Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending Case

The following Order from DC District Court Judge James Robertson was issued for Hollister v. Soetoro yesterday:


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.
United States District Judge

This order does not dismiss the case; it merely tackles certain, specific issues that the Plaintiff requested. A commenter on another forum expressed the same sentiment:

Clarification: The Judge did not dismiss the case. The complaint is for Interpleader and Declaratory (and injunctive) relief. Therefore, the case is still alive (hence, the holding motions for acmission pro hac vicein abeyance, pending hearing) — at least pending the judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Thus, although the interpleader aspect of the case was the thing that made some folks believe it had a better shot, the case is still alive. 

Although it’s dangerous to try to read too far into an order, it could be that the judge did not dismiss the case entirely precisely because he wants the attorneys to appear in open court and defend their competence, good faith, factual/legal basis for filing the complaint.

Bottom line: the case is still pending pursuant to further action by the Court.


65 thoughts on “Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending Case”

  1. The Judges have reprimanded the attorneys in some cases for harrassing and nonsense lawsuits.

    As far as I could ascertain the Judge in the first Berg case was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994(?). Of course Hillary is for now SoS and would lose her position as SoS if Barry was unseated.

    Most likely the Judge in question is a DEM((A search of donors should be made to see if the Judge is on the Barry campaign donor’s list.), owes allegience and legal baggage to Bill Clinton and by inference Hillary, most likely voted for Barry in the general(Find out if judge has a Barak Obama bumper sticker on his car and had campaign signs on his lawn?), is on the short list to become the next SC justice especially if Ginsberg were to retire for health reasons, and he were to return a descision that favors Barry Soetoro.

    This Judge has discernable conflict of interest when hearing any case involving Barry Soetoro and did not recuse himself from hearing the case.

    Further this discernable conflict of interest can be shown by the very fact this Judge has decided w/o argument or discovery that Barry is eligible to hold the office same as the above mentioned congress, electors, SoSs, etc..

    How did this judge come to the conclusion that Barry was in deed eligible?

    One would have to conclude by the same method the congress, electors, SoSs and everyone else involved in blocking the cases so far has… By hearsay evidence!

    The certification on factcheck, their examination of said certification, any uncrossexamined statements by any Hawaiian official et al.

    Could some semblance of an appeal be made based on these facts and may even overturn this and any other Judge’s cititation of the need for standing in these cases, frivilous and harrassing rulings etc..

    The plaintiff attorneys should be able to turn the table on the Judge and demand the defense attorneys pay their fees based on the defense attorneys use of questionable legal manuvering and citing a legally unverified document as proof instead of addressing the charges as the plaintiff attorneys are officers of the court, are pressing for the investigation of a crime and and as such are under that weight to press suits that involve crimes against the constitution(By citing the eligibility clause they have shown they believe a crime is being committed.) and perjury by the usurper president(Ditto if Barry Soetoro is a name in connection w/the usurper president stating he went by no other name in his past?).

    Perhaps the plaintiff attorneys risk getting cited for contempt but even that could be construed as bias when these facts are presented in an appeal.

    What do you think?

  2. “which is why Hawaii requires the long form in some cases.”
    did you call Hawaii on this, I am from Hawaii and they won’t send my daughter the “long form”, “…we no longer supply that” said the clerk. Only “Certificate of Birth” is sent, which she received and it resembles Obamas.

    instead of repeating rumors call the State, though they won’t give info on an individual, they will give info on what they do and on their law. Their phone number is at bottom of their info site, so call them for the facts or continue with hearsay!

    when I called, the call cost 0.85, can you afford that or are you unwilling to face the truth.

  3. Hi Georgetown,

    I agree with your comment above regarding the status of Berg v. Obama at the 3rd Circuit Merits Panel. The point I was trying to make was to rebut a previous statement by another poster that the case was dead because of the SCOTUS denials.

    Regarding certified state records being classified as best evidence. That may be true in most cases. However, in Hawaii they require the long form BC for certain transactions because they recognize that it is more reliable than a computer generated Certification of live birth.

