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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

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

Appellants, )
)
v. ) No 09-5080
) Consolidating No. 09-5161
Barry S oetoro, et al. )
Appellees. )

OPPOSITION OF THE APPELLANTS GREGORY S. HOLLISTER

AND JOHN D. HEMENWAY TO THE
CORRECTED EMERGENCY MOTION OF LAWRENCE J. JOYCE,
ESQUIRE and PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE TO FILE A BRIEF
AMICUS CURIAE IN
SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS HOLLISTER AND HEMENWAY,
SUPPORTING REVERSAL

The appellants Gregory S. Hollister and John D. Hemenway, the

undersigned, hereby oppose the motion of the former counsel for appellant

Hollister 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 case

in the lower court and were not appealed to and put before this Court. In

noting these grounds for opposition the appellants also make it clear that

they do not waive any right on their part to argue that issues that were not

1
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 2

before the lower court in this case and which were not appealed cannot be

addressed in this Court on appeal.

The purpose of an Amicus brief is to assist the Court in deciding

issues that are before it, not to bring into the case issues that are not before

the Court. Appellants Hollister and Hemenway do not believe that the

proposed Amicus, relying as it does on a holding in a different U.S. District

Court case in another circuit with different plaintiffs, different issues and

many defendants who are not defendants in this case, helps this Court as is

the purpose of an Amicus brief.

In addition the appellants Hollister and Hemenway would note that

the motion to adopt the proposed Amicus brief by former counsel does not

conform to the 20 page limit set by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

27(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 Procedure

32(a)(7)(B)(i). So the motion may be rejected, we submit, on technical

grounds for such non compliance with the Rules.

We respectfully submit, also, that the motion filed to request the

acceptance of the said Amicus brief does little to clarify how it would assist

the Court in this case and the appellants believe it would, as stated, not

2
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 3

clarify but rather complicate the issues before the Court by going outside the

issues presented.

The motion incorporates a long personal narrative of the history of the

involvement of former counsel Lawrence Joyce in the case of plaintiff

Hollister and with all due respect recited many alleged facts which differ

from the recollection of those facts by both the plaintiff Hollister and the

undersigned. Colonel Hollister, for example, does not recall ever

contemplating discharging the undersigned from representation of him.

Appellants are startled, to say the least, that all of this personal material has

been 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 their

having e mailed to opposing counsel for consent to their filing and attach as

the proposed Amicus Brief’s only exhibit in the form of an Appendix a copy

of that email. A similar consent was sought of the undersigned and Colonel

Hollister to their filing of an Amicus brief. Denial of that consent is

acknowledged in the motion. [Document: 1217859, page 6, line 8]. They did

not mention, however, that on behalf of Colonel Hollister and himself, the

undersigned sent a reply e mail making clear that not only did both

3
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 4

appellants not consent to their filing of an Amicus brief but that both desired

that they not file such a brief. See Attachment to this opposition.

Nor does the appellant Hollister believe, as the former client of the

two counsel proposing this Amicus belief, that they are serving his best

interests by proposing it. And he would oppose it on those grounds.

Although the motion proposing the brief expresses a reluctance to go against

the interests of the undersigned (although, we note, it contains considerable

criticism of the undersigned) the undersigned does not believe that it would

assist his interests in this appeal either. In fact the undersigned believes that

it would distract considerably from, and confuse the issues presented by, his

appeal. The new issues that the attorney Joyce seeks to introduce into the

appeal from another case do not relate to the Rule 11 issue which is essential

to the undersigned.

Both the plaintiff Hollister and the undersigned, as co-appellants at

this point, wish to state that there has been a divergence between the

interests of the attorney Berg in particular and those of the appellant and

plaintiff Hollister, and inattention to plaintiff Hollister’s case by the attorney

Berg since the inception of this case. The statement made by the attorney

Berg in the motion to be allowed to file the Amicus brief that he, attorney

Berg, “directed the legal effort of Appellant Gregory S. Hollister in the case

4
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 5

at bar during the proceedings of this case in the District Court, subject to a

pending motion in that Court for admission Pro Hac Vice,” is not correct. In

fact the plaintiff Hollister states that it was only the undersigned who kept

him informed of the facts of his case during that period. During that period

Colonel Hollister states that attorney Berg never returned any of his calls or

responded to any of his e mails. Colonel Hollister states that that was the

case for a year until attorney Joyce offered for Joyce and Berg to be

removed from the case and that at that time the attorney Joyce mentioned

their, Joyce and Berg’s, motives of making money on this case.

All along Berg has had the web site mentioned by the court below in

its opinion of March 24, 2009 and has been soliciting funds based on the

Hollister case as one of three cases that were his, Berg’s, cases, supposedly.

