Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored (Re-opened for limited business)

Oh lovely, another cat fight…

12/02/2009 Open Document JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1218512] by Mr. Gregory S. Hollister in 09-5080, Mr. John David Hemenway in 09-5161 to motion to participate as amicus curiae [1217859-2], motion to participate as amicus curiae [1217273-2] [Service Date: 12/02/2009 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,et al.
Appellants,
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Appellees.

OPPOSITION OF THE APPELLANTS GREGORY S. HOLLISTER AND JOHN D. HEMENWAY TO THE CORRECTED EMERGENCY MOTION OF LAWRENCE J. JOYCE, ESQUIRE and PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE TO FILE A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS HOLLISTER AND HEMENWAY, SUPPORTING REVERSAL

The appellants Gregory S. Hollister and John D. Hemenway, the undersigned, hereby oppose the motion of the former counsel for appellant Hollister to be permitted to file an Amicus brief in this matter.

(more…)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, et al.
Appellants,
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.,
Appellees.

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE REPLY BRIEF

Appellants hereby move the court to substitute the Appellants’ Reply Brief of September 18, 2009, filed inadvertently in the court’s ECF “Training” sector rather than in its live data base, in lieu of the Reply Brief filed as an accompaniment to former counsel Joyce’s “Emergency” Motion of September 22, 2009.

(more…)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Appellant,
v.
Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural person;
de facto President in posse;
and as de jure President in posse ,
also known as Barack Obama, et al.
Appellees.

Case Below 08-2254 JR

========= APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF =========

THE TACTIC OF MISREPRESENTING THE CLASSICAL EXPOSITION OF “STANDING” UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE

The brief of the appellees purposefully creates confusion by continually citing cases involving Article III standing where there is no specific grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts by Congress under Article III as there is if one actually applies the Interpleader Act in this case. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,….” Obviously, if the Framers had intended cases in which Jurisdiction of the federal courts was dependent upon the Constitution alone as opposed to the “laws of the United States” to be lumped together, then the Framers would have worded the Constitution accordingly. They did not do so, but these appellees misrepresent the three elements of the classical exposition of “standing” by the Supreme Court when one applies the Interpleader Act principles in this case. They do so in the apparent hope that the disregard for the Constitution by those whom they defend would be echoed by members of this court despite their oath to uphold it against all enemies foreign and domestic.

(more…)

Remember 1217985?

11/30/2009 Open Document CORRECTED AMICUS FOR APPELLANT BRIEF [1217958] filed by Philip J Berg, Esquire and Mr. Lawrence J Joyce, Esquire in 09-5080, 09-5161 [Service Date: 11/28/2009 ] Length of Brief: 6,998. [09-5080, 09-5161]

A modification event was logged, changing the status from filed to lodged.

11/30/2009 Open Document MODIFIED EVENT FROM FILED TO LODGED–CORRECTED AMICUS FOR APPELLANT BRIEF [1217958] lodged by Philip J Berg, Esquire and Mr. Lawrence J Joyce, Esquire in 09-5080, 09-5161 [Service Date: 11/28/2009 ] Length of Brief: 6,998. [09-5080, 09-5161]–[Edited 12/01/2009 by SMC]

Then Hemenway files a motion explaining that the original motion was filed on the training site of Pacer, not the actual docket…

Our Friends of Politijab provide us with the following analysis of what is happening with the Hollister v Soetoro appeal. It appears that one of the reply briefs was filed not on the docket but on the training site. Pacer provides the users with access to a training site to allow them to practice before submitting. Since submissions are final and irrevocable, this helps users avoid some of the common mistakes.Document 1218426, filed on December 01, 2009 by Hemenway explains:

Appellants hereby move the court to substitute the Appellants’ Reply Brief of September 18, 2009, filed inadvertently in the court’s ECF “Training” sector rather than in its live data base, in lieu of the Reply Brief filed as an accompaniment to former counsel Joyce’s “Emergency” Motion of September 22, 2009.
In advance of Counsel’s first online filing in this court, his assistant went to the ‘training’ section to determine its various aspects, and differences between this site and those other courts in which counsel’s assistant has filed electronically. When she went to the site to file the Appellants’ Reply brief on September 18, 2009, unbeknownst to her, she was returned to the ‘training’ rather than ‘live’ sector, and filed accordingly. She received an acknowledgement of docketing activity, and obtained a PACER docket sheet; she and the undersigned believed the filing was completed.

(more…)