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.

But I think Joyce's briefs make a compelling argument that the sanctions against Hemenway should be reversed.

01/07/2010 Open Document 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]

01/07/2010 Open Document 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 ...seems to me to be more BS that has absolutely nothing to do with the points on appeal.

01/11/2010 Open Document 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]

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).

01/21/2010 JOINT REPLY FILED [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]

New Docket Entry:


In contrast to the Opposition, noted above, the Reply is 11 pages long
Link to follow.

03/08/2010 Open Document 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 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]

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]

denying motions for judicial notice

denying motion for leave to file an amicus brief

denying motion for oral argument

03/22/2010 Open Document 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]

New Docket Entry...



Link Shortly

Another on bites the dust.

New Docket Entry...

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.

03/22/2010 Open Document 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]

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.

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'...