Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No 09-5080
Consolidating No. 09-5161
Appellants,
v.
Appellees.
==================
APPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF
==================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………. 27
i
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mffrs. Nat’l. Bank of Detroit, 139 F.R.D. 302, 307
(S.D.N.Y.1991).............................................................................................. 14, 15
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971) ....................25
*Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-
81(2000)................................................................................................................19
Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 733 F.2d 484, 488 (7th
Cir.1984).................................................................................................................2
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) ............................... 19, 22
Murphy v. Trav. Ins. Co., 534 F.2d 1155, 1159 (5th Cir.1976)................... 12, 13, 14
*State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Kathryn Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 530,
87 S.Ct. 1199, 18 L.Ed.2d 270, 275 (1967)...........................................................2
Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights, Org , 426 U.S. 26, 41-42 (1976) ................... 18, 20
Veg-Mix,Inc.. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 832 F.2d 601, 607 (D.C.Cir.1987) ……….26
Xerox Corp. v. Nashua Corp., 314 F. Supp. 1187, 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) ...........5, 6
Young America’s Found. v. Gates, 573 F.3d 797, 799 (D.C.Cir.2009) ..................20
Statutes
35 U.S.C. § 291..........................................................................................................5
Rules
iii
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 5
Constitutional Provisions
Article III............................................................................... 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23
iv
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 6
Opposition is
We point out that the appellees filed no cross appeal so that they have
presented no such issue. The decision below dismissing the case, on March 5,
2009, did not mention or turn on this issue. It is true, in assessing a reprimand
against the appellant John D. Hemenway in its opinion of March 25, 2009, after it
had already dismissed the complaint, the court below made the following general
observation:
Mr. Hemenway’s complaint did not even allege the sine qua non of
an interpleader suit -– that “[t]wo or more adverse claimants . . . are
claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property, or to
any one or more of the benefits . . .arising by virtue of any such
obligation. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(1).
The adversity issue was thus not specifically mentioned and no decision
turned upon it as such. We disagree with this general observation and it was
appealed as part of the March 25, 2009 opinion and is now joined in the general
appeal. The observation is not accurate under the required reading of the
1
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 7
jurisdiction because of the interpleader statute (App. 210). Since the statute
requires diversity of rival claimants addressed in the filing of the interpleader this
consider it since all appellate courts have such an obligation to satisfy themselves
Court is entitled and indeed obliged to do so. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
v. Kathryn Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 530, 87 S.Ct. 1199, 18 L.Ed.2d 270, 275 (1967),
citing Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 70, 84 L.Ed. 85, 89, 60 S.Ct.
44 (1939),
Court to exercise great care and to be wary of authority cited by the appellees that
does not truly apply. The case law authority cited by the appellees on this point is
particularly inappropros. Their lead case is Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City
Council of Balt., 733 F.2d 484, 488 (7th Cir.1984) The facts of that case, however,
are completely distinct from the facts of this case. Principally, there was no
interpleader jurisdiction in that case because the City of Baltimore was trying to
2
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 8
take over the Colts football team, which had left Baltimore for Indianapolis, by the
use of eminent domain. It was thus claiming the football team as a stake. The
other interpleader defendant party was the Capital Improvement Board of Marion
The Capital Improvement Board was not claiming the football team. Instead
it entered a long-term lease to the football team for the use of the stadium in
claim ownership of the team, and to lease a stadium to it, are not conflicting
claims. They are two different things. One is a claim on what the “stake” was in
the case; the other makes no such rival claim. There were other facts of that case
sharply different from this one. What the court found there was the creation of the
shopping,” but the fact that there were not two conflicting claims upon the same
stake was the most important fact. By contrast, in this case there is only one
obligation. If Soetoro is de jure the president it is owed to him, if not and the
defendant Soetoro is only de facto then the same obligation is owed to the
3
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 9
defendant Biden. The obligation here is the same obligation, whichever of the two
Even less apropos is the attempt by the appellees to compare the facts of this
case to those of Bierman v. Marcus, 246 F.2d 200, 203 (3d Cir. 1957). They cite
this last case for the proposition that "Actually, what has been done in this suit has
actual facts of the Bierman case show that this is a highly misleading
misrepresentation. In that case the crucial fact was that the two interpleader
plaintiffs, unlike Colonel Hollister in the present case, completely controlled one of
the purported exerters of a conflicting claim. This controlled entity was one of the
interpleader defendant that they named was a corporation which they totally
controlled, which was revealed after several years of litigation. Thus, there was no
conflicting claim from this corporation because it was effectively themselves. The
court there found they were acting in bad faith, by pretending that they were
exerting a conflicting claim against themselves. There is nothing like that here.
