 Judge James Robertson |
A motion for recusal has been filed against the federal judge who threw out a lawsuit questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, because the issue already has been “blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged.”
Attorney John D. Hemenway filed the motion on behalf of Colonel Gregory Hollister against Judge James Robertson in the lawsuit now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Robertson ruled in the case against “Barry Soetoro, et al,” alleging a need to know Obama’s legitimacy, because as a retired member of the military, Hollister could be recalled to active duty and, therefore, would have to know whether Obama’s orders were legitimate.
The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Robertson, who stated: “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 the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”
The 29-page motion for recusal was filed May 31.
“[I]n the present case, Judge Robertson was required to himself identify his evident bias which he exhibited freely in the record and the members of this court who wish to or already have adopted that bias are similarly required to recuse themselves,” it states.
The complaint alleges that Robertson began by “making it clear that he thinks that the case is absolutely worthless and that he has a clear bias against it.” It also states that the judge exhibited bias when he sought to assess Hollister with the entire cost, including attorney fees, of Obama’s defense in the litigation.
While the court opinion stated, “Many people, perhaps as many as a couple dozen, feel deeply about this issue,” the motion notes that major surveys by the “political left and right” show “this issue has been steadily growing and that something like half of the population feels that there is something suspicious about the appellee/defendant Soetoro’s hiding of the documents of his birth and education and every other aspect of his life.”
The court document lists numerous allegations concerning judicial prejudice as basis for recusal. Hemenway references several legal cases that involved alleged bias and the recusal of judges.
The lower court judge is accused of “operating with a strong bias, much of it derived from extrajudicial sources.”
“We see today meetings in which ordinary citizens know more about what us in the details of a bill than their member of Congress or senator does,” the motion states. “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.”
Hemenway notes that Obama, referred to as “Soetoro,” used his State of the Union address to “try and openly intimidate the Supreme Court” and “announced at a prayer breakfast that it is not ‘allowed’ to know about his birth documentation.” Likewise, he states that Justice Clarence Thomas “has observed that issues here are being avoided.”
The motion concludes with a warning that biased judges should disqualify themselves if they cannot defend and protect the American system of a constitutional rule of law:
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.
The complete motion for recusal can be found here.
 “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip. |
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
A new effort now asks those in authority regarding the nation’s elections to demand the full proof.
The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.
 |
