Hollister v Soetoro Updates

Scribd ^ | 10/20/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

HOLLISTER v. SOETORO (et al)

APPELLE BRIEF (09/04/2009)

UNOPPOSED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (09/22/2009)

EMERGENCY MOTION (w. Declaration of L. Liberi) (09/22/2009)

APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (09/22/2009)

MOTION (09/23/2009)

EMERGENCY MOTION (09/28/2009)

PER CURIAM ORDER (10/20/2009)

CLERK'S ORDER (10/20/2009)

[rxsid]

Appellant Col. Gregory S. Hollister requests leave of this Honorable Court to withdraw certain materials filed in his own appeal (09-5080) on September 23, 2009, specifically, Docket Entry ID 1207877 (a motion for judicial notice) and its supporting materials denominated as Attachments 1-3, Attachment 4, and Attachments 5-6. (See also “Docket Part(s) Added: 2753598, 2753600”.) We apologize to this Court, to the Appellees, and to counsel for their having been filed for Appellant Hollister instead of for Appellant Hemenway alone. They were filed only as a result of a lack of communication with attorney Lawrence J. Joyce who, immediately prior to the filing of these materials, had become responsible for Appellant Hollister’s portion of this appeal; these materials in fact should have been filed only on behalf of John Hemenway himself, the attorney who filed these Case: 09-5080 Document: 1208531 Filed: 09/28/2009 Page: 1 materials with this Court, for his own, consolidated appeal in this case (09-5161). Appellant Hollister makes no request to withdraw these materials as they pertain to John Hemenway’s appeal of the reprimand issued against him by the District Court in this case. For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant Hollister moves for leave to withdraw these materials from his appeal in this case (09-5080) or, in the alternative, for this Court to disregard such materials and to decline to consider them with respect to his own appeal.

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 28, 2009 _____________________
Lawrence J. Joyce

According to that "Admin" comment, John Heminway was the sponsoring Attorney for Larry Joyce and Phil Berg in the D.C. District court. Apparently, sometime within the time frame of these filings, Attorney Joyce was admitted to practice law in the D.C. court system. Furthermore, they allege "Larry's Brief makes a much stronger argument than that of John Heminway."

[AmericanVictory]

That would seem to confirm your surmise that the person making the comments was involved with the case and likely witih the brief that this "admin" thinks is stronger. I am not sure that that is the case. I also find in the record below that the attempts by both Berg and Joyce to be admitted in the District Court were denied. Apparently Joyce was only recently admitted to the U. S. Court of Appeals as sponsored by Hemenway according to the record and his "admin" promptly attacks Hemenway gratuitously. It is also a question as to the wisdom of withdrawing the request for judicial notice as soon as admitted; that seems more peevish than wise and it is difficult, under the circumstances of the case to see the advantage of it, vieng the reliance of the judge below upon "blogging and twittering" on the Internet.

From the two orders of today, it would seem that the court of appeals panel was not impressed with it.

[STARWISE]

Thank you.

[AmericanVictory]

There does not seem to be anything in the record indicating that Hemenway's brief was either longer than the rules allow or that it was rejected. It is on the docket as having been filed.

Nor does it appear that Joyce or Berg ever filed an opening brief but rather a motion to be allowed to file one late, which would now seem to be moot.

You always seem to more interesting in attacking the filings than in accuracy. To whom do you report on your efforts.

[AmericanVictory]

That would seem to confirm your surmise that the person making the comments was involved with the case and likely witih the brief that this "admin" thinks is stronger. I am not sure that that is the case. I also find in the record below that the attempts by both Berg and Joyce to be admitted in the District Court were denied. Apparently Joyce was only recently admitted to the U. S. Court of Appeals as sponsored by Hemenway according to the record and his "admin" promptly attacks Hemenway gratuitously. It is also a question as to the wisdom of withdrawing the request for judicial notice as soon as admitted; that seems more peevish than wise and it is difficult, under the circumstances of the case to see the advantage of it, given the reliance of the judge below upon "blogging and twittering" on the Internet.

From the two orders of today, it would seem that the court of appeals panel was not impressed with it.

Sorry for the typo.