Colonel Hollister does not in any way control either defendant in this case. Thus
the use of this case is to seek to mislead the Court. Also in that case it turned out
the real controversy was with the other named interpleader defendant, the one other
4
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 10
than the alter ego of the plaintiffs. This controversy was about a fraud perpetrated
upon this other alleged claimant. There is no such different underlying controversy
here.
same argument of Xerox Corp. v. Nashua Corp., 314 F. Supp. 1187, 1190
(S.D.N.Y. 1970). From this case they take the quote: "The court is not prepared to
cast Xerox and RCA in the role of unwilling litigants where, upon substantial
grounds, they challenge the validity of the basis upon which Nashua seeks to force
them into adversary positions, while Nashua presents only its bare conclusions in
support of its position." The argument seems to be that by mere assertion of this
mantra from that case they have correctly analogized it to this case. The reason
that we say that this is more subtle misrepresentation is because of the more
litigation. In the Nashua opinion the lack of actual adversarial contention that was
found was very much because of the nature of improvement patents vis-à-vis the
patents that they improve upon. There is no comparable doctrine in the present
eligibility for the office of President on the part of the defendant Soetoro there is
no “improvement” role to serve as President that the defendant Biden can fulfill in
the face of plaintiff’s contentions in the complaint without being in conflict with
5
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 11
the defendant Soetoro as to the claim on the Hollister obligation. Moreover, in the
case of patent litigation, Congress, in the exercise of its power to prescribe the
U.S.C. § 291 under which only holders of alleged interfering patents may maintain
suits with respect thereto. Id., 314 F.Supp. at 1190. Congress has enacted no
statute that only holders of claims to the presidential office may initiate suits with
respect to those who are constitutionally ineligible holding the office de facto,
decision in Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 72 (1939). (Opp. p. 14)
That case involved an alleged conflict between two state court decisions in two
held that there was no conflict between the decisions because the Idaho decision
had established a res judicata by considering the Washington decision and finding
that it had been rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter. This
eliminated the possible conflicting claims that were alleged in the interpleader
6
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 12
Thus, these cases that the appellees cite to support their argument that no
Nor is their argument supported by their references to the complaint in this case
and their characterization of those references, (Opp. pp. 15-16). The argument of
the appellees with its references to the complaint ignores the clear language of the
1335(a)(1) the statute does not just speak of claimants who “are claiming.” Rather,
Thus the appellants take the very possibility that the statute describes, as used by
the plaintiff here, and seek to avoid the plain language of the statute and convert
into a “general standing” pure Article III sort of situation where there is no
dismissal motions that the words of the complaint must be construed with
inferences in favor of the plaintiff. That this is the standard the appellees
themselves state and concede (Opp. p. 7) citing Barr v. Clinton, 370 F.3d 1196,
1199 (D.C.Cir.2004) Yet they seek to have the court make inferences in disfavor
of the plaintiff. Read in its entirety, the complaint clearly sets out the facts that if
as alleged the defendant Soetoro a/k/a Obama is not capable of giving a lawful
order because his occupation of the office of the presidency is only de facto then
7
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 13
the plaintiff, Colonel Hollister, must look to the defendant Biden as the one who is
de jure the Commander-in-Chief from whom he must accept orders. This occurs
a/k/a Obama is at issue. The defendant Biden has no choice if the lack of
not a matter of what the defendant Biden wants to do at this point; it is what he is
required to do and must do. This is particularly made clear in the prayer of the
Just as we have shown that the argument of the appellees that there is no
adversity is not supported by the cases that the appellees have cited and is not well
taken, we now show that the same is true of the argument that they advance that
there is no cognizable “stake” under the federal interpleader statute that was
alleged or shown here. As with the first argument that we have addressed, the
court that was necessarily implicit in the lower court’s finding that it had
jurisdiction because of the statute and thus this issue has not been presented to this
Court. Nonetheless the appellees have in essence in their Opposition asked the
court to consider this issue on its own motion. Since it is obliged to consider the
A substantial part of the appellees’ argument on this issue is their claim that
we, the appellants, are improperly seeking to raise an issue that was not sufficiently
