Tag Archives: Hollister v Soetoro aka Barack Obama

Hollister v Soetoro aka Barack Obama, Update, June 3, 2010, Motion for recusal of Judge Robertson, Attorney John D. Hemenway motion

Hollister v Soetoro aka Barack Obama, Update, June 3, 2010, Motion for recusal

From Attorney John D. Hemenway.

“On behalf of Colonel Gregory Hollister, et al, Attorney John D. Hemenway filed a “Motion for Recusal” in the Colonel Gregory Hollister, et al, v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, et al, lawsuit now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Judge in question is Judge Robertson who ruled the issue of “the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and was otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry…,” among numerous other bias statements. Atty Hemenway cites numerous cases including a SCOTUS case regarding bias and the recusal of Judges. The Motion for Recusal embedded below the snippet speaks for itself and is well worth the time to read.

This is the same Judge that ruled that Jihadists at Gitmo are entitled to the same benefits as our Troops.

Page 18: It is evident that from the outset to the end of his second opinion the lower court judge was operating with a strong bias, much of it derived from extrajudicial sources. We have previously mentioned that the late Norbert Wiener, in his seminal work “Cybernetics” in the 1950’s said presciently that what most people did not realize was that the information revolution that was then coming and which is now upon us would mean not just the decentralization of information but the decentralization of decision making itself. We now see that with the rise of the blogosphere and the springing up of countless independent websites not part of the centralized command media that arose in the initial days of nationalized broadcasting in the 1930’s and 1940’s and 1950’s. We see today meetings in which ordinary citizens know more about what is in the details of a bill than their Member of Congress or Senator does. The dissemination is instantaneous and the rise in independent decision-making about officeholders and their doings is overwhelming. One result is a never before seen, at least since the founding days themselves, interest in the Constitution and adherence to it as a basic principle of our Rule of Law.

This inevitably has an effect upon the insistence upon an objective appearance of an absence of bias which 28 U.S.C. 455 in its present form commands. In this case the court below has become widely known in the country and will go down in history as the “blogging and twittering” judge, one for whom a sort of affirmative action progressivism is more important than protecting and preserving the Constitution sufficiently to actually analyze the issues it presents. However, in the present structure of communications, Orwellian “memory holes” become very difficult to operate despite earnest efforts.

The defendant Soetoro has in a never before seen maneuver, used a State of the Union address to try and openly intimidate the Supreme Court into not carefully adhering to the Constitution, like a Cook County politico with the courts there. He has announced at a prayer breakfast that it is not “allowed” to know about his birth documentation. Mr. Justice Thomas has observed that the issues here are being avoided. So the message has been received. Politically orchestrated “unthinkability” of course, is no substitute for the application of the Rule of Law. It presents at the very least the spectacle of decisions being made on the basis of political bias. History will not be escaped. It will reveal whether this audacious and knowing attempt to get around the Constitution and one of its most specific requirements will succeed through a tactic of seeking to intimidate and control the courts to prevent them from applying a constitutional rule of law or whether its judges will take their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution as seriously as those who have sworn the oath to preserve and protect in the military such as Colonel Hollister do. In a very real sense it is our system of a constitutional rule of law that is on trial here, and that is under attack. Those who will not defend and protect as they have sworn to do should recuse themselves.

Their decision, in adopting the opinion below, should they chose to do so, without analyzing the actual issues, is a political one echoing the bias we have set out. As such it presents at least the appearance that violates 28 U.S.C. § 455 and they are, therefore, bound to recuse themselves.

Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for Appellants”