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

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34347
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#226

Post by realist » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:28 am

New Docket Entry...





01/07/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] JOINT MOTION filed [1224526] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 for judicial notice. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/22/2010) [Service Date: 01/07/2010 by email] Pages: 16-20. [09-5080, 09-5161]IANAL, but this document, "[highlight]MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICEOF HAWAIIAN TERRITORIAL STATUTES,THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, CHAPTER 57,“VITAL STATISTICS, AND THEIR EFFECT[/highlight]," seems to me to be more BS that has absolutely nothing to do with the points on appeal. :-k


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.

#227

Post by Tesibria » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:41 am

IANAL, but this document ...seems to me to be more BS that has absolutely nothing to do with the points on appeal. :-kYou are correct. The document, and the laws referenced in the document, have nothing to do with the interpleader statute and whether Hollister can make a valid claim under that statute; nor do they have anything to do with Rule 11 and whether Hemenway violated it. Thus, they are irrelevant to the appeal (except as they may relate to Rule 38 sanctions, of course).


“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: 23535
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#228

Post by bob » Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:38 am

From the RJN, "Thus a Hawaii official might assert that a person had a 'birth certificate' that was on file with the state or had been on file with the state but that assertion doesn’t provethat a child was born in Hawaii."





1. No, but the index data does prove that assertion.





2. The possibility of birth elsewhere is not evidence of birth elsewhere. And if there were such evidence, it should have been provided to the district court, but wasn't.





So: A whole lotta nothing. Don't know if it'll draw a sanction, though.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 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.

#229

Post by Tesibria » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:53 pm

New Docket Entry:





01/11/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1224880] by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and Barry Soetoro in 09-5080, 09-5161 to motion for judicial notice [1224526-2] [Service Date: 01/11/2010 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]... you know the drill ...

Edit: Link is currently acting funky - hopefully should be resolved shortly. In the meantime, the brief is very short and sweet:




On January 7, 2009, Appellants Hollister and Hemenway filed a second Motion to Take Judicial Notice ("Motion"), asking the Court yet again to take notice of materials irrelevant to the present appeal. The Court should deny this motion.





As Appellees argued the last time that Appellants requested judicial notice, see Doc. No. 1213344 at 1; see also Doc. No. 1220734 at 2, the issues on appeal in this case are (1) whether Appellant Hollister stated a claim under the interpleader statute by alleging a cognizable stake and by meeting interpleader's adversity requirement; and, relatedly, (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in reprimanding Appellant Hemenway for filing a frivolous suit. The district court did not reach the "merits" of Hollister's claim, see Corrected Appellants' Joint Appendix at 256, and the "merits" are not properly before this Court. The documents attached to Appellants' Motion have absolutely no bearing on the issues before this Court and therefore judicial notice should not be taken. See Larson v. Dep't of State, 565 F.3d 857, 870 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ("We deny the plaintiffs' request for judicial notice . . . because those articles are irrelevant to our inquiry; taking notice of them would not affect our opinion."); see also, e.g., Trans-Sterling, Inc. v. Bible, 804 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that a court need not take judicial notice of irrelevant facts); United States v. Byrnes, 644 F.2d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 1981) (holding that a trial court properly refused to take judicial notice of regulations that were irrelevant).


“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
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.

#230

Post by Tesibria » Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:14 pm

New Docket Entry:


01/21/2010 [link]JOINT REPLY FILED,[/link] [1226668] [In Support of Motion for Judicial Notice of HI Territorial Statutes] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 to response [1224880-2] [Service Date: 01/21/2010 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]In contrast to the Opposition, noted above, the Reply is 11 pages long :)


Link to follow.




Edit: Clarified that this is the Reply to Motion for Judicial Notice.


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

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

#231

Post by Epectitus » Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:00 pm

New Docket Entry:


01/21/2010 [link]JOINT REPLY FILED,[/link] [1226668] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 to response [1224880-2] [Service Date: 01/21/2010 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]In contrast to the Opposition, noted above, the Reply is 11 pages long :)


Link to follow.It also appears to never even mention the word "interpleader."