[Lurking Libertarian]

It is all laid out in this Order.

[AmericanVictory]

What evidence is there that he is the “lead attorney?” I can’t find any nor any evidence that Berg is invovled other than to take credit. Taitz sued Liberi in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Berg answered and sued back for Liberi, who would seem to be working for Berg. Taitz accuses Liberi of some serious things in the law suit. It was all posted on the site Citizens Against Pro-Obama Media Bias as not being helpful to the attempts to get something done. It would seem that Liberi is now working for Joyce but I don’t see any evidence that Joyce was involved in the case signficantly until recently in the record. It seems the court of appeals is signalling their long time member to get this group coordinated and is doing the case a favor in doing so.

[EDINVA]

Your link brings up a motion.

[AmericanVictory]

You link to Hemenway’s motion for judicial notice, a tactic then adopted by Taitz in her case in the Central District of California. There is certainly nothing in the motion that speaks to Hemenway’s openng brief, which was accepted for filing and never pointed to as being in excess of any page limits. The docket entries indicate the inaccuracy of what you say. I repeat, to whom do you report in making these inaccurute representations? I would think the operatives for the One would take more care.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Sorry; wrong link. I was basing my post on this order.

[Lurking Libertarian]

There is certainly nothing in the motion that speaks to Hemenway’s openng brief, which was accepted for filing and never pointed to as being in excess of any page limit.

The order linked above requires a new joint brief for both appellants to be filed by November 30.

I repeat, to whom do you report in making these inaccurute representations?

I have been a FReeper since 1998. I have no agenda in posting on the eligibility threads beyond correcting the misapprehensions that some non-lawyers have about the legal process. And nothing I have posted is inaccurate.

[Plummz]

Don’t forget your agenda also includes posting cutesy racial remarks which betray your ignorance of the 14th Amendment and other constitutional matters.

[AmericanVictory]

The docket clearly shows that an opening brief was filed by Hemenway for himslelf and Colonel Hollister was accepted. If you are so familiar with court systems one would think you would check that out before making inaccurate assertions and posting to a motion filed by Hemenway as if it were an order. The Order which was filed to today says nothing about the brief filed by Hemenway for both himself and Hollister being rejected. The Order today sets a schedule for new briefing but does not say anything about the opening brief filed by Hemenway for himself and Hollister that the docket clearly shows was accepted. So you are being inaccurate.

[The Comedian]

I have no agenda in posting on the eligibility threads beyond correcting the misapprehensions that some non-lawyers have about the legal process. And nothing I have posted is inaccurate.

I for one, appreciate it. A lot.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Order today sets a schedule for new briefing but does not say anything about the opening brief filed by Hemenway for himself and Hollister that the docket clearly shows was accepted. So you are being inaccurate.

The order sets a schedule for new briefing by both appellants.

[AmericanVictory]

Yes, which gives Hemenway another shot to file jointly but it does not vacate or reject his already accepted brief which was filed for himself and Colonel Hollister. It would seem like an excellent opportunity if whoever is the “administrator” and Joyce don’t mess it up. It woudl seem that the panel sent a signal in that regard.

[Churchillspirit]

Thanks for helping us lay people.

[SvenMagnussen]

Judicial Notice: Craig v. U.S.

U.S. Native Born have no RIGHT to be named a Natural-born Citizen

Obama pundits argue that all “native born” citizens have the right to be President and that we shouldn’t discriminate based on parental heritage as that would deprive civil rights.

The problem with their analysis is that there is no “right” to be president. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.

And that’s what I’ve been saying all along. POTUS eligibility being limited to natural born citizens is not a an issue of civil rights, it’s an issue of national security.

The Obama eligibility pundits demand that all citizens born on US soil – despite whether they be born of alien parentage – have a Constitutional right to be President in that it would be a deprivation of their civil rights if natural born citizen status is not granted to them.

This is the mantra of those who support that Obama is a natural born citizen even though Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth via his father who was never a US citizen.

But the status of “natural born citizen” is not a right owed to native born US citizens. In fact, it’s not a right owed to any US citizen because nbc status is simply not in any way, shape or form a “right” at all.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

That was a great brief!

Thanks!

[rxsid]

Ditto!