raised below. They are speaking of our pointing to the clear language of the
Specifically, the appellees say that by emphasizing in our opening brief the
use of the word “obligation” in the above passage in parallel and in the disjunctive,
by the use of “or,” with the references to “money or property” and the description
“argument” into the case at the appellate level. As their authority for urging the
Court to reject what they thus characterize as a new “argument” which this Court is
not allowed to consider, they point to the decision in District of Columbia v. Air
Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C.Cir.1984). This is to misrepresent the
holding in that case as well as the commonly used synonym for “obligation,” the
1204814, p. 11, the appellees used the same case, and quoted from it at the place
cited the following: “It is well established that issues and legal theories not asserted
at the District Court level ordinarily will not be heard on appeal.” As we pointed
9
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 15
out in reply to that use of the case, we reiterate here that that case and its authority
address, by the clear language of the opinion what was at issue were two entirely
different legal issues embodied in entirely different legal theories. One theory was
known as the Rational Cost Allocation Theory and had been argued and discussed
at length in the District Court. The other and entirely separate issue and theory
was known as the Public Trust Doctrine Theory. Despite an extensive history
stretching back into the common law and the development of our state law since
the founding of the nation, it had not been discussed or argued at all in the District
In the present case the complaint quite plainly states and alleges (¶ 12):
President (and all others above the Plaintiff in the chain of command) to receive
the performance of duties from the Plaintiff.” (emphasis added). (App 011; also,
Am. Compl. App. 058) Thus the very word of the statute now alluded to, namely
10
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 16
spoke of the duties of Colonel Hollister as the stake in this case. (Compl, ¶9, App.
10; ¶12, App. 11; ¶44, App. 021; ¶50, App. 023; Mtn to File Interpleader, ¶5,
App. 039; Am.Compl. ¶ 13, App.058; ¶15, App. 059; ¶40, App. 066; ¶¶41, 42,
43, App., 067; ¶50, App 70, ¶52, App. 071, et al.) The assertion, therefore, by the
appellees, that the plaintiff Hollister did not argue that his obligations were at issue
and argued in the court below is incorrect. They were argued but were referred to
under the synonym “duties.” That, however, is not a substantive distinction and it
is certainly not the use of a wholly different legal theory such as was at issue in the
Thus, there is no merit to the appellees’ contention based on the Air Florida
case that this court should not consider our argument about the clear and plain
appellees themselves who argue (Opp. p. 11) that the statute’s treatment of
that “obligation” and “duty” are not definitional synonymous. That they are
11
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 17
definitional synonyms is certainly the case as regards one versus the other being
the object or “stake” of interpleader, whether or not they are strictly “property.”
The Court should not only consider the argument based on the clear language of
As with the argument of lack of adversity, the argument for there being no
stake by the appellees relies upon cases that, when examined, do not support the
logical fallacy, that of taking a part of a set and confusing it with the whole set.
with funds from a policy subject to multiple claims, it is not the case by any stretch
that that is the only use of interpleader. Nor is it the case that, because such stakes
played a significant role in the development of the interpleader statute into its
present form, that that is the only use of interpleader. That too is a logical fallacy
of equating a part with the whole. That the lower court engaged in this same
logical fallacy does not make it valid. In fact, it makes clear that there is reversible
error.
In seeking to lead the Court into paying no attention to the clear meaning of
the interpleader act in its use of the word “obligation,” the appellees rely heavily
upon Murphy v. Trav. Ins. Co., 534 F.2d 1155, 1159 (5th Cir.1976). In using the
quote that they chose from the Murphy case (Opp. p. 11), the appellees select a
12
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 18
quote which only deals with the language of the statute that they want the court to
consider exclusively, without taking account of the use of the word “obligation” or
of the duties that constitute that obligation here. The language of the quote only
refers to that part of the statute which speaks of interests evidenced by a “`note,
definite ascertainable value.” The question of “obligation” that is at issue here was
not at issue in that case. The fact pattern of the Murphy case is distinguishable
from this case in several substantive ways that make the analogy argued by the
appellees extremely flawed. To begin with, the use in the passage just quoted of an
Colonel Hollister’s situation. The salary of a Colonel is not subject to any future
not speculative; it is definite and grows out of the original contract of service.
Moreover, what was at issue in Murphy was not whether there was a stake. There
clearly was; it was the amount of an insurance policy. The question was not what
the stake was in that case. The question was how much the deposit into the court
13
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 19
Thus, the Murphy decision is not applicable to the present case at all in the manner
The appellees rely upon, as their other authority for the sweeping assertion
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mffrs. Nat’l. Bank of Detroit, 139 F.R.D. 302, 307
(S.D.N.Y.1991). A careful analysis of the quote that the appellees have taken from
that case (Opp. p. 10) reveals that, by the plain meaning of the language within the
quote which the appellees have chosen to emphasize within the factual context of
that case, it does not apply to this case. For that language clearly demonstrates that
in that case the reason the court rejected the particular item in question, which was
the duty to manage a fleet of rail cars, was that it was not “distinct” from a host of
other claims that were involved in the complex litigation in question. That is not
the case here. Here, by contrast, there is one single obligation, namely, Colonel
was the lack of distinctness which the decision in that case turned upon. There is
In addition there are other factors in that case upon which Judge Mukasy based his
opinion that do not obtain in this case and make a substantial difference. These
are significant factors which the appellees fail to point out. One of them is the
judge’s finding in that case that the interpleader plaintiff must be in possession of
14
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 20
the stake. In that case the entity filing as the interpleader plaintiff, Manufacturers
National Bank of Detroit, was not in possession of the obligation to manage the
fleet of rail cars which it claimed was the stake and, in fact, had never been in
company called Brae; the responsibility was then assigned to another company,
GERSCO. The court there made it clear that that was a substantial distinction
contributing to its decision. Id., 139 F.R.D. at 307. Thus, for that case to be
persuasive authority for this case, Colonel Hollister would have had to have filed
in interpleader, not for himself, but for some other officer who is a member of the
Also in the Bankers Trust case the judge ruled that an important factor that
the “obligations,” which he did consider, ran the wrong way. He ruled that they
ran, not from Manufacturers National Bank to the actual manager of the rail fleet
but instead from that entity, GERSCO, to Manufacturers National Bank. For the
fact situation in this case to be analogous so that the authority of that case would be
persuasive the obligation here at issue would have to run from one of two appellees
to Colonel Hollister, not the other way around. Thus these two cases do not in fact
support the appellees’ position as to there being no stake here under the statute.
The same can also be said of the appellees use in this argument of the
authority of Professor Chafee. They take a passage from his well known article on
15
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 21
the 1936 amendments to the interpleader statute and misrepresent its meaning and
misinterpret the thrust of the article. As we pointed out in our opening brief,
because of the clear language of the statute in its use of the word “obligation,” the
misinterpret both the article in its entirety and the excerpt that they quote from the
article. The article, The Federal Interpleader Act of 1936: I. Zechariah Chafee, Jr.,
45 Yale L.J. 963 (1936) has as its thrust the enormous broadening of the
interpleader act in the bill that amended it in that year. So much is this the case
that the article, after setting out the history of how the act was once confined in its
applicability to certain specific kinds of plaintiffs, in the 1917 Act only insurance
companies could be plaintiff stakeholders. Then in the 1926 version of the act the
companies. Id., a6 964-65. Then, speaking of the breadth of the 1936 act Chafee
says that it: “…removes all previous limits on kinds of companies that are
more states.” (emphasis added) id. Then, after further history, in laying out the
basic principles of the 1936 act, he lists as its first principle: “1. The persons who
can interplead are not limited to insurance, casualty, and surety companies.” Id., at
16
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 22
968. As the fourth principle in the same list he says: “4. The subject matter in
controversy is broadly defined to correspond with the extension of the persons who
can interplead.” Id. The entire thrust of the article is that the sort of limitations
urged by the appellees here were removed in 1936. The appellees mistakenly
argue that the historical limitations in the interpleader act prior to 1936 are still
present.