    I do realize that a COLB is accepted for some transactions. I used mine to get a passport. I have both in my desk. Do you not agree that it would be easier for a forger to create or doctor a COLB than a certified copy of a birth certificate? It would be easier yet to Photoshop when it is online scanned image. It is also contains more info than the COLB which is why Hawaii requires the long form in some cases.

    In my opinion there is no situation more crucial than ascertaining the citizenship of a person who is assuming the office of POTUS.

    Here is what makes me more and more suspicious as time goes by. I have both and would not hesitate to present either one if required to identify myself. I have nothing to hide. I would never consider fighting lawsuits coast to coast to avoid showing either document. But then again, I have nothing to hide. That makes me believe more and more that the vast amount circumstantial evidence suggesting that Obama is hiding something very damning has merit.

    I believe that you are an attorney or legal aide of some kind. If I am wrong, please correct me on that point. As a legal advisor, can you put forth any legitimate theories as to why Obama is being advised to avoid proving his citizenship and gaining the trust of the American people? Presenting his long form BC would put a huge dent in the cases being made against him. I won’t say all because there is still the issue of dual citizenship / allegiance at birth. Also, there is the question regarding traveling to Pakistan under unknown citizenship / allegiance. When John McCain was confronted with the same issue he promptly provided a certified copy of his long form BC. Help me understand. Why is it so important to Obama to hide his proof of citizenship that he would fight in courts coast to coast?

    One constitutional lawyer on another site suggested that if Obama was his client he would tell him to disclose a certified copy of his long form birth certificate immediately or find another lawyer. However, this advice would only be valid if the client has nothing to hide.

    How would you advise me if I were your client? I want to run for POTUS. I used my COLB on line to ID myself. There was public outcry and lawsuits filed to see my long form BC. Would you advise me to fight the cases on technicalities or would you advise me to show my long form BC?

    Thanks, Ken

  4. Bob,

    You said to google and I did. You rushed to a conclusion that I financially support Berg. Then you say to google “Neil Abercrombie Obama” and I did so. Sorry that I didn’t see the luncheon reference on the first page of the googled results. I suppose the comment about sending Berg more money is directed at Phil as well? I guess on the next motion to dismiss, your information can be added in a footnote right after the factcheck one?

  5. Georgetown JD,

    How about attaching a copy of the long form to the motion to dismiss instead of citing Factcheck in a footnote? What do you think of the best evidence rule? I know, I know, Obama has no been ordered to produce anything so back to square one.

    1. Sharon,

      That is the whole heart of the matter. Soetoro needs to go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence. There’s a little thing called “Self Evidence”. Examples:

      1. All men are created equal
      2. All are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
      3. Real presidents do not fight requests to see their qualifications

      We expect the president to be the most patriotic of all of us. Patriots proudly wear their qualifications on their sleeve. They disclose to all they are a patriot and a natural born citizen “just like you and me”. They do not change the “hail to the chief”, toss out the Constitution, refuse legal requests challlenging his allegiance, refuse to respect the pledge of allegiance, or willingly become a member of the Socialist party.

    2. I think the best evidence rule is fine.

      Official certified copies of state records falls within the best evidence rule. The State of Hawaii’s certification of live birth is, under the rules of evidence, deemed the best evidence of the facts stated therein, to-wit: the name of the baby, the names of the mother and father, the date and time of birth, the place of birth.

      If the document is offered for the purpose proving the place of birth, the short form contains that information; the long form adds nothing more. Hence, a court would accept the short form, as do the State Department, Social Security Administration, the MVD in my state, and all the schools that my children have attended in three states.

  6. Berg’s case, Berg v. Obama has been sent to the merits Panel at the third circuit Court of Appeals. I don’t know were it is headed in the end but it is alive for now. If it is denied at the 3rd circuit he can appeal that decision to the SCOTUS.

    Thanks, Ken

    1. Hi, MC Guy. Only the FEC’s motion for summary adjudication has been sent to the merits panel. The case in chief has not been sent to the panel yet. If the FEC’s motion is granted, the Third Circuit will effectively affirm the District Court, and Berg can re-file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

  7. “You again, rushed to a conclusion.”
    no rush, I am from Hawaii and in Abercrombie’s district, he sponsored the “Veterans for Obama” luncheon. I campaigned for his friend Dan Inouye.

