AndAppellant Hollister’s Reply Brief

ATTACHMENT NUMBER ONE [1]

Erratum

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1217859 Filed: 11/27/2009 Page: 1

U.S. District Courtfor the District of Columbia Case No. 1:08-cv-02254 JR Court of Appeals Case No. 09-5080

Consolidating No. 09-5161

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_____________

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,v.

BARRY SOETORO, et al,

Respondents – Appellee.

_____________ Ο _____________

ERRATUM

_____________________

The oath of office given as that of Appellant Hollister in his OriginalReply Brief expressly states a duty to obey orders. This, in fact, is expresslystated in the oath of enlisted personnel, but is not expressly stated in the oathof officers, as officers are presumed to fulfill their duty to obey orders inaccordance with military law. The undersigned apologizes to the Court, tothe parties, and to counsel for the error.s/ Lawrence J. JoyceLAWRENCE J. JOYCE, ESQUIRE

Attorney for the Amici

1517 N. Wilmot Rd., #215Tucson, AZ 85712(520) 584-0236

ATTACHMENT NO. 1-1

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1217859 Filed: 11/27/2009 Page: 2