• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
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 APPEALS
 _____________ 
Ο
  _____________ 
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,v.
BARRY SOETORO, et al,
Respondents – Appellee. _____________ 
Ο
  _____________ 
MOTION OF LAWRENCE J. JOYCE, ESQ., AND PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.,TO FILE A REPLY OUT OF TIME TO THE OPPOSITION OFAPPELLANTS HOLLISTER AND HEMENWAY TO THE MOTION OFJOYCE AND BERG TO FILE A BRIEF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
 
 _____________________ 
 
Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire1517 N. Wilmot Road, Suite 215Tucson, AZ 85712(520) 584-0236Email: barmemberlj@earthlink.netD.C. Circuit Bar number 52501
 
 Amicus Curiae for himself In Pro Se and,Counsel for Amicus Philip J. Berg, Esquire
 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1221701 Filed: 12/21/2009 Page: 1
 
 Amici
Lawrence J. Joyce and Philip J. Berg hereby request leave of thisCourt to file a Reply Out Of Time to the Opposition of Appellants Hollister andHemenway to the Motion of the
 Amici
to file a Brief 
 Amicus Curiae
on thefollowing grounds:1.) The
 Amici
were never served with the Opposition, despite the contrarystatement of John Hemenway that they were in fact served.2.) Due to a prior commitment, counsel for the
 Amici
, Lawrence J. Joyce,was out of town when the Opposition was filed with this Court (Wednesday,December 2, 2009), and he remained so until late at night on Friday, December 4,2009. Then, due to a continuation of that prior commitment, said counsel wasrequired to leave town again on Sunday, December 8, 2009, and remain out of town until late at night on Friday, December 11, 2009. This same commitment thenrequired counsel to leave town yet again on Sunday, December 15, 2009, andremain out of town until past the date when he filed the Reply of the
 Amici
to theOpposition electronically. This left counsel little time to coordinate the submissionof the Reply and the accompanying Declarations thereto.3.) The
 Amici
will be prejudiced if the Opposition is considered withouttheir Reply thereto, as the Opposition makes many false statements of fact, andwithout the Reply, this Court will not have a full and complete picture before it indeciding on whether to grant the
 Amici’s
Motion to File their Brief 
 Amicus Curiae
.
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1221701 Filed: 12/21/2009 Page: 2
 
4.) The parties will not be prejudiced by the filing of the
 Amici’s
Reply,since the
 Amici
, as we mentioned, were never served with the Opposition.
Wherefore,
this Court’s
 Amici
respectfully request leave of this honorableCourt to file their Reply to the Opposition out of time.Respectfully submitted,Dated: December 21, 2009 ______________________________ Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire1517 N. Wilmot Road, Suite 215Tucson, AZ 85712(520) 584-0236Email: barmemberlj@earthlink.netD.C. Circuit Bar number 52501
 Amicus Curiae for himself in Pro Se and,Counsel for Amicus Philip J. Berg 
 
s/ Lawrence J. Joyce
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1221701 Filed: 12/21/2009 Page: 3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...