  8. “If I remember correctly,, SCOTUS also denied the cert petition in Berg v. Obama, which renders the amicus moot.”
    that’s true, Berg is milking the one “granted” he got to raise funds. He implies hope that this case is not over. if you call Berg he will say “not over”, if you call the court they will say “it’s over”
    so dear sucker, send money, Berg is in dire need!

    1. Sharon,

      How about writing a letter to Rep. Abercrombie and enclosing all of the “evidence” of Obama’s birth in Kenya? That would be one way to tease out the Congressman’s knowledge about whether our President was born in Honolulu or Mombasa.

      I know where I’d put my money.

  9. You jumped to a big conclusion with your line that he knows he was born in Hawaii. Wiki editors must have read the same Post article you read, the subject of which is kind of interesting:

    “Would the Obama campaign please hush and listen to Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) for crying out loud? He’s desperately trying to tell you something – but you won’t listen. In fact, you won’t event take his phone calls.

    ‘I call all the time but I never get through,’ a wildly frustrated Abercrombie tells the Sleuth.” . . .

  10. Being on the short list of future Obama nominees?

    Is the possible supreme court nomination by Obama
    a valid reason to excuse him from being involved
    in the case?

    A favorable ruling could certainly up his chances and
    be perceived to taint his judgement could it not?

  11. interesting story on a U.S. Congressman that knew Obama as child:
    Neil Abercrombie (born June 26, 1938) is a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Hawaii’s 1st congressional district since 1991. There he attended classes with and befriended future United States Senator and current United States President Barack Obama’s parents, Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. As a result, Abercrombie is the only member of Congress to have met Barack Obama when Obama was a child and knows he was born in Hawaii!

    google “Neil Abercrombie Obama” for details

    1. They can move that the judge be disqualified from hearing the case, but it doesn’t seem like any of the conditions for disqualification/recusal under 28 U.S.C. §455 are present.

  12. Interpleader is a form of action originally developed under equity jurisprudence. It allows a plaintiff to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute.

    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.

    Abeyance is a state of expectancy in respect of property, titles or office.

    Pro hac vice, Latin for “for this occasion” or “for this event,” (literally, “for this turn”) is a legal term usually referring to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction but has been allowed to participate in a particular case in that jurisdiction.

    The right to appear pro hac vice is not guaranteed. Rather, the attorney wanting to practice in a jurisdiction within which he or she is not licensed must specifically request permission from the court to be able to appear as an attorney of record.

    This is accomplished with a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, where another attorney who is licensed in the jurisdiction requests that the non-licensed attorney be admitted to practice in a particular case.

    In addition to the motion, the non-licensed attorney is typically required to provide the court with a statement from his local bar association indicating that he is a member in good standing and also pay a small fee to the local bar association.

    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.

    In general, the Judge is actually challenging Philip Berg and Lawrence Joyce’s credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed, rather than the defendant’s ability to produce documents.

    In other words, are the Attorney’s nuts and filing frivolous law suits which could cost them the loss of their Licenses without a single burden placed upon the defendant? It is an examination of the lawyers, not the defendant upon which the judge is making his ruling.


  13. Phil,

    I agree with you on the point that Leo himself admits to some paranoia. I don’t know enough about Sinclair to speak to that, but I think Leo was saying that he was being “warned” rather than “they missed him.” Do you see the difference? He also alluded to something occurring with his and family members’ cell phones.

    I won’t jump to conclusions, but who would believe that a sitting president would refuse such a simple request?

    I am glad to see your new post up. The more exposure, the better.

