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.)

REPLY OF THE APPELLANTS TO THE OPPOSITION TOTHEIR MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

(DocumentNo.1218455)

Opposing our motion for oral argument the appellees assert in a quiteconclusory fashion that all three reasons ofRule 34(a)(2) are met here.(DocNo.12200734)The first prong that they assert is true here is that the presentappeal is frivolous. This is so because the judge below found that the case

was frivolous. That finding, based largely on “blogging and twittering” and“vetting” on the

nternet by America’s “vigilant” people, was not supported

by any actual legal authority. In fact the assertion by the judge below whichdrove his conclusionof frivolityseems like an obeisanceto the idea of puredemocracy that the Founders went to great lengths to avoid (SeeFederalist10,

e.g.

The “natural born citizen” requirement of Article II, Section 1,

Clause 5 at issue here is very much a reflection of that concern which seems

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1222250 Filed: 12/24/2009 Page: 1

to have been almost mocked below and which is, therefore, a serious andnon-frivolous matter for an appeal.

This reliance upon “blogging and twittering” and “vetting” on the

Internet, although raised by us in our issues presented, is, needless to say,not mentioned in this opposition. Instead, to support the accusation of frivolousness, the ap

pellees (p.2) point to a “finding” in the court below thatthe appellant Hollister “had not stated a claim under the interpleader statute

because he failed to allege a cognizable stake and failed to meet

interpleader’s adversity requirement.” The first of

these assertions pointsdirectly to one of the clear errors which is a key issue presented in ourappeal, namely, the use in theInterpleader A

ct of the word “obligation” in

disjunctive parallel.We have pointed to this clear language in our openingbrief.The second assertion above with which the appellees seek to bolsterthere conclusory assertion of frivolousness founders on the simple fact thatone may read both of the pages referred to by the appellees in the appendixand look there for thesecondasserted finding in vain.On neither page isthere any mention of and certainly no finding of a lack of adversity.Moreover, to return to the first asserted example of frivolousness, it is part of the appeal that the lower court, as set out onApp.210,focused exclusively

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1222250 Filed: 12/24/2009 Page: 2

on a concept of intangible property, almost obsessively, andignored the

clear language of “obligation.”

App.256, the second opinion from below atissue, is taken up with the lower court asserting that the complaint wasfrivolous because the court found it so. There is no real supporting reason.In fact, curiously, for a court assessing a Rule 11 sanction,the court belowwent out of its way to avoid discussing the merits of the case as asserted inthe complaint, that is to say, thecourt assessed a Rule 11 sanction withoutever considering whether there was any warrant in law orfoundation in fact.Onecannot say that someone has failed to conduct a proper pre-filinginquiry without making some assessment of what in fact they lookedinto,which in and of itself would be to look into the merits that they looked or didnot look into.This sort of mischaracterization and misrepresentation of what wenton in the lower court only emphasizes the need that we pointed out inmaking the motion for an oral argument that the pattern of mischaracterization and misrepresentation constantly engaged in is a goodreason why oral argument would be helpful here. This pattern continues inthe next paragraph on p. 2 after the one from which we have justquoted.There the appellees, who, as we have pointed out, took no cross-appeal fromany findings below, ignore the issues presented that we have put before the