Do they actually have any clue as to what they are appealing?


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

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.

#232

Post by Tesibria » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:11 pm

New Docket Entries:





03/08/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] CLERK'S ORDER filed [1233796] granting motion to withdraw document [1208531-2] in 09-5080 (withdrawing motion for judicial notice [1207877-2]) [09-5080, 09-5161]03/08/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1233799] discharging order to show cause filed 10/20/09; dismissing as moot motion to substitute reply brief; denying motions for judicial notice; denying motion for leave to file an amicus brief and denying motion for oral argument. Judge Henderson, Tatel and Garland [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
realist
Posts: 34347
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#233

Post by realist » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:35 pm

03/08/2010 Open Document PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1233799] discharging order to show cause filed 10/20/09; dismissing as moot motion to substitute reply brief; denying motions for judicial notice; denying motion for leave to file an amicus brief and denying motion for oral argument. Judge Henderson, Tatel and Garland [09-5080, 09-5161]Not a good sign, kemo sabe.





Birthers are not having a good day. :lol:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#234

Post by bob » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:42 pm

denying motions for judicial notice[/break1]com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1086&start=225#p99700]You called it!denying motion for leave to file an amicus briefBerg can't participate in the case he started. So sad. :(( denying motion for oral argumentThe only question left is "how bad is it going to hurt from the court' ass kicking?"


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34347
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#235

Post by realist » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:22 am

New Docket Entry...





03/22/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1235943] (without memorandum) that the district court's orders filed March 5, 2009 and March 24, 2009, be affirmed (SEE JUDGMENT FOR DETAILS), withholding issuance of the mandate. Judge Henderson, Tatel and Garland [09-5080, 09-5161]Link Shortly





Another on bites the dust. :-bd


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.

#236

Post by Tesibria » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:42 am

New Docket Entry...





03/22/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1235943] (without memorandum) that the district court's orders filed March 5, 2009 and March 24, 2009, be affirmed (SEE JUDGMENT FOR DETAILS), withholding issuance of the mandate. Judge Henderson, Tatel and Garland [09-5080, 09-5161]Link Shortly





Another on bites the dust. :-bdI'm :shock: SHOCKED :shock:


“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
TollandRCR
Posts: 19721
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

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

#237

Post by TollandRCR » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:52 am

New Docket Entry...





03/22/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1235943] (without memorandum) that the district court's orders filed March 5, 2009 and March 24, 2009, be affirmed (SEE JUDGMENT FOR DETAILS), withholding issuance of the mandate. Judge Henderson, Tatel and Garland [09-5080, 09-5161]They have seven days in which to file an appeal to the Court of Appeals en banc. Strunk may strike again. We may not have seen the end of this "case," and we may not have seen the end of sanctions. They've lost quite thoroughly but will likely not admit it. Indeed, they may be inspired to struggle on by last night's victory for democracy.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34347
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#238

Post by realist » Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:57 am

New Docket Entry...





03/22/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1235943] (without memorandum) that the district court's orders filed March 5, 2009 and March 24, 2009, be affirmed (SEE JUDGMENT FOR DETAILS), withholding issuance of the mandate. Judge Henderson, Tatel and Garland [09-5080, 09-5161]They have seven days in which to file an appeal to the Court of Appeals en banc. Strunk may strike again. We may not have seen the end of this "case," and we may not have seen the end of sanctions. They've lost quite thoroughly but will likely not admit it. Indeed, they may be inspired to struggle on by last night's victory for democracy. A re-hearing will be denied, a request of re-hearing en banc will be denied.





Strunk never attempted to insert himself in this case and if he does now it will be ignored.





This one is toast...stick a fork in it and all that.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

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

#239

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:26 pm

snoopy_happy_dance.jpg




I haz a happy day!!!








I can barely contain the excitement I feel for the upcoming Kerchner smackdown.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

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.