Thus, the appellees take a passage that is about broadening and try to say
that it is narrowing and limiting. In fact, read carefully, the passage that they cite
almost says that the kind of obligation that Colonel Hollister pleads speaks of
“obligations which are not embodied in formal promise to pay money,” the very
kind of obligation that Colonel Hollister has. Interestingly, right at the point where
the appellees cut off their quote, the article speaks of the type of obligation where
one party has obtained a claim by fraud and deceit, which is essentially what is
alleged here.
argument about standing under statutes other than interpleader. (Opp. p.20) They
seem to be assuming that they can argue Article III lack of standing regardless of
17
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 23
in one of the cases that they cite in this argument, Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights,
This entire argument of the appellees about Article III standing requirements
not being met by the plaintiff here is made without reference to the fact that in this
Act. We have addressed in the preceding arguments why the standing as thus
conferred by Congress is present in this case. Thus the cases that the appellees cite
in this argument do not withstand scrutiny in light of the standing conferred by the
interpleader statute. To be sure Article III standing questions are still applicable,
but it is not relevant to seek to apply them, as the appellees do here, without
18
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 24
goes to the issue of what might otherwise be too far in the future and be too
uncertain in a straight Article III standing case where there is no such prescription
by Congress, since the statute at issue uses the word “may,” as pointed out above,
there was no invocation of interpleader and the most decisive prong of Article III
determined as a result of this case that the appellee Soetoro is only occupying the
office of the presidency de facto and not de jure as alleged in the complaint, then
the exposure of that ineligibility will redress the plaintiff’s grievance because the
plaintiff will know that the defendant Soetoro cannot give a lawful order that the
The use of Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S.
167, 180-81(2000) is even more puzzling, since that is a case involving a statute,
albeit a different one than the interpleader statute, that provides for citizen law
suits; in that case the plaintiffs, as does Colonel Hollister here, had made
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) which dealt with the same statute
with the opposite result. In Lujan it was found that the fact that some member of a
group devoted to the preservation of wild life might some day wander out in a
19
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 25
desert that was being developed for a purpose other than being pristine and not be
able to see the same wildlife as if the development had not taken place was not of
incorporate our previous discussion of Lujan from our earlier timely reply. The
under the allegations of the complaint, is an officer only de facto in violation of the
Constitution. The one is a voluntary hobby; the other is anything but that.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006) is a case in which
it was found that there was no exception to the ban on standing for a mere “general
where there is statutory standing. In Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights, Org, supra,
there was clearly no redressability. In fact, totally unlike this case, the parties sued
were not the parties actually doing the harm complained of. The same is true of
Young America’s Found. v. Gates, 573 F.3d 797, 799 (D.C.Cir.2009). The most
puzzling of these non-relevant cites is that to Freeman v. B&B Assocs., 790 F.2d
145, 150-51 (D.C.Cir.`1986). That case holds the exact opposite of what the
appellees cite it to supposedly support. It stands for the proposition that the
appellees here, having not cross-appealed, should not be allowed to seek to upset
20
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 26
the opinion of the court below, which is exactly what they seek to do. All in all
this Article III standing argument adds nothing to the appellees’ case.
observation that the amended complaint filed by the plaintiff added a new and
different cause of action. Then, having acknowledged that fact, they argue that the
amended complaint was properly ignored and the case dismissed because the
filed. can add a whole new cause of action and not add anything new they do not
explain. They merely applaud the lower court and ask this court to confirm its
clear factual error and gross abuse of discretion. They support this by citing
authority that does not deal in any way with a situation where an amended
complaint has added an entire new cause of action. As a matter of the facts of the
entries in the dockets in this case (App. 003) it can easily be seen that the motion
for dismissal that the court below granted was filed days prior to the amended
complaint filed as a matter of right and, in fact, the court below cannot possibly
have properly and accurately found the amended complaint to have added nothing
new and then ruled upon the whole new cause of action which the amended
complaint did, in fact contain. This alone is grounds for reversal. Here the normal
21
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 27
course described in Ellipso, Inc. v. Mann, 460 F.Supp.2d 99, 103 (D.D.C.2006),
the authority cited by appellees in this argument, was required to be followed and it
wasn’t. Nor is it the case that the plaintiff here has not asserted an individual right
here. The right to have a Commander-in-Chief who is, under the Constitution,
legally eligible and thus qualified to give orders to a member of the military, is an
individual right for each member of the military. The court below did not examine
It is not the case that the plaintiff here seeks to extend Bivens to a new
category of defendants as appellees argue (p.18) when they quote from Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1947 (2009). When the appellee Soetoro engaged in the
violation complained of here he was a federal officer and he did it himself. It was
not a case of respondeat superior. Analysis was required and was not made. The
denial of anything new in the amended complaint was factually incorrect. It was
question does not relate solely to the amended complaint. It was raised from the
very opening of the initial complaint, as pointed out in our opening brief.
