In "HOLLISTER v SOETORO - JOINT MOTION - To Schedule Oral Argument", they go into the reason's why the court should allow for an oral argument (something that the courts in these eligibility cases have not been "fond" of to say the least). Attorney Hemenway also bring up the harsh rule 11 sanctions he received from the lower court judge, and how ridicule and name calling in abundant in all circles (i.e. the lower court, the media) objecting to the questioning of Barry's NBC status).
I agree with this summation. I believe that the reason they filed this is because the Court already indicated, in its initial briefing schedule order, that its review of the case indicted that oral argument would not be necessary, and required the parties to indicate on all documents filed that "CASE BEING CONSIDERED FOR TREATMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 34(j) OF THE COURTS RULES." (The Appellants have violated this order several times so far, by failing to include that on their papers. I can't imagine that the Court is going to look at that kindly.)
And in "HOLLISTER v SOETORO - JOINT RESPONSE in Opposition FILED" they state (& why) they don't want the Amicus Curiae(s) of Berg (Joyce) to be allowed in the case.
I agree with this summation too. I think all this "dirty laundry" airing is - unfortunate. Mario Apuzzo now stands alone as the only attorney who has not trashed other attorneys who are supposed to be on the "same side" of the whole issue. (Joyce "criticized" Hemenway in the Motion to File Amicus Brief; Hemengway responded in his Opposition; Berg "criticized" Taitz in PA, CA, DC (FCA case), and now in the Motion re: Amicus Brief in this case; Taitz "criticized" Berg in PA and CA pleadings, and "criticized" Kreep in CA pleadings and hearings; Kreep "criticized" Taitz in CA pleadings and hearings. It's just ridiculous.
In "HOLLISTER v SOETORO - Joint Motion - To Substitute Reply Brief", they argue that not only do the plaintiffs have standing (citing case law), but the lower court in this case did in fact find they have standing (not word for word). They also bring up the publicly known "fact" that Barry's father was never a U.S. citizen and that should bring into question he NBC status (as the show why in the motion)
I agree with this summation too. But - this one is weird. Why are they asking to substitute a Reply Brief before the Appellees have filed their brief ???? A Reply is intended to give the Appellants a chance to respond to arguments raised in the Appellee's brief. Hollister/Hemenway's Reply is not due until January 5, 2010 -- 14 days after Appellees have to file their brief. This makes no sense to me at all.
To: Sibre Fan; rxsid; GreatOne; David; Red Steel; theothercheek; AJFavish; Congressman Billybob; ...
Can someone please explain how use of the Interpleader Act enables Col. Hollister to overcome the lack of “standing” which apparently was the ground for dismissal in the District Court? What would be the applicable language of the Interpleader Act that would enable the plaintiff to assert standing?
Also, how does Nuremberg (the post-WWII trials of the Nazi war criminals) apply to this case, as argued in the plaintiff's brief?
To: Sibre Fan
In "HOLLISTER v SOETORO - Joint Motion - To Substitute Reply Brief",
I agree with this summation too. But - this one is weird.
I inadvertently shortened that title a bit (check the original link in the first post). If I'm not mistaken, this is a correction due to an "ECF error" with the previous MOTION.
posted on 12/02/2009 5:33:43 PM PST
(HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson