Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7763
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#201

Post by PatGund » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:11 pm



And this has what to do with your case or anything about it?? Legally this is about the same as saying "I am a lawyer in East Chickenshit, a community down the road from where Ol' Farmer Green was caught shagging sheep"No one else but you, Pat, quite knows how to turn a phrase such as that. =D>*Bows to accept the complment*



User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6096
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#202

Post by June bug » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:34 pm



From Berg's declaration:

This Court's Amici first wishes to address the fact that the Amici'sMotion to File is, on the face of things, in excess of 20 pages.



*snip*



The undersigned apologizes to the parties, to counsel, and to the Court for the mistake.Well, maybe if you'd left crap like this out

"I am a lawyer in Lafayette Hill, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, a community between Philadelphia, the birthplace of our nation, and Valley Forge, where the most arduous test of the Patriots’ devotion to Liberty took place.you wouldn't have to be apologizing!



keokuk
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:36 am

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#203

Post by keokuk » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:38 pm



At some point I stopped following this case closely, but is there any justification whatsoever for any of this garbage being even marginally relevant to the issue, whether it is interpleader or the reprimand from Judge Robertson?



Litlebritdifrnt2
Posts: 2885
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:36 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#204

Post by Litlebritdifrnt2 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:13 pm



And this has what to do with your case or anything about it?? Legally this is about the same as saying "I am a lawyer in East Chickenshit, a community down the road from where Ol' Farmer Green was caught shagging sheep"No one else but you, Pat, quite knows how to turn a phrase such as that. =D>*Bows to accept the complment* That is cause he has been infected with the Brit sense of humor and it is incurable.



User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7763
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#205

Post by PatGund » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:52 pm



That is cause he has been infected with the Brit sense of humor and it is incurable.*Raises an eyebrow quizzically* That observation has been been made about me in the past, yes.I blame Monty Python. And the Goodies. And growing up reading the Paddington books, and...and...and...and.......I was doomed early on, wasn't I?(Actually my daughter shows the early stages of the same dry sense of humor. Goddess help us all)



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#206

Post by Kriselda Gray » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:44 am



Then there's Berg's Declaration.



"Now, to the Obama issue, what I personally believe may be the greatest HOAX in American history, which was put forth by Obama and his cohorts, that includes deceiving the citizens of the United States, as Obama, I believe, is “not” Constitutionally eligible to be President, since Obama apparently was born in Mombasa, Kenya; was adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia, where Obama’s “legal” name became and is “Barry Soetoro”, as there is no evidence that Obama ever “legally” changed his name from his adopted name of “Barry Soetoro.”"Nice to know what you believe, Phil. Now, what can you actually prove? Or, perhaps more accurately, got anything you can offer that would even begin to show reasonable cause? Given all your court experience, I'm sure you know that you can win a case just on your personal belief.



At least I'd *hope* you would.



"I have spent over three Thousand [3,000] Hours fighting for the citizens of the United States to ensure that “our” U.S. Constitution is followed and upheld."No, you have spent over three Thousand [3,000] Hours having a giant hissy fit because the "more electable Hillary Clinton" lost in the primaries to Barack Obama, who then went on to defeat John McCain and win the White House you believed was the rightful due of Hillary Clinton.You know, it cracks me up how PUMAs - like other birthers - talk about Obama's supporters as being "Obots" who are so enamoured of Obama that we throw all sense out the window and go along with anything he says. Have they ever looked in the mirror? They're so blindly obsessed with Hillary that they not only throw all sense out the window, they do things like voting for the Republican candidate - not because they think he's the better candidate, but because he's not the man who took Hillary's "rightful" place (even though that "right" has to be earned by getting the most people in your party's primary to vote for you, which she didn't this time around....) and come up with theories on how to oust Obama that not just strain the bounds of credulity, but the bounds of sanity as well. Hey, PUMAs! Project much?



Oh, slightly off topic, but I think the funniest thing I've seen in a while - and I wish I could remember which birther came up with this one - is the argument that Hillary isn't eligible to be President because Presidents are limited to 2 terms, and since she was, in effect, Bill's "co-president" she's had her two terms at the same time he did. Talk about reaching! OMG! The only thing to dampen that laughter is knowing that the blowhole who wrote it probably thinks its true.


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#207

Post by Kriselda Gray » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:47 am



(Falling over laughing my rear off) And Dr. Orly's lack of tax ID or proper registration as a "charity" comes into play!It's about damn time!


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7763
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#208

Post by PatGund » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:21 am



Oh, slightly off topic, but I think the funniest thing I've seen in a while - and I wish I could remember which birther came up with this one - is the argument that Hillary isn't eligible to be President because Presidents are limited to 2 terms, and since she was, in effect, Bill's "co-president" she's had her two terms at the same time he did. Talk about reaching! OMG! The only thing to dampen that laughter is knowing that the blowhole who wrote it probably thinks its true.It was Zampolit Charlton of The Pest and eFail who pulled that one out of his rear.



User avatar
Sequoia32
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#209

Post by Sequoia32 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:58 am



...was adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia...That business about when a man "acknowledges" his son he confers citizenship is, of course, misinterpreted by the birthers.



I can't find the law now, but essentially it was talking about acknowledging paternity. As in biological parentage.


So far every case of Ebola in this country got it by helping people. So relax, Republicans, you're in the clear. - Tina Dupuy

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34508
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#210

Post by realist » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:17 am



New Docket Entry...



12/21/2009 Open Document, MOTION filed [1221701] by Philip J Berg, Esquire and Mr. Lawrence J Joyce, Esquire in 09-5080, 09-5161 for leave to file reply (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/04/2010), to extend time to file reply to 12/16/2009. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/04/2010) [service Date: 12/21/2009 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]Amazing...these two (Berg & Joyce) do nothing in the lower court case, yet are inserting their BS into the appeal at every possible opportunity.



Back with link shortly.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#211

Post by verbalobe » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:58 am



New Docket Entry...

12/21/2009 Open Document, MOTION filed [1221701] by Philip J Berg, Esquire and Mr. Lawrence J Joyce, Esquire in 09-5080, 09-5161 for leave to file reply (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/04/2010), to extend time to file reply to 12/16/2009. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/04/2010) [service Date: 12/21/2009 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]I haz some interrogz:

From the brief:

...remain out of town until late at night on Friday, December 11, 2009. This same commitment then required counsel to leave town yet again on Sunday, December 15, 2009, and remain out of town until past the date...1. Will it 'prejudice' the statement that 'Sunday, December 15, 2009' is not a valid date in the Gregorian calendar?



2. Does Mr. Joyce live in a universe where being "out of town" (which town?) puts him out of reach of telephones, email, and the Internet?

The Amici will be prejudiced if the Opposition is considered without their reply thereto,...3. Why do I keep thinking of Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, and Martin Short?



4. As a point of legal procedure, is it really proper to think of the Amici as being potentially subject to prejudice? Certainly not in the main action, right? And even in this case, where they appear to be pursuing an argument as to why their brief Amicus Curiae should be permitted -- it is not the Amici themselves whose position could be prejudiced, but (arguably) appellants' -- right?



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34508
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#212

Post by realist » Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:23 pm



New Docket Entries...



12/22/2009 Open Document, APPELLEE BRIEF [1221839] filed by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and Barry Soetoro in 09-5080, 09-5161 [service Date: 12/22/2009 ] Length of Brief: 7,151 words.. [09-5080, 09-5161]



12/24/2009 Open Document, REPLY FILED [1222250] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 to response [1220734-2] [service Date: 12/24/2009 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]



12/24/2009 Open Document, REPLY FILED [1222251] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 to response [1220735-2] [service Date: 12/24/2009 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]



12/24/2009 Open Document, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1222253] [1222253-1, by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 to motion for leave to file [1221701-2], motion to extend time [1221701-3], motion to participate as amicus curiae [1217859-2] [service Date: 12/24/2009 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]Back with links shortly.

Waiting on Scribd to behave to link the final document 53-1.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Highlands
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:19 am
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#213

Post by Highlands » Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:47 pm



New Docket Entries...



12/22/2009 Open Document, APPELLEE BRIEF [1221839] filed by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and Barry Soetoro in 09-5080, 09-5161 [service Date: 12/22/2009 ] Length of Brief: 7,151 words.. [09-5080, 09-5161]

Thanks, realist! I find it humorous that even though IANAL, I know that any time standing is in question, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife should be cited; as it was in this brief.


If you took out all of the blood vessels in your body and lined them up, you would be dead. #science

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#214

Post by Epectitus » Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:36 pm



How weird. How exactly does a lawyer imagine he will get away with asserting:



This reliance upon “blogging and twittering” and “vetting” on the

Internet, although raised by us in our issues presented, is, needless to say,

not mentioned in this opposition.When the opposition referenced says:



Hollister and Hemenway also take issue with what they term the district

court's "preoccupation" with "blogging and twittering." Br. at 17. This claim

finds no support in the record. Judge Robertson used those terms once in the

introduction to his March 5 order (App. 208); they were not part of the court's

ratio decidendi.In my book, that certainly counts as a "mention."



I mean, come on!! The opposition was not that hard to read. Does Hemingway actually think that the Appeals Court will not notice that they are being directly lied to?


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#215

Post by LM K » Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:56 pm





I mean, come on!! The opposition was not that hard to read. Does Hemingway actually think that the Appeals Court will not notice that they are being directly lied to?Yes, he does. A common thread amongst all the birfer lawyers is that they underestimate the intelligence and diligence of the courts.



