the widowed mother of John


Randolph of Roanoke, by whom he had two children. He taught law for


years at William and Mary. In 1804 he published the leading American


version of Blackstone of the time, in which he correlated Blackstone with


the Constitution. In the Appendix to Vol. 1, Note D, Sec. 14 he makes clear


that the Framers relied upon Vattel



MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#252

Post by MaineSkeptic » Mon May 24, 2010 2:13 pm

And this wasn't available until May 24, 2010 because . . . ?. . . MichaelN didn't complete his research until then.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34171
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#253

Post by realist » Mon May 24, 2010 2:13 pm

And this wasn't available until May 24, 2010 because . . . ?Because MichaelN had not informed them yet? :P


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34171
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#254

Post by realist » Mon May 24, 2010 2:15 pm

Maine...we posted at the same time...great minds and all that. :D


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Jay Bea
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:06 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#255

Post by Jay Bea » Mon May 24, 2010 2:23 pm

[quote name=Sterngard Friegen][quote name=realist]New Docket Entry...





05/24/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] JOINT LETTER FILED [1246221] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 pursuant to FRAP 28j advising of additional authorities [Service Date: 05/24/2010 ] [09-5080, 09-5161]




More "Vattel" and...





St. George Tucker emigrated from Bermuda before the Revolution, in


which he fought extensively. He married the widowed mother of John


Randolph of Roanoke, by whom he had two children. He taught law for


years at William and Mary. In 1804 he published the leading American


version of Blackstone of the time, in which he correlated Blackstone with


the Constitution. In the Appendix to Vol. 1, Note D, Sec. 14 he makes clear


that the Framers relied upon Vattel



User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8463
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#256

Post by verbalobe » Mon May 24, 2010 2:36 pm

Direct link to Section 14:[/break1]constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htm]http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htmIt is a rare form of scholarship that can find a printed page, that happens to mention within it both "natural born citizen" and "Vattel," and conclude that the writer is imputing to Vattel everything (or anything) regarding citizenship. I guess I'd call it googlewhack scholarship.I would like their view of the fact that in the very same note, Tucker treats "native-born" as synonymous with "natural-born." Ah, but we shall ignore that.



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#257

Post by nbc » Mon May 24, 2010 3:04 pm

Direct link to Section 14:[/break1]constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htm]http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htmIt is a rare form of scholarship that can find a printed page, that happens to mention within it both "natural born citizen" and "Vattel," and conclude that the writer is imputing to Vattel everything (or anything) regarding citizenship. I guess I'd call it googlewhack scholarship.I would like their view of the fact that in the very same note, Tucker treats "native-born" as synonymous with "natural-born." Ah, but we shall ignore that.As I pointed out before Newsweek had an interesting article on why people continue to believe the way they do, even though facts point to a different conclusion. Part of this involves the search for selective evidence.Cognitive dissonance at its best.



Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#258

Post by Curious Blue » Mon May 24, 2010 3:30 pm

New Scientist also has a great article on this:





Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth


[/break1]newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?full=true]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true





The best part is this:


How to be a denialist


[/break1]newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?full=true#bx276061B1]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... bx276061B1





Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use....:





1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.





2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.





3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.





4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.





5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.





6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.(The New Scientist article is concerned with people who deny climate change or evolution, as opposed to birthers... but apparently the basic thought process is the same)



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41888
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#259

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon May 24, 2010 3:31 pm

[quote name=verbalobe]Direct link to Section 14:





[/break1]constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htm]http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d14000.htm





It is a rare form of scholarship that can find a printed page, that happens to mention within it both "natural born citizen" and "Vattel," and conclude that the writer is imputing to Vattel everything (or anything) regarding citizenship. I guess I'd call it googlewhack scholarship.





I would like their view of the fact that in the very same note, Tucker treats "native-born" as synonymous with "natural-born." Ah, but we shall ignore that.




