IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,et al. )Case Below 08-2254 JRAppellants,))v.)

No 09-5080

) Consolidating No. 09-5161Barry Soetoro, et al.)Appellees.)

OPPOSITION OF THE APPELLANTS GREGORY S. HOLLISTERAND JOHN D. HEMENWAY TO THECORRECTED EMERGENCY MOTION OF LAWRENCE J. JOYCE,ESQUIRE and PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE TO FILE A BRIEF

AMICUS CURIAE

INSUPPORT OF APPELLANTS HOLLISTER AND HEMENWAY,SUPPORTING REVERSAL

The appellants Gregory S. Hollister and John D. Hemenway, theundersigned, hereby oppose the motion of the former counsel for appellantHollister to be permitted to file an Amicus brief in this matter.The primary reason for this opposition is that the proposed

Amicus

brief would bring into this case issues that were not in the record in this casein the lower court and were not appealed to and put before this Court. Innoting these grounds for opposition the appellants also make it clear thatthey do not waive any right on their part to argue that issues that were not

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 1

before the lower court in this case and which were not appealed cannot beaddressed in this Court on appeal.The purpose of an

Amicus

brief is to assist the Court in decidingissues that are before it, not to bring into the case issues that are not beforethe Court. Appellants Hollister and Hemenway do not believe that theproposed

Amicus

, relying as it does on a holding in a different U.S. DistrictCourt case in another circuit with different plaintiffs, different issues andmany defendants who are not defendants in this case, helps this Court as isthe purpose of an

Amicus

brief.In addition the appellants Hollister and Hemenway would note thatthe motion to adopt the proposed

Amicus

brief by former counsel does notconform to the 20 page limit set by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure27(d)(2). Instead it seeks to go by the word count or type volume limitation,which is for briefs, not motions, set by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure32(a)(7)(B)(i). So the motionmay be rejected, we submit, on technicalgrounds for such non compliance with the Rules.We respectfully submit, also, that the motion filed to request theacceptance of the said

Amicus

brief does little to clarify how it would assistthe Court in this case and the appellants believe it would, as stated, not

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 2

clarify but rather complicate the issues before the Court by going outside theissues presented.The motion incorporatesa long personal narrative of the history of theinvolvement of former counsel Lawrence Joyce in the case of plaintiff Hollister and with all due respect recited many alleged facts which differfrom the recollection of those facts by both the plaintiff Hollister and theundersigned. Colonel Hollister, for example, does not recall evercontemplating discharging the undersigned from representation of him.Appellants are startled, to say the least, that all of this personal material hasbeen placed in the record as a claimed justification for the acceptance of the

Amicus

brief that has been put forward.In filing their motion, the attorneys Joyce and Berg mentioned theirhaving e mailedto opposing counsel for consent to their filing and attach asthe proposed

Amicus

Brief’s only exhibit in the form of an Appendix a copyof that email. A similar consent was sought of the undersigned and ColonelHollister to their filing of an

Amicus

brief. Denial of that consent isacknowledged in the motion. [

Document: 1217859, page 6, line 8].

They didnot mention, however, that on behalf of Colonel Hollister and himself, theundersigned sent a replye mail making clear that not only did both

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 3