January 9, 2009
I was looking over the birth certificate posts and court cases since Berg v Obama is being conferenced by SCOTUS today and can’t find Colonel Hollister’s post. I’m going on memory here.
Colonel Hollister (in his 50’s) lives in Colorado and is retired from the USAF. As such, he is subject to ready reserve, which means he is forever holden to the commander in chief. servicemembers can be called up no matter their age or how long they served. What an incentive.
This gives Col. Hollister “standing” in that his performance of duty directly hinges on whether barry is a legally qualified Commander in Chief. The previous suits the plaintiffs had no standing and they were dismissed in part because of it.
Col Hollister as an active member of the USAF would be legally bound to follow the president’s orders. If barry is constitutionally eligible to be CIC – no problem. If barry is constitutionally ineligible – it’s a problem. Servicemembers are sworn to protect our country and in doing so uphold The Constitution. So, if barry is ineligible, they – including Col Hollister – would in a sense have a right and a duty to not follow his orders, as they would be null and void because barry would be a usurper. This of course goes all the way up the chain of command.
Hollister’s case is still in the lower courts. I wonder if the USAF could circumvent this by discharging (or whatever) Col Hollister from ever having to serve again. Since Berg is acting as an interpleader the burden of proof is shifted to barry. Very important since barry is forced to prove he is eligible vs berg proving he is ineligible.
Hollister is suing barry as barry soetero, which may in fact be his legal name if he was adopted in Indonesia and never had it legally changed back to barry obama. Hence the importance of his school and medical records to see exactly what name he used and which of the little boxes he checked off. If his name is barry soetero he committed fraud on his initial application to the Illinois Bar.
Can you imagine if this were to be true and he has done all this knowingly as a Constitutional lawyer?
Berg also has a mysterious lawsuit going that is sealed so he can’t comment on it. I have no idea what that could be but it makes me wonder if it involves DNA. No reason – just curiosity. Anyone else know anything?
No. 08-570 has been distributed for conference on January 16, 2009.
(1-26-09) Motion for Dismissal