Great catch. From what I can see, Vattel is being cited for something about international law. For Hemenway to assert what he has asserted seems to be intentionally misleading the court.





Hemenway's Letter Represents:


In the Appendix to Vol. 1, Note D, Sec. 14 he makes clear that the Framers relied upon Vattel



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11070
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Here
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#260

Post by Whatever4 » Mon May 24, 2010 6:12 pm




Treaties, as defined by Puffendorf 280, are certain agreements made by sovereigns, between one another, of great use both in war, and peace; of these, there are two kinds; the one such as reinforce the observance of what by the law of nature we were before obliged to; as the mutual exercise of civility, and humanity, or the prevention of injuries on either side; the second, such as add some new engagement to the duties of natural law; or at least determine what was before too general and indefinite in the same, to some thing particular, and precise 281. Of those which add some new engagement to those duties which natural law imposes upon all nations, the most usual relate to, or in their operation may affect, the sovereignty of the state; the unity of its parts, it's territory, or other property; it's commerce with foreign nations, and vice versa; the mutual privileges and immunities of the citizens, or subjects of the contracting powers, or the mutual aid of the contracting nations, in case of an attack, or hostility, from any other quarter. [highlight]To all these objects, if there be nothing in the fundamental laws of the state which contradicts it, the power of making treaties extends, and is vested in the conductors of states, according to the opinion of Vattel.[/highlight]





It's all about "treaties." Would Hemenway lie? He wouldn't do that, would he? Oh, I forgot. He's a birfer. They lie as much as they can and hope no one will check their "scholarship."He's a birfer who googled for subjects, citizens, and Vattel. Which he got. But it doesn't have anything to do with the definition of NBC. I'm wondering about his level of understanding. ](*,)


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19108
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#261

Post by TollandRCR » Mon May 24, 2010 6:22 pm

It's all about "treaties." Would Hemenway lie? He wouldn't do that, would he? Oh, I forgot. He's a birfer. They lie as much as they can and hope no one will check their "scholarship."Maybe they got confused by the part about "conductors of states." When you cannot understand something, the Birfer rule is "ignore it."





An interesting tidbit that they might have overlooked: St. George Tucker was a gradualist abolitionist, as evidenced by his 1796 [link]A Dissertation on Slavery, With a Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It in the State of Virginia,http://medicolegal.tripod.com/tuckeruos.htm[/link]. Although Tucker's plan would have retained slavery for 100 years, his ideas about slavery may be an annoyance to some Birfers -- those who reject the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25013
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#262

Post by Foggy » Mon May 24, 2010 6:58 pm

When I was practicing law, I was terrified of making a stupid argument like that. Not that I never made any stupid arguments, but jeez ... :roll:


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you're trying to say?
:think:

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41888
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#263

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon May 24, 2010 9:01 pm

When I was practicing law, I was terrified of making a stupid argument like that. Not that I never made any stupid arguments, but jeez ... :roll:This wasn't a stoopid argument buried in a brief, maybe after two or three decent arguments. No siree. This was a stoopid argument that Hemenway shouldered aside the rules to make, misrepresenting what was written in a treatise a couple of centuries ago. Which he apparently just discovered (thus "newly discovered evidence . . ."), by Googling "subject," "citizen" and Vattel" and getting a B I N G O ! As Whatever4 points out, if those 3 words are all found together in the same . . . paragraph . . . that's proof that the Framers meant to use de Vattel's writings on citizenship issues. Sorry, but that's an argument that I think even MichaelN would be embarrassed to make. Well, maybe not.



User avatar
Highlands
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:19 am
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#264

Post by Highlands » Mon May 24, 2010 9:13 pm

Sorry, but that's an argument that I think even MichaelN would be embarrassed to make. Well, maybe not.Sterny, birfers have no shame.


