Hollister V Soetoro - Attachment 1 To Joint Response In Oppositoin - Transport Room
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Hollister V Soetoro - Attachment 1 To Joint Response In Oppositoin - Transport Room as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 443
- Pages: 2
Case: 09-5080
Document: 1218512
Filed: 12/02/2009
ATTACHMENT 1
Page: 1
Case: 09-5080
Document: 1218512
Filed: 12/02/2009
Page: 2
John D. Hemenway <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:53 PM To: "Lawrence J. Joyce, Esq." Cc: GREG HOLLISTER 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 nongovernment 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
Document: 1218512
Filed: 12/02/2009
ATTACHMENT 1
Page: 1
Case: 09-5080
Document: 1218512
Filed: 12/02/2009
Page: 2
John D. Hemenway <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:53 PM To: "Lawrence J. Joyce, Esq."
Related Documents
