Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hollister v Soetoro (Hemenway Reply)

Hollister v Soetoro (Hemenway Reply)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 396|Likes:
Published by xx444

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: xx444 on Nov 10, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/12/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER, et al. ) Case Below 08-2254 JR Appellant, ))v. )
No 09-5080
) Consolidating No. 09-5161Barry 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. )REPLY TO THE SHOW OF CAUSE GIVEN ITS SUBSTANTIVECOMMENT AS AN OPPOSITION IN EFFECTTO PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF STATUTES, DOCUMENTS FROM RELATED CASES ANDENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS, WITH COMMENTSIn response to the Court’s Order of October 20, 2009 which orderedthe appellees to show cause why the motion of the appellants for Judicial Notice should not be considered and decided without a response, appelleesfiled document, number 1213344. In it they cited cases and advancedarguments in opposition to the motion which the plaintiffs/appellants putforward in seeking judicial notice
.
The appellees at first did not respond tothe motion at all. Then, only upon the issuance of a Show of Cause, theyrespond with the grossest possible misrepresentations. All items proposedcan be taken notice of by the Court.
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1215011 Filed: 11/09/2009 Page: 1
 
2
There is a glaring misrepresentation of the law and even of the facts of the historical development of Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence inthis show of cause document. That misrepresentation is the falsehood, for that what it amounts to, is contained on p. 2 of the show of cause document:Further, Rule 201 only permits judicial notice of “adjudicative facts” that are “(1) generally known within theterritorial jurisdiction of the…court or (2) capable of accurateand ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracycannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid.201(b).
 see
Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, 21B
 Federal  Practice and Procedure: Evidence
§ 5110.1 (2d ed.2005)(stating Fed.R.Evid.201 applies to judicial noticedeterminations by courts of appeals).Thus, this is a representation that only very limited “adjudicative facts” can be taken judicial notice of and nothing else This misrepresentation is belied by a very large body of case law stretching back many, many years and bythe history of the Rule and even the language of the Rule. Notably the above quote cites Rule 201(b). To anyone knowledgeableof the Rule and the law of evidence this is because Rule 201(a) makes itclear that Rule 201 only “governs” “adjudicative facts.Judicial notice of facts and items other than “adjudicative facts” remains outside of the scopeof the Rule, governed by the enormous body of case law. The rule isconfined to “govern[ing]” adjudicative facts; it has nothing whatsoever to dowith the misrepresentation advanced by the appellants here in its name.
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1215011 Filed: 11/09/2009 Page: 2
 
3
This is made abundantly clear from the history of the development of the Rule. Here, from the 1972 Proposed Rules, is the leading note aboutRule 201:
Note to Subdivision (a).
This is the only evidence rule on thesubject of judicial notice. It deals only with judicial notice of “adjudicative” facts. No rule deals with judicial notice of “legislative” facts. Judicial notice of matters of foreign law istreated in Rule 44.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure…Rule 44.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is instructive when read inconjunction with this historical note and the massive body of case law on judicial notice:
Rule 44.1
.
Determining Foreign Law
 
A party who intends to raise an issue about a foreign country's lawmust give notice by a pleading or other writing. In determining foreign law,the court may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony,whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court's determination must be treated as a ruling on a questionof law.Thus, Rule 44.1 Fed.R.Civ.P. refers to the law of foreign countries notin any way to laws in other jurisdictions of our own country. The vast bodyof laws in our own country along with a lot of other things treated in the caselaw are subject to judicial notice. Rule 201 only deals with the
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1215011 Filed: 11/09/2009 Page: 3

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->