Berg, Joyce File Emergency Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Hollister Appeal

United States Court of Appeals for DC Circuit ^ | November 24, 2009 | Phil Berg; Lawrence Joyce

[Sibre Fan]

Phil Berg and Larry Joyce have filed an (a) Emergency Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Hollister Appeal; and (b) Amicus Curiae Brief.

[Sibre Fan]

Context: Berg was never listed as counsel on this appeal, and Joyce withdrew as Hollister's attorney a few weeks ago and Hemenway became Hollister's only counsel. Joyce says, in the Motion, that he is filing this brief because [F]or the reasons stated below, we believe this change in representation could result in a less-than-sufficient presentation of all issues for this Court’s consideration unless this Motion to File the amicus Brief is granted. Berg seeks Amicus status because of his interest in his other cases, and because, among other reasons: There is much to say about Orly Taitz, Esquire, but since the matter is under litigation at the moment, it is not advisable to say more here than is absolutely necessary. Suffice to say, I note, that just recently, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Georgia held her in contempt and found it necessary to impose a sanction of $20,000. And in the aforementioned Barnett case, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California took note of the fact that it had received a statement from someone who told the Court that Orly Taitz, Esquire had tried to suborn perjury through the testimony she wanted him to give in that case. Since public perception now links anyone who is associated with any lawsuit which questions Soetoro’s Constitutional qualifications to be President with Orly Taitz, Esquire and since I have my own claims to adjudicate on that point, I respectfully ask this Honorable Court for Leave to be this Court’s amicus with this Brief.

[Dryman]

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”

[Non-Sequitur]

Doesn’t think much of Orly, does he?

[El Sordo]

Interesting.

[Sibre Fan]

Doesn’t think much of Orly, does he?

No, but I'm not sure that's adequate grounds for submission of an Amicus Brief ....

[manonCANAL]

Berg is a drunk looking for donations for more booze

[El Sordo]

Everybody’s got to do something, I guess.

[browardchad]

Ah, yes, 25 pages of nonsense, in which Joyce defends his integrity (or something) against the onslaughts of 82-year-old John D. Hemenway, Esquire in the case.

Then there's, Philip Berg (whom the court really, really wanted to sanction as one of "the people who put Mr. Hemenway up to filing this foolish suit"), but couldn't, since "Messrs. Berg and Joyce are not members of the bar of this court and were not granted leave to appear pro hac vice."

So, Berg seizes the opportunity to direct the court's attention to Barnett v. Obama, while throwing mud at Orly Taitz (who may be quite deserving, but not in an Amicus Curiae brief, Phil).

And then there's some argument about "mootness," "even though the Court in Barnett did not specifically face an issue of mootness" because "the issue of mootness could arise in this case---academically, at least..."

[circumbendibus]

PING!!!

FYI

[parsifal]

The saga continues. Has Orly done anything stupid lately? or should I say, has Orly done anything lately?

parsy, the droll (PS: that’s DROLL, not TROLL!)

[Dajjal]

obumpa