  14. Phil,

    When I read your response to Ace, it sounds very reasonable. Then I read Leo Donofrio’s personal account (see his True Story after his latest post) and am trying to see whether the truth lies closer to what you rationally state and what Ace emotionally states. I believe Leo’s account, not because I want to believe or have to believe but because he seems credible. I would be curious to hear your reaction. Leo is taking himself out of the picture. Just a few days ago, he was very interested in the idea of service people having standing as plaintiffs. Then, when commenters started suggesting that soldiers disobey orders, he cut all ties to the idea first of all, because he never suggested such actions but most of all IMO, he is afraid. The juxtaposition of his True Story after his proclamation that he is done indicates that.

    1. Sharon 2,

      I, too, have read the story. He readily admits to having been personally very paranoid throughout the entire situation of going to SCOTUS.

      While I will not say that someone’s experience isn’t their experience (that’s logically infeasible anyway), I will say that what he recounted was his take on the situation. Is it possible that the government was after him? Perhaps, but it could have been equally possible that there was another situation going down and he happened to be at “the right place at the right time” (he also admits to this possibility in his posting).

      For Leo, he can speak for himself, obviously. He can also do what he chooses RE: eligibility of the President. However, my view is that if someone were really after Leo, they would have gotten to him by now. After all, it’s not just changed hair and clothes that profilers look at; there’s also a distinct gait to everyone’s walk, there’s a way that people nonverbally communicate with everyone, and so on.

      As further evidence that Leo may have simply been a bit too paranoid, look what’s happened with Larry Sinclair. He has already produced copious amounts of information of what he claims has happened to him — everything from direct phone calls from alleged Obama associates to multiple email accounts and web sites being sabotaged (for Leo, the closest thing that’s happened to him in this respect is what’s called a “denial of service” attack on his original blogtext site).

      The Clinton and the Chicago Machines get the job done, else they wouldn’t be around for very long (I contend that the Clinton Machine is simply much more “clean” than the thugs of the Chicago Machine).

      Thanks for the comment,


      1. Phil,
        Not sure if you’re suggesting Sinclair was targeted or not, but after Sinclair’s “press conference” last summer, I can’t imagine anyone seeing him as a big enough threat to waste valuable campaign time (and money) to target him for anything.

  15. When could the opposing actions of a POTUS at a time of war with absolute responsibility to protect country against foes both outside and inside start being considered as treasonous??? Will those in authority in both the military and cabinet actually follow him over the cliff of self destruction?

        1. JeffM,

          I beg to differ. Obama is President and he is innocent of any charges until otherwise shown to be legally convicted of such.

          On the flip side, just because a case hasn’t been heard yet simply means nobody’s been smart enough to figure out a way to bring the ineligibility issue forward in a manner that is consistent with modern-day jurisprudence (and no, I don’t buy that some conspiratorial “fix” is in with anything). And concerning some “fix being in” (not to say that you’re suggesting this), I have seen zero evidence that such a thing is transpiring.

          In fact, my view is that it’s about time that petitioners learn from previous cases’ mistakes and come up with a new strategy regarding pursuing ineligibility. After all, insanity is sometimes considered to be doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results. My archived page of defunct cases is ample evidence of this.

          Thanks for the comment,


          1. If a person robs a bank, they are a bank robber, even if they have not been convicted in a court of law.

            If a person is constitutionally ineligible to be President Of the United States, then they are not President, even if they have not yet been proven ineligible in a court of law.

            What you can say with certainty is that Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President has not been determined in a court of law, so he is presumed to be eligible in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that he is eligible.

            Individuals don’t have to adhere to the “innocent until proven guilty” standard. My personal opinion is that it is the responsibility of the candidate to prove to me that he is eligible to be President. Obama has not proven to me that he is eligible. I will not consider him to be President until he does so.

  16. I hope that this is not a factor. I looked around for some background on this judge. He was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994. He is considered to be very liberal. One article opined that he may be at the top of Barry’s list for SCOTUS appointments when that time comes. If that is true, he would have to be way left of very liberal. These articles were not written in connection with this case.

    Thanks, Ken

  17. Da Verg – Under our Constitution judges have life tenure and can only be removed by impeachment. They do not have prove their competency to individual attorneys or litigants. They are appointed by presidents and confirmed by the Senate. Read Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 78 and 79 on the importance of life tenure.

