• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
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 TO FILE THEIR EARLIER TIMELYFILED REPLY BRIEF IN THE PROPER ELECTRONICSLOT(Document No. 1212426)
The appellees Soetoro and Biden oppose the straighteningout of the inadvertentelectronic misfiling of the appellants
Hollister and Hemenway’s timely reply brief on September 18,
2009, when that Reply, due to the then-
newness of the Court’s
electronic filing system, wasfiled
in a training “slot” rather thanthe official “slot
,
” alth
ough the filing was acknowledged andseemed to those working on it to be in order.(Doc. No.1220735)The reason for the opposition advanced by the appellees is that the
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1222251 Filed: 12/24/2009 Page: 1
 
2
reply brief is made “moot” by the Court’s having set a new
briefing schedule.The reason for our replying that the Reply brief is not moot isthat it contains explicit arguments addressed to some significantmisrepresentations by the appellees that we have reason to believewill continue and that, therefore, the brief can still be of assistanceto the Court.Having it in the record where it should have beendoes not prejudice any party and can be of benefit to the Court. Assuch it may well be helpful and useful to refer back to it.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ John D.HemenwayD.C. Bar No. 379663Counsel for Appellants4816 Rodman Street, NWWashington DC 20016(202) 628-4819 johndhemenway@comcast.net
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1222251 Filed: 12/24/2009 Page: 2
of 00

Leave a Comment

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