Hollister v. Soetoro: Defendant Motion to Dismiss
Incredible he Usurper keeps hamering on his fake birth certificate while by now the whole world knows it to be a fraud.
The Right Side of Life reports:
just received a copy of the Motion to Dismiss in Philip Berg’s recent case, Hollister v. Soetoro. Aside from the usual defensive arguments, the following footnotes are very telling:
Regarding Berg’s claim of ineligibility:
1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” See “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Citing similarity with other lawsuits…
2 Lawsuits have been filed in at least 10 states claiming that either President Obama or the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain, is not a “natural born citizen.” All of the cases that have proceeded to judgment have been found to be improper and have been quickly dismissed. See, e.g., Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709, 713 (Conn. 2008) (dismissing case regarding Obama for lack of statutory standing and subject matter jurisdiction); Stamper v. United States, 2008 WL 4838073, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for lack of jurisdiction); Roy v. Federal Election, 2008 WL 4921263, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for failure to state a claim); Marquis v. Reed, Superior Court Case No. 08-2-34955 SEA (Wash. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain on standing grounds); In re John McCain’s Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in PA., 944 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2008); Lightfoot v. Bowen, Supreme Court Case No. S168690 (Cal. 2008) (Original Proceeding) (denying Petition for Writ of Mandate/Prohibition and Stay regarding Obama); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d, 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain for lack of standing and lack of a state court remedy); Constitution Party v. Lingle, 2008 WL 5125984, at *1 (Haw. Dec. 5, 2008) (unpublished) (dismissing election contest challenging Obama’s Nov. 4, 2008 victory); Martin v. Lingle, Supreme Court Case No. 08-1-2147 (Haw. 2008) (Original Proceeding) (rejecting original writ petition regarding Obama on several grounds); Cohen v. Obama, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama on standing grounds); Donofrio v. Wells, Motion No. AM-0153-08T2 before the New Jersey Appellate Division (N.J. 2008).
Use of interpleader statute:
3 Even if plaintiff’s use of interpleader were not illegitimate on its face, the complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an interpleader action, there must be adverse claimants to the property in plaintiff’s possession so that plaintiff risks multiple or inconsistent liability with respect to the property. See 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (stating interpleader is proper if “[t]wo or more adverse claimants . . . are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property, or to any one or more of the benefits arising by virtue of any note, bond, certificate, policy or other instrument, or arising by virtue of any such obligation[.]“) (emphasis added); 7 Wright, Miller & Kane § 1705 (”A prerequisite for permitting interpleader is that two or more claimants must be ‘adverse’ to each other. This requirement is not met when one of the claims clearly is devoid of substance, or . . . liability is groundless[.]“).
Here, not only is the claim clearly devoid of substance, but plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that defendants are adverse claimants. He offers only speculation on this point. See Dkt. #1 at ¶52. He also concedes that it is mere conjecture that there may be more than one claimant. See Dkt. #1 at ¶39. In addition, plaintiff has failed to make any showing regarding the likelihood that a claim on his “property” will ever be made. See supra, at 5 (quoting Dkt. #1 at ¶34, ¶40, ¶44, ¶47).
In short, no matter how the complaint is construed, plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim for relief. See Smith, 544 F. Supp. 2d at 16 (”The facts alleged in the complaint . . . must be sufficient ‘to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1974); see also 7 Wright, Miller & Kane §1705 (”[I]nterpleader is inappropriate when the claims not only are remote in time but actually fall below any meaningful threshold level of substantiality.”). His claim must be dismissed.
I will once again note that any time the opposition of a question provides reasoning for their argument, it’s very useful to study it out to find out exactly why things have gone, or are going, the way they are.
As an aside, since the Hawaiian citizenship laws are at the basis of many of these actions, if they were successfully challenged directly, the opportunity would then arise to use that ruling as a basis for irrefutable demands to see the original long form birth certificate.
I’AM NOT A LAWYER BUT IF BERRYS LAWYERS RESPONED TO THIS CASE WITH THE USURPERS REAL NAME(BARRY SOETORO) WOUNLD THAT IN ITS SELF SAY BERRY IS A USURPER.I JUST WOUNDER?ALSO WE ARE NOT GITTING ANYWERE WITH STANDING THEY HAVE CONNER THE MARKET ON THIS. IS THERE ANOTHER ANGEL ,SHOULD WE PUT ALL OUR ENERGY IN HAWAII AND PUT PRESSURE ON THE STATE TO PROVE THAT BERRY WAS BORN THERE AND A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
AT THIS TIM THERE IS ONLY EIGHT PEOPLE ON THIS SITE WE NEED TO GET THE WORD OUT MORE TELL A FRIEND,GET THEM TO START THINKGING ABOUT THIS PUT FLYERS OUT ON WINDSHIELDS OF CARS IN YOUR SPARE TIME ANY THING.KEEP E-MAILING THE SENATORS CALL THEM SEND MAIL WE NEED A BREAK IN THIS NO MATTER HOW SMALL MAKE A SHEET OF FACTS AND HAND THEM OUT JUST LIKE BERRY DID WHEN HE WAS A COUMMUNITY ORGANIZER.I KNOW HE COULD’NT ORGANIZE HIS ON HOUSE ACCORDING TO MICHELL THE RACIST OBAMA.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
###
For more information, contact:
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Phone: (808) 586-4442.CAN ANYBODY SHOW ME WERE THEY SAY BERRY WAS BORN IN HAWAII PLEASE.I MAY BE READING THIS WRONG I’AM NOT A LAWYER ITS DRIVING ME CRAZY HELP AM I THIS DUMB AND ALL THE SENATOR ARE REAL SMART.
I was wondering why the state of Hawaii was not challenged in the first place. Their laws regarding the use and registration of birth certificates are inconsistant with the rest of these United States and should be forced to “step in line”. The Certificates of Live Birth prove nothing and should be force by the courts to eliminate their production and use. The birth certificates of all the states should have the same criteria and legal meaning and status as to not cause confusion as we have had this election cycle.
http://www.kswt.com/Global/story.asp?S=9760658&nav=menu613_2_6
Justice Roberts to lecture at Arizona law school
Associated Press - January 30, 2009 11:24 AM ET
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is scheduled to deliver a lecture Wednesday at the University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law.
Roberts is the second Supreme Court justice to visit the university this school year……
Information from: Arizona Daily Star, http://www.azstarnet.com
Supreme Court cases asked for Stay of Election. CONSTITUTION=Congress picks the dates of election of Electors and when they vote. Congress did its duty. The SUP CT can’t Stay the election of Electors or when they vote. SUP CT couldn’t stop the counting of Certicates. The Pres of the Senate, VP Cheney did his Constitutional duty.
If in fact, Hawaiian law requires that a person seeking the birth records is required to have a “tangible interest” in obtaining them, then, it seems to me that could open the door to a lot of suits. For instance, a military person would have a “tangible interest” in obtaining this information. A state official could have a “tangible interest”, Anyone who might be affected by any Presidential Order whether in government or the private sector could claim a “tangible interest” on the grounds that they could be “damaged” by the terms stated in the Presidential Directive or Order monetarily and that they believed the directive or order to be illegal due to the fact that Obama has no legal standing to make such a directive or order due to being a usurper who is inelligble to hold the office. Perhaps any small business who is a government contractor and is caused to lose or spend money otherwise heretofore not required in order to do business with the government and Obama has issued some directive that changes things in the way they do business, that might give them standing for having a “tangible interest” in seeing if Obama is a natural born citizen. Just a thought but it seems that there could be alot of angles especially if Obama has issued any new rules, orders or directives that affect anyone monetarily or otherwise.