BY LINDA BENTLEY | FEBRUARY 23, 2011

Hollister v. Soetoro eligibility case to be reconsidered by Supreme Court

Dr. Orly Taitz pursues Social Security Number fraud issue

WASHINGTON – On Dec. 30, 2010, the day after Hollister v. Soetoro, challenging the constitutional eligibility of President Barack Obama, was docketed for the Jan. 14, 2011 conference of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), retired USAF Col. Gregory Hollister’s Attorney John Hemenway filed a motion for justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both appointed by Obama, to recuse themselves.

However, on Jan. 18, when SCOTUS summarily denied Hollister’s petition for a writ of certiorari, it failed to address the motion to recuse and had, in fact, docketed the motion simply as a “request.”

On Feb. 7, Hemenway filed a petition for rehearing and Hollister’s case was redistributed on Feb. 16 for the March 4 SCOTUS conference.

While it is generally understood that it requires four of the nine justices to grant a writ, or review, it is unclear if the recusal of two justices would reduce that number to three.

The order in Hollister’s case issued by U.S. District Judge James Robertson, for the District of Columbia, a Clinton appointee, has become most famous for what Hemenway says “has become and will remain his most infamous indulgence in bias and the appearance of bias from an extrajudicial source, referring to Robertson’s statement: “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 presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

In his May 2010 Motion to Recuse and request Robertson’s opinions be vacated filed with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, “as a consequence of the recognition of his bias and appearance of bias under that statute,"  Hemenway wrote, “It would be difficult to find a more egregious example of bias with an extrajudicial source than this statement.”

Hemenway went on to point out Robertson’s “needlessly snide and less than honest aspersion cast upon the appellant and plaintiff Hollister” and noted a copy of Hollister’s discharge papers showing his honorable discharge from the Air Force after a full career of active duty was attached to the complaint.

He stated, “Yet rather than acknowledge this fact as clearly shown, the lower court feels it has to say that ‘The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief …’ Clearly the plaintiff Hollister is a retired Air Force Colonel. He does not just say that he is. This gratuitous aspersion and insult starts the internal evidence of bias and certainly an appearance of bias at the very outset.”

Robertson also snidely stated appellee/defendant Soetoro has not proved his eligibility to Col. Hollister’s “satisfaction,” to which Hemenway responded, “The fact is that by the appellee/defendant’s own public statements he is not qualified under the Constitution, and he knows it.”

Hollister found Robertson’s bias and snide insults “particularly galling” and “particularly unjustified,” because as an active duty officer, under the presidency of William Clinton, Hollister raised an issue about the constitutional legitimacy of the orders given by Clinton.

Hollister addressed the fact that Clinton, after having sworn to preserve and protect the Constitution as an ROTC cadet and Senate staffer, had, while in Oxford, England, on the Rhodes Scholarship (which he never completed), gone to Eastern Europe and participated in communist demonstrations against the Vietnam War while we were at war with communism there.

Hemenway stated Hollister asked a number of government officials if this wasn’t considered “giving aid and comfort to the enemy in violation of the 14th Amendment.”

Letters Hollister wrote to then Secretary of Defense Perry and Rep. Amory Houghton, Hollister’s upstate New York hometown congressman were attached.

Hemenway stated, “This historical record makes it clear that Col. Hollister has for many years taken more seriously his oath, as an officer, to protect and preserve the Constitution than Judge Robertson did in the lower court in this instance.”

Meanwhile, Hollister has been following other challenges to Obama’s eligibility and noted Dr. Orly Taitz’s recent Freedom of Information Act complaint against Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue regarding the Connecticut-issued Social Security Number (042-68-4425) Obama has been using, based on sworn affidavits from two licensed private investigators, Susan Daniels and Neal Sankey. She also verified the information with a third source, John Sampson, a retired Department of Homeland Security senior investigator.

Through various sources, in addition to Obama’s use of the number, they determined the same SSN was originally issued in Connecticut sometime around 1976 to another individual who was born in 1890.

Records indicate Obama didn’t start using this particular SSN until 1980, although there are several other numbers associated with his name, none of which were issued in Hawaii, or any other place Obama has ever lived or worked.

Obama’s use of the Connecticut-issued SSN can be readily verified by anyone as it is imbedded in his fraudulently created Selective Service System records.

Hollister provided Sonoran News with a copy of the results from the Social Security Number Verification System (www.SocialSecurity.gov) used by small businesses to verify employment eligibility, using Obama’s name, birth date and the Connecticut-issued SSN. The results came back as “Failed” with a Verification Results Code 1, which is defined as: “SSN not in file (never issued).”

Time will tell if SCOTUS will ultimately be the ones to decide Obama’s constitutional eligibility.

Copyright © 2011 Sonoran News