Today, April 17th, Hollister/Hemenway/Berg must file a bunch of materials related to their appeal, including (but not limited to):

* Entry of Appearance Form ---This will tell us whether Hemenway, Berg, or .. ? .. is/are now representing Hemenway on appeal

* Procedural motions, if any

*Statement of Issues to be Raised ---This Statement will confirm whether they're appealing (or trying to appeal) the Rule 11 Sanction

*Underlying Decision from Which Appeal or Petition Arises ---What they attach should also tell us whether they're appealing the Rule 11 Sanction (if they only attach the dismissal memo/order, then they're not appealing the Rule 11 Sanctions)

=======
Obama/Biden's attorneys also must file appearance papers and related documents today. (In the 3rd Cir., they didn't file on the "due date," apparently waiting to see whether Berg would really go through with appeal (total speculation). Will be interesting to see whether/what they file today.

Thanks, Tes. I had a tickler on my calendar for today but did not know what all would be due.

It'll be interesting to see what all is filed. I hope Lisa didn't have to pull another all-nighter, poor thing.

Clarification on Berg v Obama, 3rd Circuit...Last time I looked at the file, which was admittedly some time ago, Berg had filed his initial appeal, Obama had answered, some or all had been sent to the mertis panel, and Berg had not filed any response to Obama's answer, and I am reasonably sure that time has passed now, though not certain.

Are you saying Obama has not filed something that was due, pending whether he's sure Berg is going through with the appeal? What has Berg done/not done that would make one think he is not following up on the appeal? He's been blowing smoke that oral argument is scheduled for late May (which I could not find anything in the file supporting such and really don't believe it will happen, but I suppose anything is possible).

Just wondering what if anything I'm missing here. As always, I appreciate your and other attorneys help on these matters.

No. I'm just saying that back in November, both Appellant and Appellee's appearances were due the same day- Nov. 14th, as I recall. Obama/FEC/DNC did NOT file their appearance on that initial due date. They got a "follow-up" letter telling them that appearance must be filed by 12/2. As soon as they got that letter (and after Berg had filed his appearance), they entered their appearance.

So - I was just saying that we may not see Obama/Biden attorney appearances in the Hollister appeal docket today, even though the scheduling order says that it should be filed today. Assuming that [--?--] files papers on behalf of Hollister/Appellant today, we can expect Bauer's appearance. It just MAY not be today.

I guessed wrong Obama/Biden's counsel DID file their appearance and related info today

Docket:

Great. And thanks again for the clarification on Berg v Obama. I greatly appreciate it.

Crap. You REALIZE the birthers are going to cite this docket as *proof* that President Obama's real name is "Barry Soetoro", right???

Well, they were all over that when the same thing happened in District Court -- the Docket showed an appearance for Soetoro. But, as was explained to them then ...the Docket descriptions are based on the caption (set by the Plaintiff).

The actual defendants' documents have the same caption (as required) but always use "President Barack Obama" in their own title. E.g., the District Court docket entry for Bauer's appearance also used "Soetoro," but the actual filed document was crystal clear: "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Robert F. Bauer .... will appear as counsel for President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden in the above captioned matter." The Dockets shows parties based on the caption - which is established by the Complaint.

The Hollister Appeal docket does not provide links to the actual appearance/certificate docket, so I can't confirm that the same thing happened there, but I strongly suspect that is the case.

On 4/17, Hollister submitted the following in the Hollister Appeal

DOCKETING STATEMENT
CERTIFICATE as to Parties, Rulings and Related Cases
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ... by Mr. John David Hemenway for Mr. Gregory S. Hollister
STATEMENT of intent as to deferring the appendix
STATEMENT of Issues
UNDERLYING DECISION IN CASE submitted
TRANSCRIPT STATUS REPORT: Initial Status of Transcript: No transcripts are necessary for this appeal

On Edit: Because the underlying documents are not available, it's not possible to determine who (Hemenway, Berg, other?) actually submitted/uploaded the materials. Given that Hemenway is on the Entry of Appearance, it's reasonable to assume that he is the one who submitted them.

However, reasonable assumptions have been wrong in this case in the past ...

Thanks, Tes.

So Berg/Joyce still have not been admitted to practice in the appeals court. Regardless of what Lisa said, who knows if they're even trying to obtain their documentation. They obviously did not submit it to the lower court.

