Hollister v. Soetoro aka Barack Obama update and history, Judge James Robertson biased or incompetent, Bias or conspiracy?
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”
“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison
Is Judge James Robertson biased, incompetent or part of a conspiracy?
Citizen Wells December 30, 2008.
“Berg today, with co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire, filed another lawsuit in Federal Court in the United States District for the District of Columbia on behalf of Retired Colonel Hollister against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama demanding to know Obama’s real name and if he is constitutionally qualified to be President. Plaintiff, Gregory S. Hollister, is a resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and Hollister has “standing” and needs a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any Order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama.”
Read more:
Citizen Wells February 5, 2009.
“The following Order from DC District Court Judge James Robertson was issued for Hollister v. Soetoro yesterday:
ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is denied. His motion to shorten time for defendants to respond to his complaint [#3] is moot and is denied. The motions of his counsel [#4, #5] for the admission pro hac vice of Philip J. Berg and Lawrence J. Joyce are in abeyance until the Court has had the opportunity, in open court, to examine their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge”
Read more:
Citizen Wells March 6, 2009.
“The following is from a Memorandum issued by
United States District Judge James Robertson
on March 5, 2009. The Memorandum is a response
to the Hollister vs Soetoro lawsuit.”
“This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve
mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is
foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to
do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the
blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do
is to bring it to an early end.”
“The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force
colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief
(because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is
tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey
orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven — to the
colonel’s satisfaction — that Mr. Obama is a native-born
American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be
President. 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-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”
Read more:
The following statement by Judge Robertson should be sufficient to have him impeached:
“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-year-campaign
for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a
court.”
Obama’s citizenship may be an issue, but it is not the critical issue, which is his natural born citizen status and eligibility for the presidency per the US Constitution. Judge Robertson’s reference to the vetting of Obama on social media sites stands on it’s own for a high level of stupidity. The quote from Marbury v Madison above is the final arbiter of Judge Robertson’s guilt.
From World Net Daily November 26, 2010.
“Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter”
“The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.
The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.
He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution’s demand that presidents be a “natural born citizen,” a qualification not imposed on other many other federal officers.
The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.”
“The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:
- “Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?”
- “By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a ‘natural born citizen’ as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?”
- “In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that ‘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-year-campaign for the presidency’ combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?”
- “Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?”
- “Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?”
Read more:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=233177
Thanks to commenter GORDO.
Citizen WElls 