If you took out all of the blood vessels in your body and lined them up, you would be dead. #science

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#265

Post by Welsh Dragon » Mon May 24, 2010 9:15 pm

"Sterngard Friegen"Great catch. From what I can see, Vattel is being cited for something about international law. For Hemenway to assert what he has asserted seems to be intentionally misleading the court. Contemptous, was the word that flew into my head when I saw it.




User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3074
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#267

Post by Dallasite » Mon May 24, 2010 9:34 pm

From Volume 1 - Appendix Note D:


A president of the United States must have attained the middle age of life, before he is eligible to that office: if not a native, he must have been fourteen years a resident in the United States: his talents and character must consequently be known.Gee Tucker uses the word "native" when describing "natural born citizen". I guess Hollister and Hemenway missed that.


"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34171
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#268

Post by realist » Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:25 am

These people are unbelievable.





New Docket Entry...





05/31/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] JOINT MOTION filed [1247245] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 to recuse (Response to Motion served by mail due on 06/14/2010) [Service Date: 05/31/2010 by email] Pages: 16-20. [09-5080, 09-5161]


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22728
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#269

Post by bob » Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:33 am

"de facto President in posse; and as de jure President in posse"An attorney wrote that? Not Strunk?


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7763
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#270

Post by PatGund » Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:59 am

Take a look at the two letters at the end. They're dating from around 1994 and seem to be Hollister's attempt to find out if Bill Clinton was in office unconstitutionally, or if Clinton was guilty of treason at some point for organizing student protests against Vietnam while at Oxford.Not to mention Hemenway's complete dismissal of Berg like he had NOTHING to do with the original case, stating that Berg wasn't even admitted pro hac vice and there was no reason for Berg's previous cases to have been cited in the original court documents. I don't think that will work - all that the court has to do is look at the original case documents, with Berg's name on them and almost word-for-word similarities to Berg's cases.Hemenway can play born again de Vattelist all he wants, but I don't think it will save his appeal. And all the letters from Hollister show is he seems to have a vendetta against Democrats in the White House - which in turn makes his lawsuit against Obama seem even more partisan.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41888
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#271

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:09 am

Why was this not part of the opening brief? It's b.s., but it should have been in the opening brief. Of course, it has nothing to do with the issue on appeal. It's just another attempt to file more argument. And the silly characterizations of President Obama's office plus calling him Soetoro mark the author as a nut. (Again.)



User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#272

Post by Epectitus » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:26 am

Okay... I admit to being a little behind on this one. So help me keep this straight.





The case in on Appeal, right? Judge Robertson's work is already done.





What possible reason would they have for him recuse himself at this point? I mean, unless the Court of Appeals sends it back down to District Court?


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#273

Post by Tesibria » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:38 am

Okay... I admit to being a little behind on this one. So help me keep this straight.





The case in on Appeal, right? Judge Robertson's work is already done.





What possible reason would they have for him recuse himself at this point? I mean, unless the Court of Appeals sends it back down to District Court?Well, yes, technically, it's still "on appeal" -- but -- the D.C. Cir. has already been AFFIRMED the trial court's opinion(s) -- in March!!





Since the affirmance, Hemenway/Hollister have filed:


1. PETITION for hearing en banc. [04/21/2010]


2. MOTION to publish (the per curiam opinion) [04/21/2010]


3. LETTER advising court of additional authorities [5/24/2010]


4. MOTION to recuse (trial court judge AND suggestion that those involved in per curiam affirmance also "consider" recusing themselves) [5/31/2010]


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#274

Post by Tesibria » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:40 am

Take a look at the two letters at the end. They're dating from around 1994 and seem to be Hollister's attempt to find out if Bill Clinton was in office unconstitutionally, or if Clinton was guilty of treason at some point for organizing student protests against Vietnam while at Oxford.Yes. Hemenway referenced that in one of his briefs - something re: how could Robertson question Hollister's sincerity/patriotism when Hollister has been seeking to uphold the Constitution for years, including with prior presidents. ... ...


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”