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#216

Post by Kriselda Gray » Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:51 am



Thanks for the link. After reading Obama's lawyer's reply, I actually now understand that the hell an "interpleader" is and why Hemenway etc., are all such idiots for trying to use it. Sadly, however, I didn't really understand a thing in any of the responses that Hollister/Hemenway filed. i ges i ain't edukated enuf to no wat al that fansy loyer tak ther usin meens.Edit: Edited to add: I'm really surprised at how long it took me to misspell that whole sentence!


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34508
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#217

Post by realist » Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:20 am



Thanks for the link. After reading Obama's lawyer's reply, I actually now understand that the hell an "interpleader" is and why Hemenway etc., are all such idiots for trying to use it. Sadly, however, I didn't really understand a thing in any of the responses that Hollister/Hemenway filed. i ges i ain't edukated enuf to no wat al that fansy loyer tak ther usin meens.Edit: Edited to add: I'm really surprised at how long it took me to misspell that whole sentence!The "fancy loyer tak" that Joyce and Berg are using is nothing more than in-fighting between they and Mr. Hemenway, to this point, aimed at Joyce and Berg, who were never attorneys of record in the lower court trying now to insert themselves in the appeal. Mr. Hollister has been cast aside by Joyce and Berg in preference to their interests in "their" case. Mr. Hollister has made it abundantly clear he wants nothing to do with Berg nor anyone on "Berg's team."


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#218

Post by Tesibria » Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:02 pm

New Docket Entries:





01/05/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] JOINT APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF [1223831] filed by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 [Service Date: 01/05/2010 ] Length of Brief: 6975. [09-5080, 09-5161]01/06/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] CLERK'S ORDER filed [1223866] granting motion for leave to file [Amicus Reply Brief Out of Time] [1221701-2]; granting motion to extend time [1221701-3]; The Clerk is directed to file reply [1221071-2] [09-5080, 09-5161]01/06/2010 PER ABOVE ORDER [link]lodged reply [1221071-2],[/link] is filed [09-5080, 09-5161]Links to follow.


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24508
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#219

Post by bob » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:37 pm

Hemenway's reply isn't bad...argues the respondent's citations, attempts to distinguish them, points outs alleged errors by the district court. Not horribly convincing, but a marked improvement over other birther attorneys.





The amici reply, however, is hi-larious. All fingerpointing. The declarations are particularly funny: the good counselor from Arizona admits that he is a pharmacist who got a law degree to overturn Roe v. Wade (and does no other legal work) and that he went on leave from all that to volunteer for Keyes' 2004 race. Berg just boasts about all the pro bono work he's done.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6096
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#220

Post by June bug » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:57 pm

Oh muldrake:





intermeddling





=)) =)) =))





Thanks, you made my day! :-*



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#221

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:23 pm

New Docket Entries:





Links to follow.What an astounding clown dance. If Hemenway's continued stupidity were not enough, Phil Berg's officious intermeddling is enough to make a mockery of the entire situation. I wonder why they even accepted that nonsense as an amicus brief, since it has none of the purpose of an amicus brief, is not intended to benefit the court, cites only AmJur2d, which the court is entirely capable of pulling off its own library shelves if it feels compelled to do so, and attempts to interfere with another lawyer's representation of his client, insulting him by calling him senile at the same time. The continued assertion that there is any merit whatsoever to the interpleader action is also patently frivolous. I suppose Berg's misconduct is the worse of the two, since unlike Hemenway, he isn't even representing a client, merely insulting another attorney and the court.





I also like how Berg is still trying to take credit for some of the most moronic legal arguments made in a birfer case outside of Orly's, as if they are something to claim with pride. It's rare to see, even in birferland, a document this utterly useless, which has no point whatsoever and could not possibly achieve anything useful for anyone.I agree with Muldy's assessment. The briefs are preposterous. The declarations filed with Joyce's last brief are totally inappropriate in an appeal that is supposed to be of the case below.





But I think Joyce's briefs make a compelling argument that the sanctions against Hemenway should be reversed. Instead, since Joyce and Berg claim authorship of the misguided (and ridiculous) interpleader theory, the Court of Appeals should impose a significant monetary sanction against them for keeping this klown dance alive.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24508
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#222

Post by bob » Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:28 pm

But I think Joyce's briefs make a compelling argument that the sanctions against Hemenway should be reversed.But the district court knew Berg and Joyce were directing the bus all along. The DC went after Hemingway for agreeing to be their driver.They all deserve sanctions.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Hollister v. Soetoro - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Cir.

#223

Post by Tesibria » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:14 pm

deja vu all over again ................





New Docket Entry:





01/07/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] CORRECTED APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF [1224425] filed by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 [Service Date: 01/07/2010 ] Length of Brief: 6870. [09-5080, 09-5161]As the "incorrect" entry was 6975 words, it looks like he deleted 100 words somewhere ....


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”