Colonel Hollister never received any accounting of the funds donated

supposedly to support his case as a result of solicitations made on this web

site, which, according to radio interviews of attorney Berg in the first half of

October of 2008 had, at that point, received over 32 million hits. The only

funds that either Colonel Hollister or the undersigned ever saw put forward

by Attorney Berg were for the filing fee and the appeal fee of the main case.

Nor were Colonel Hollister and the undersigned ever informed that any

proper charity or fund was ever set up to support the Berg litigations

5
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 6

including this one as he has claimed. We do not believe than any formal

entity for such funding was set up. This was significant to Colonel Hollister

because he had been led to believe that other members of the Reserve with

concerns similar to his would be joining him in this case, but that never

happened. He thinks that a proper effort would be in order but has not seen

it made.

Ultimately the undersigned, in viewing the Berg web site noted by the

court below, found that a legal position was being taken on it that was

contrary to the positions of the undersigned and Colonel Hollister with

regard to the meaning and importance of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

requirement that a President be, in order to be eligible for that office, a

“natural born citizen.”

It was contrary efforts of Berg and Joyce that created two divergent

arguments that required this Court to order Hemenway and Hollister to

“coordinate” their submission. In any event, none of the fundraising by

Joyce and Berg has inured to the benefit of Hollister or Hemenway’s causes

of action before this Court and the lower court with the exception of the

payment of the two fees mentioned.

In the case of the undersigned, he has had to advance considerable

funds to keep the Hollister case going and has never received any offer to

6
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 7

reimburse any of those additional funds for expenses from Attorney Berg or

Joyce, despite their months of soliciting funds on the Berg web site

ostensibly for the support of this case, among others. Thus, for both Colonel

Hollister and the undersigned, this is but the last of actions that diverge from

the best interests of Colonel Hollister and the undersigned.

The undersigned and Colonel Hollister mention these details and

differences to emphasize their strong reason for opposing adoption by the

Court of the proposed Amicus brief.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

John D. Hemenway D.C. Bar No. 379663

Counsel for Appellants
4816 Rodman Street, NW
Washington DC 20016
(202) 628-4819
johndhemenway@comcast.net

7
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have caused the foregoing to be served

electronically upon counsel of record this 2nd day of December, 2009.

/s/

__________________________

John D. Hemenway

8
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 1

ATTACHMENT 1
 Case: 09-5080 Document: 1218512 Filed: 12/02/2009 Page: 2

John D. Hemenway <JohnDHemenway@comcast.net> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:53 PM

To: "Lawrence J. Joyce, Esq." <barmemberlj@earthlink.net>
Cc: GREG HOLLISTER <greg_hollister@msn.com>
November 18, 2009

Dear Mr. Joyce,

Your e-mail requesting permission to file a “Friend of the Court” brief has been received
as well as your request that was sent by mail. I have checked in several areas and, frankly, it
does not seem like a good idea, even if we were given permission to comment on your draft
and suggest changes before you actually filed it.

The local Rules state (FRAP No. 29) that an “Amicus Curiae” brief can be filed by a non-
government party “only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to
its filing.” Incidentally, I can not imagine our opponents agreeing to such a filing unless it
hammers either Hollister or me. Obviously, that is not something we would want to encourage.

The Rule of the Appellate Court in D.C. also requires that the movant (that is, you, Larry
Joyce) state on the proposed brief preceding the “Amicus” brief (1) the movant’s interest, (2)
why the amicus brief is desirable, and (3) why the matters asserted in the brief are relevant to
the disposition of the case. We would naturally want to know exactly the same things before
you filed and you have not yet seen fit to volunteer these obvious areas of interest to us.

The fact that you were formerly an attorney for Greg Hollister complicates the matter.
As you know, the U.S. Ct. of Appeals (DC Circuit) has requested that we coordinate all our
motions. Since you offered Greg Hollister your resignation as attorney, and he accepted your
offer to withdraw from the case on his behalf as well as accepting the resignation of the entire
Berg team, clearly we might well be aiding and abetting an uncoordinated position which is
exactly the opposite of what the Court has ordered us to accomplish.

So, with the greatest regret I must deny your request despite the fact that I appreciate
every effort you have made to assist in moving the Hollister Case forward, even though we
disagreed irreconcilably on some major substantive points.

Naturally, I have coordinated this rejection of your kind offer to file an amicus brief with
Greg Hollister, who concurs with our joint and coordinated decision to deny you permission to
file a “Friend of the Court” brief in the Hollister Case.

With my best regards and appreciation for your efforts,

/s/

John Hemenway for himself and Greg Hollister