#240

Post by Tesibria » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:30 pm

delete - dupe - sorry


“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
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.

#241

Post by Tesibria » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:31 pm

03/22/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1235943] (without memorandum) that the district court's orders filed March 5, 2009 and March 24, 2009, be affirmed (SEE JUDGMENT FOR DETAILS), withholding issuance of the mandate. Judge Henderson, Tatel and Garland [09-5080, 09-5161]The Judges:


[link]Henderson,http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1023:[/link] Nominated as District Judge by Ronald Reagan; nominated to Appeals Court by G.W. Bush.





[link]Tatel,http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2341[/link]: Nominated by Clinton.





[link]Garland,http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=820[/link]: Nominated by Clinton.


“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
TollandRCR
Posts: 19721
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

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

#242

Post by TollandRCR » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:33 pm

I haz a happy day!!!Me too. Now if this week would also yield the disbarment of Orly Taitz, another smackdown for Crystal Chalice, denial of Orly's various pleadings in various courts, and discovery that Orly is not eligible to run for CA SoS because she is not a citizen, plus a letter from the UN to Dr. Levy saying "WTF?," this would be a week that would live in history.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

TexasFilly
Posts: 17523
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

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

#243

Post by TexasFilly » Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:35 pm

I haz a happy day!!!Me too. Now if this week would also yield the disbarment of Orly Taitz, another smackdown for Crystal Chalice, denial of Orly's various pleadings in various courts, and discovery that Orly is not eligible to run for CA SoS because she is not a citizen, plus a letter from the UN to Dr. Levy saying "WTF?," this would be a week that would live in history.Uh, it already is. I would like to see those things happen as well, but this is a most historic week already.


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

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.

#244

Post by Tesibria » Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:40 pm

Not to be ridiculously nitpicky, but why does "DC Court of Appeals" appear in the title to this thread?





A lot of out-of-towners haz confuzzlement about this, but the DC Court of Appeals is the District of Columbia's supreme court -- its equivalent of a state court of last resort.





The Hollister court is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, an altogether different court.





Ditto with this other thread: Berg v. Obama|FCA - Act II - Appeal to D.C. Ct. App.





No biggie, jes sayin'...Cause as much as I insist on any formal memo or brief being Blue Booked by my favorite most-anal-in-the-world-legal-editor, I cannot convince her to join this thread to correct my errors here :). (She *did* correct the Birther StringCite ... or the parts i let her ... and needed oxygen to calm down when I didn't let her make it perfectly consistent with BlueBook ('cause that would require me to get rid of slip copies/info for laypeople without access to Westlaw).





However, thank you - and they should be now fixed


“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
realist
Posts: 34347
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#245

Post by realist » Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:46 pm

So first we have the anal language weenie, and now we have the anal thread title weenie!! :roll:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Res Ipsa
Posts: 2229
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:31 am

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

#246

Post by Res Ipsa » Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:02 pm

I got a little ways in to that thing. Does he at all attempt to explain how this case makes out an interpleader claim?



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43126
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

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

#247

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:46 pm

I got a little ways in to that thing. Does he at all attempt to explain how this case makes out an interpleader claim?No, of course not. Obama is ineligible. That should be sufficient. (And, they were mean to Berg.)



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34347
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#248

Post by realist » Mon May 24, 2010 1:58 pm

New Docket Entry...





05/24/2010 [link]Open Document,[/link] JOINT LETTER FILED [1246221] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 pursuant to FRAP 28j advising of additional authorities [Service Date: 05/24/2010 ] [09-5080, 09-5161]




More "Vattel" and...





St. George Tucker emigrated from Bermuda before the Revolution, in


which he fought extensively. He married the widowed mother of John


Randolph of Roanoke, by whom he had two children. He taught law for


years at William and Mary. In 1804 he published the leading American


version of Blackstone of the time, in which he correlated Blackstone with


the Constitution. In the Appendix to Vol. 1, Note D, Sec. 14 he makes clear


that the Framers relied upon Vattel


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”