    Our courts are not intended to be a circus or a political soapbox. Judges have every right to examine the competency and good faith of the lawyers wishing to appear before them, particularly lawyers not admitted in that jurisdiction. Make no mistake about it, the judge isn’t giving Berg an opportunity to prove his case. Berg is being asked to show that he should be allowed to practice in that court at all.

  18. does not matter what is on the tape, obama is still not a natural born citizen

    i like phil’s response above on Berg having to prove his case.

    berg would need evidence to do so, and ask to subpoena all of obama’s records, this would make the tape argument go away

    if , as others says, it’s a test of their competency or test of their evidence those are two different things.

    if it is competency, then plaintiff’s can turn around and test the competency of the judge, too, and ask for a new one…..no? drastic measure, likely to piss off the judge if denied. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

  19. A lot of wishful thinking.

    The whole case was built around interpleader. Courts do not throw around the term “frivolous” lightly. If the court thought the interpleader motion was frivolous, it will rule the same way on the underlying complaint.

    The court calling Berg and Joyce into court to have their good faith, etc. examined is a serious step. I would say they are likely to be chastised or sanctioned.

  20. Phil,

    I am only pointing out what is obvious here. The courts are treating this as a political question. They don’t want anything to do with it. They are dismissing all of this as frivolous.
    I don’t agree with them disparaging Berg, but this is what they are doing.
    The problem is: the whole system is corrupt and phony. A citizen doesn’t have standing over his own government?? The real service Berg is providing, and I wish he would be conscious of it, is that this system of government is a fraud, and always has been. Phil from Pennsylvania or Leo the poker player, or Orly the immigrant are never, in a million years, going to get Soetoro removed from office. On the contrary, these efforts are in fact solidifying Soetoro’s power.
    This government is corrupt from top to bottom, and is a separate entity from the people it alleges to serve.

    1. Ace,

      OK. Let’s use the correct terminology around here, because if the “whole system is corrupt and phony,” then you have zero hope anywhere, because the American system of government is the least imperfect system out there. I don’t think that’s what you mean.

      I think what you mean is that the people in the system are what is corrupt, and to a certain degree, I would agree with you. However, does that mean that no justice is able to be garnered from the system? I believe that’s an inherently false presumption. I’ll explain.

      The ineligibility of the President is a political question, hence why they’re quite loath to consider it (I don’t think anyone wants the Judiciary to get involved in political disputes any more than they absolutely have to, because in many other cases, people gripe and complain about how the Courts have overturned elections and what not).

      Secondly, no judge is “disparaging” Berg in the slightest. What this ruling said was that Berg and Joyce’ involvement is considered “in abeyance” for this case. Did you actually click on that phrase to read the Wikipedia article on the term? That’s why I include those links, so that you can further educate yourself! Basically, this means that the judge isn’t going to make a yes/no decision until such time as these two guys can show that they should be able to essentially help petition for the petitioner. I’m not sure what’s “disparaging” about that order.

      Thirdly, “a citizen doesn’t have standing over his own government??” Not in the case where a common citizen doesn’t directly elect the President! I would be willing to wager — as an illustration of who would have standing — that if a Secretary of State were to file suit, they would be granted standing, because they have complete jurisdiction in their respective State over that State’s election (and everything that the position entails).

      Fourthly, there is nothing that Berg, Taitz, et al. are doing to “solidfy Soetoro’s power.” That is a fabrication that is constructed on a true conspiracy theory that can never be proven. Just because cases are dismissed doesn’t mean precedence is being set. Just because some citizens are making noise doesn’t change the efficacy of the President’s ability to stay in office. Again, I fail to see what evidence substantiates this claim.

      There are two bottom lines to your sentiment, and if you’re not already pissed off at me by this point, I guarantee you will be once I’m through:

      1. Anyone wishing to disprove the President’s eligibility is going to have to find a way to show that the President is, in fact, ineligible. I’m not saying it’s fair or easy, considering the fact that the President is in no way, at this time, legally obligated to furnish vital records. I am saying, however, that one cannot possibly go to Court and say, essentially, “I believe the President is ineligible based on the fact that I think he isn’t.” That’s a contrived theory with no direct evidence to substantiate it.

