• 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.)
APPELLANTS
’
OPPOSITION TO THEMOTION OF LAWRENCE J. JOYCE, ESQ.and PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.TO FILEA REPLY OUT OF TIME TO THE OPPOSITION OFAPPELLANTS HOLLISTER AND HEMENWAY TO THE MOTION OFJOYCE AND BERG TO FILEA BRIEF
 AMICUS CURIAE
(Doc. No. 1221701)
Rule 27(e)(1) authorizes the Clerk to dispose of the motion to file out of time submitted by the would-be Amici in this matter. No extraordinarycircumstances obtain.The appellants Gregory S. Hollister andthe undersignedJohn D. Hemenwayopposethe motion of the former counsel for appellant Hollister to fileout of timeaReply to theAppellantsJointOpposition to thewould-be
Amici
’s
motion to filean
 Amicus Curiae
brief in this matter.Appellants incorporatehereintheir previously filed Opposition to the motionto file an
Amicus
Brief. (Doc. No. 1218512)
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1222253 Filed: 12/24/2009 Page: 1
 
2
ApurportedReply
to Appellants’ Opposition
was submittedby these
Amici
December 16, 2009, and lodged December 18, 2009.(Doc. No. 1221071)TheReply submittedpresented no legal rationale for the filing of the proposed
Amicus
Brief, but rather was additional self-serving blather put forth in the form of 
“Declarations” by the
would-be
Amici
and their paralegal. Nothing put forth in thelodgedReplyor its vari
ous “Declarations”
advanced the reasons for this Court toconsider theirlodged
Amicus
Brief.The assertions did not address the points
raised by our, the Appellants’ Opposition, as required. It violates the Rule for
these would-be
amici
to address matters not raised in the Opposition to theirmotion, yet they have done so at great length.Attorney Joyce was admitted to practice before this court on or aboutSeptember 15, 2009(Doc. No. 1207620 at P. 4) pursuant to his requestthattheundersignedsponsorthatadmission.Attorney Joyce, in seeking admission,certified that he was familiar withand to be bound bythe Rules of this Court.This
Court’s
Rule27(a)(4), effective December 1, 2009,states:
(
4)
Reply to Response.
Any reply to a response must be filed within5
7
days after service of the response. A reply must not present matters that donot relate to the response.Nonetheless, on December 16, 2009, thewould-be
Amici
filedwhat purportsto bea Reply
to the Appellants’ December 2, 2009 Opposit
ion to their motion tofile an
Amicus
Brief, which “Reply” was
later lodged onDecember 18, 2009.
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1222253 Filed: 12/24/2009 Page: 2
 
3
On December21, 2009 the would-be
Amici
filed the subject motion, statingas a reason the court should allow them to filetheir Replyout of time:
“
1)The
Amici
were never served with the Opposition, despitethe
contrary statement of John Hemenway that they were in fact served.”
Further, the would-be
Amici
assert:
“
The parties will not be prejudiced by the filing of the
Amici
’s Reply,
since the
Amici
, as we men
tioned, were never served with the Opposition.”
The Court’s attention is called to this Court’s
own
email “Notice of Docketing Activity”
of December 2, 2009,11:00:57AM EST,regarding the
Appellants’ Joint Opposition to the would
-
be Amici’s Motion to f 
ile their AmicusBrief. Acopy ofthat noticeisattached. At the very bottom of page one,
“Noticewill be electronically mailed to:”
thiscourt notifies the publicof electronic serviceupon counsel of record,anduponAttorney Joyce atbarmemberlj@earthlink.netand Lisa Liberi atlisaliberi@gmail.com; continuing onto page twoof that notice,the court notes that Attorney Joyce was served, by the court,with a copy by mail.
Hemenway’s statement set out in his Certificate of Service states merely that
service was electronic, as indeed it was.This is p
ursuant to this Court’s
Administrative Order Regarding Electronic Filing, dated May 15, 2009,ECF-2(D) Registration as an ECF filer constitutes consent toelectronic service of all documents as provided in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules of this court. See D.C. Cir. Rule 25(c).
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1222253 Filed: 12/24/2009 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: ...