Or maybe they are just going to let Hemenway continue to bite the bullet on this entire fiasco? No wonder he has now sided with Orly. Maybe he'll even represent her in Berg's and Lisa's suit against her.

Rikker,

Do you ever come up with anything postitive? Do you know for sure that Hemmenway is working with Orly, Do you know for sure Berg and Hemmenway are not working together?

Thats all you guys do is make foolish assumptions you can not back up to save your soul

Maybe Berg has simply decided to turn his efforts back to getting himself elected, and leave all this birther crap behind? He is running for Judge of Mont Co Court of Common Pleas as noted in another thread...maybe he has moved on?

Seems odd that he'd have any extra time to devote to getting HIMSELF elected when he is supposedly fighting against the "biggest hoax in history"??

Maybe he just thinks it ain't so important anymore??
Maybe the pay-pal button isn't getting so much traffic anymore??

Poor OC House Elves! Can't imagine they'll take it well when they learn their leader is now gonna be spending his time trying to get himself elected instead of trying to get Obama out...

Sucks to be thrown under the bus like that!

Don's right, we have only Orly's word for it that Hemenway agreed to be her local counsel for the quo warranto.

'Course, that's just her opinion. She can't prove that.


In fact, now that Orly has declared war on ol' Phil, called him a sekrit Stealth Obot and claims that he agreed to "cloud the issue" of Obama's citizenship so he could save Lisa L. from an 8 year prison term, Hemenway would be wise to choose sides. Quickly.



It's amazing how Obama knew, way back in March 2008, before the first hint of Birfer Insanity reared it's warped and shrunken head, that:

1. Lisa Liberi worked for Phil, which was not widely known at the time (even before his online petition demanding that the superdelegates vote for Hillary), and,

2. Phil was going to emerge as the first "lawyer" to file an eligibility lawsuit, months before Linda Starr or Phil had the idea, and,

3. Lisa L. was about to be convicted of 10 felonies in San Bernardino County, CA, which would give Obama the "leverage" to coerce ol' Phil to "play ball".

... and he managed to find the San Berdoo judge in charge of the case, bribe him or threaten his fambly, and get him to 'splain to ol' Phil and ol' Lisa that if they didn't agree to "cloud the issue" which nobody had even dreamed up at that point in the ballgame, he was gonna put a 8-year hurt on poor Lisa.


Man, if Obama is that smart and that far ahead of current events, nobody stands a chance against him.

Sucks to assume too, but you do it all the time. I mean have you seen anything to prove that he is giving up. No but you always assume

Don,

Anything that makes me laugh is positive. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

As far as saving my soul is concerned, the guy in charge of that has rolicking sense of humor, too!!! He loves YOU, Donny. You provide more belly laughs than a closet full of Herman Goerings.

Don... why do you love Berg so much? This is not a rhetorical question.

My name is Don, what part of that does everyone have a problem with. As far as I make you laugh, you make the other side laugh too, so whats your point?

Who said I loved him? Hmmmm? Who said I loved Berg???

Since there was no answer there, I will ask again.

Don... why do you love Berg so much?

Yeh, but the other side laughed when Obama was led away in bracelets back in January, then they slinked back into their hovels and grieved overnight, then they came back the next day and made up brand new lies. The other side laughed at Copernicus when he denied geocentricity, then slinked off and prayed when they were proven wrong.

The other side is the lunatic fringe, Donny. Their laughter is usually a badge of honor for us, because history has shown that usually the smart people are right. We always get the last laugh, Don. The main problem the other has with us is that we're smug about being right all the time.

My question is not whether you love Berg. My question is: How often? That really is the measure of a NAMBLA relationship.

Is that Berg as your avatar? Nice.

why not the


Phil dragged off a lifeboat after three days look, or the



man of the people at the courthouse Phil, or the





greeting the media (i.e. a single microphone) Phil,or even



this guy, whose name is Phil Berg, pops up on Google Image search under "phil berg" and seems to be a hit with the ladies.

HEMENWAY FILES NOTICE OF APPEAL OVER REPRIMAND

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 134576/28/


Who the hell is bankrolling this guy?

What's the procedure now? Is there necessarily a hearing?

Ah, that's great. I was hoping the circuit court would get a crack at that part of the festivities.

My question is whether an appellate court, finding that the sanction was manifestly insufficient to deter further behavior of the same type, would remand for further proceedings consistent with that view.