HOLLISTER v SOETORO - OPEN DOCUMENT - CORRECTED AMICUS FOR APPELLANT BRIEF [1217958]

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

_____________

Ο

_____________

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,

Plaintiff – Appellant,v.

BARRY SOETORO, et al,

Respondents – Appellee. _____________

Ο

_____________

CORRECTEDBRIEF

AMICUS CURIAE

OFLAWRENCE J. JOYCE, ESQUIRE AND PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE

_____________________

Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire

Amicus Curiae for himself In Pro Se and,Counsel for Amicus Philip J. Berg, Esquire

1517 N. Wilmot Road, Suite 215Tucson, AZ 85712(520) 584-0236Email: barmemberlj@earthlink.netD.C. Circuit Bar number 52501

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1217958 Filed: 11/30/2009 Page: 1

i

CORRECTED TABLE OF CONTENTSPage(s)

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………...i-iiiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………..iv-viiREQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT…………………………………………….1CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS and RELATED CASES………..1-3A. The Parties……………………………………………………………1B. The Rulings…………………………………………………………2-3C. Related Cases…………………………………………………………3INTERESTS OF THE AMICI………………………………………………..….3-4AUTHORITY TO FILE THIS BRIEF…………………...………………………...4SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT……………………………………………….....4-5I. This case is not rendered moot by the Inauguration of Appellees Soetoro and Biden………………………...……………..5-6A. The Impeachment Process is not the Exclusive meansOf Removing a De Facto President from Office……...……6-211. Expanding the Impeachment Clause to Preclude CivilActions against a De Facto President would constitutean Impermissible Encroachment upon the JudicialBranch…………………………………………………….....6-9a) A De Facto Officer is not someone entitled to theProtection of the Impeachment Process……………..9-11ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………...5-30

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1217958 Filed: 11/30/2009 Page: 2

ii

CORRECTED TABLE OF CONTENTS – ContinuedPage(s)

i. If only the Impeachment Clause can be usedto Remove a De Facto Constitutional Officer from Office, then the Supreme Court mayhave Violated the Impeachment Clause……..11-12ii. Applying the De Facto Officer Doctrine toShield such an Officer from all Civil Actionsto Test the Validity of One’s Claim to Officewould violate

Marbury v. Maddison

………...12-14

2. Current Case Law of the Supreme Court wouldnot Prohibit the use of the Judical Branch againsta De Facto Officer………………………………………...14-16a) Removing a De Facto President by Quo Warrantoor by other Civil Actions does not ConstituteImpeachment…………………………….…....…….…17 b) Civil Actions to test the Qualifications of aDe Facto President do not Interfere with aDecision of Congress to Impeach or notImpeach………………...…………………..………18-19B. Hollister’s Claim Pertains to an Ongoing Threat of Harm………………………………………………………19-21II. Disposal of a Case without Holding a Hearing Contravenes

Hovey v. Elliot

…………………………………………………...21-24III. The Law of the Military Jurisdiction Increases Uncertaintyover what is Lawful and what is Unlawful………………………24-26IV. The Intangible Nature of Hollister’s Property should beConsidered in Light of the Fact that the Property is AlwaysIntangible……………………………………………………………27

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1217958 Filed: 11/30/2009 Page: 3