      2. By virtue of your comment, you have made yourself powerless to do anything about any issue in this country. If you honestly believe that the entire system is bad and that, subsequently, you cannot do anything about it, then it’s lost for you. You might as well pack up your proverbial toys and go home, because there’s nothing else you can do.

      Get your head out of your buttocks and start thinking on your own for once. There is no “grand conspiracy” forcing you to make decisions against your own will. And just because a Court isn’t always ruling in your own favor doesn’t mean you give up and go put your head in the proverbial sand.

      People who think that they have zero say in any aspect of government have already lost, and I’m simply not going to beat my head against that kind of proverbial brick wall.


      1. You couldn’t be more wrong, Phil. The eligibility of the President is not a political question. Either he qualifies or he does not. There is nothing subjective about that.

        SCOTUS has granted amicus and AZ elector, Bill Anderson, leave to file an Amicus Curiae which posits SCOTUS is facing a question pertaining to the prudential considerations of standing and the lack of an adequate remedy following
        the inauguration of Barack Obama.

        “With respect to the prudential considerations of standing, certain aspects of this case are analogous to the doctrine of
        res ipsa loquitur.” [quoting Amicus Bill Anderson by and through his counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, Esq.]

        SCOTUS has agreed with amicus common sense dictates this case, Berg v. Obama, must be heard and evidence examined. Obama is using procedural rules to block and not to enlighten. Only Obama can prove his eligibility because he has prevented others from disproving it.

        Rules of evidence are in place to protect the rights of the citizenship and not prevent the trier of fact from shedding light on the truth.

        1. SvenMagnussen,

          While I do not disagree that the amicus curiae had been granted by SCOTUS, that, per se, doesn’t mean much until somehow the contents of that document can somehow be brought to bear on the President.

          As you are probably aware, the Supreme Court — as well as the entirety of the Judiciary — does not have the authority or “energy” to propose something to be litigated; that can be as frustrating as hell for a lot of folks, but I don’t think we’d want that to be any other way.

          In the meantime, perhaps an attorney could advise on how the curiae could be brought forward via a slightly different case.

          Regarding the question of eligibility, I do agree that it’s a yes/no issue. However, as the American electoral system stands right now, the Legislative branch has firmly ensconced this issue on their side, whereby a number of State and federal entities are supposed to be the apparent watchdogs. Therefore, that’s why it’s a political question at this time, even though the Judiciary could — and has — rule on ineligibility; the insidious thing about it is that since it’s encapsulated within the Legislative, the Judicial is wary of stepping on toes.

          Thanks for the comment,


  21. It is pretty obvious that the judge is a buddy of Andy Martin. In which case you are playing against the judges STACKED DECK. But keep exact records of everything that transpires. Later you might be mighty thankful for having done so.

  22. “Could it be reasonable to assume that the judge is “daring,” for lack of a better term, Berg or Joyce to produce evidence for their petition?”

    relate that to this notation on court order “Plaintiff’s motion to file interpleader and deposit funds with the court [#2] is frivolous and is denied.”

    1. Dr. Conspiracy,

      Could it be reasonable to assume that the judge is “daring,” for lack of a better term, Berg or Joyce to produce evidence for their petition? As in: “You show me something substantially in hand that gives me reason to believe that I, as judge, should order the President to produce any evidence other than what he has already shown.”

      For me, if that’s a reasonable inference, that would be a pretty tall order, as the Defendant could simply say, “We’ve already revealed a certification of live birth, obviously showing that the President was born in Hawaii.” Further, since there’s no law that obligates a candidate to furnish vital documentation for the presidency, and the onus is on the Plaintiff to show something that substantiates such an obligation, it is possible that Berg/Joyce could be in quite a pickle.

      In other words, for this case, is it enough to say to the judge: “Colonel Hollister could be called up to active duty and so needs to be sure that the President is eligible for the office.” Is the “call” enough in hand substantiation to convince the judge to order additional documentation?

      I guess we’ll find out.

      Thanks for the comment,


      1. I don’t mean to always seem like the devil’s advocate, but can one really expect a court to be the one to present, order, or gather evidence against a defendant? Isn’t it up to a plaintiff to present hard evidence or already effected real harm done to the court in order to proceed? And since Hollister was the potent injection into this case, what is now left for the court to legitimately hear?

        I really think it’s going to take a public awakening to the seemingly dastardly orders and moves by an America hating POTUS along with the dangerous effects of such orders to make people listen and give reason to believe and even wish for that ineligibility to come to light. If Obama is using fear mongering to proceed with his socialist agenda (based on the Alinsky tactics of creating chaos), more shouts from the media about the REAL effects of these actions already being taken – frivolous stimulus package, orders protecting terrorist enemies of the U.S., forcing faith based groups to intermingle their works with the evil of abortion promotion, placing unethical people in positions of power, etc.

        Did anyone catch any of that hysteria-creating “speech” made yesterday by Obama? Very frightening indeed. Our country is now definitely being tested re: the wholesale choice between good and evil. What happens next to us is dependent upon that free will choice.

      2. I think that was addressed in Obama’s response: “In
        addition, even if these peculiar claims built on a hypothetical recall to active military duty are
        taken at face value, plaintiff is engaged in the rankest speculation: He does not even allege a
        basis for believing that his return to duty is likely, much less probable.”

    2. Rule 11, son. Nothing in the world smells like that.

      I love the smell of Rule 11 in the morning. You know one time, we had this plaintiff bombed for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn’t find one of ’em, not one stinking bit of evidentiary support. The smell, you know that treble costs smell, the whole plaintif. Smelled like…victory.

      Someday Berg’s gonna get disbarred.

    3. Rule 11 could be big trouble for Berg and Joyce. For example, paragraph 19 of the complaint refers to the taped phone call between Ron McRae and Sarah Obama (via translators), and falsely states, “Bishop McRae asked Ms. Obama where Soetoro was born; Ms. Obama answered in Swahili and was very adamant that Soetoro was born in Kenya.”

      The recording of that conversation is now widely available. The court could easily nail Berg and Joyce on this. If fact, McRae, and not Sarah Obama, said that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. When McRae asked where Barack was born, the answers were “America” and “Hawaii”.

  23. I do not see any signature by the Judge, or Clerk, nor did I notice
    a stamped seal or any dates…. As far as “credential’s” are
    concerned by the judge toward’s Attorney Berg,etc., WHY does the judge not include Obama’s “credential’s” as well.
    Even though the case is still pending, I find it a absolute
    disgrace by the Judge to not pursue this immediately.
    I would like to know “When” a continuance of this will be heard and discussed.
    How can a judge deem this as “frivolous”, when the outcome
    could be one of the most Historic event’s in our Political History…………………Dan Smith, NY

    1. Poppet,
      Obama hasn’t filed a motion to be admitted pro hac vice in this case. Therefore, there’s no reason for the judge to review his credentials.

      As for why the motion to file interpleader is frivolous, it’s because interpleader is incredibly inapplicable in instances involving issues like these.

  24. “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.”


    The judge is hauling in Berg to make him prove he is competent!

      1. It is interesting, is it not, that the judge hasn’t simply ordered the entire case dismissed, no?

        No. The plaintiff has a right to oppose to the motion to dismiss (and the defendants can reply to that). Any dismissal now would be premature, and quickly reversed on appeal.

      1. Yes, but the order is clearly a warning to Berg and Joyce, especially the part about examining “their credentials, their competence, their good faith, and the factual and legal bases of the complaint they have signed.” (This is not normally done in most pro hac vice requests.) And note how the first motion was denied as “frivolous.”

        It is most likely, however, the court will just dismiss the interpleader and then deny as moot the pro hac vice applications.

  25. Glad to see the case it still alive. Everything we can keep active is a good thing for the country.

    Oh a word of warning the commenter link is a Obot Troll Rat Nest..
    They are nothing but trouble makers; They often Hack into websites.

Leave a Reply