This issue was not raised for the first time on appeal. Unlike in Air Florida
the complaint clearly makes the allegations and speaks of the defendant Soetoro as
22
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 28
being de facto and not de jure. It alleges numerous facts establishing that and they
The Opposition assumes that the opinions below were all correct and that,
therefore, the only issue with regard to sanctions is the type of sanction. This
overlooks the possibility of any error below. Since we have shown that there was
error below, it is axiomatic that an award of sanctions of any sort was improper. In
any case, the court below did not particularize its charges of violations of Rule 11
as we pointed out in our brief is required. Nor did the court below conduct any
inquiry into what the pre-filing inquiry was with regard to any of the three prongs
twittering” on the Internet, the court below found that the complaint and the filings
of the undersigned were “frivolous.” Thus there was no proper analysis to justify
Contrary to the assertion of appellees (Opp. pp. 23-24) Judge Robertson did
not point out unsupported arguments. What he did was take arguments that
pointed out obligations and duties and opine that they were not property. They did
represent intangible forms of property, in fact, that were obligations and duties, but
he found that not to his liking because he chose not to pay any attention to the
language of the statute in that regard. That the complaint and filings were
23
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 29
warranted by existing law we have shown in our references to 19th century cases on
the “natural born citizen” phrasing and the influence of Vattel on that language.
The district court did not assess the “totality of the circumstances.” In fact, it did
Nor is the assertion in the Opposition (p.25) about the advisory committee
notes to the 1993 amendments correct. There is nothing in those notes which
contradicts the case law set out by the undersigned (Appx. 243 ff.) requiring a
assess counsel or the plaintiff, and yet the court below found bad faith.
Significantly, the appellees cite no actual language from that Committee Report to
In short, the heart of Rule 11 is whether or not, before filing a document, the
signer made reasonable “inquiry” into the facts and the law. Here the court below
made no inquiry into that inquiry and so had absolutely no basis to assess any kind
The court below made no such inquiry and instead relied upon two things,
its ventures on to the Internet and facts outside of this case, and facts not from any
experience it had in ruling in this case. It looked to the behavior of two other
attorneys who signed the pleadings below, and Philip J. Berg in particular, in a
24
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 30
case in which he was involved, and not the plaintiff here or the undersigned. These
inquiries included Mr. Berg’s website. Thus this behavior also goes to the bias
issue.
The appellees (p. 29) assert correctly the axiom that facts learned during the
conduct of the judicial proceeding do not require recusal. But the facts of the other
suits by Berg, who was not a party in this suit, and the facts of the vetting,
blogging and twittering on the Internet as a rationale for why the Constitution need
not be inquired into are not matters learned within the four corners of this case.
The clear bias indicated by the characterization by the court below of Berg and
Joyce as probably the “real” plaintiffs in this case and the description of them
enlisting Colonel Hollister as part of a political movement as the court below saw
it are not within the four corners of this case and clearly indicate a bias developed
from matters outside of this case. The case of Likety v. United States, 510 U.S. 540
(1994) which the appellees cite (pp. 29-30) actually makes clear that bias need not
always be based on matters outside the four corners of the case in question but
certainly makes clear that reliance on matters outside of the four corners of the
case and letting them shape and influence opinions in the case or even give the
The most glaring example of the bias resulting from improper reliance on
matters outside of the course of proceedings in this case is contained in the opinion
25
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 31
of dismissal (App. 209) in the paragraph where the court below used the
574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D.Pa.2008), It used that as the basis for characterizing the
attorney Philip J. Berg as the “real plaintiff” in this case, and the actual plaintiff in
“crusade,” with clearly a pejorative meaning. Although the court below listed the
causes of action in that case, which were not in any way the same as in this case, it
nonetheless connected the two cases as part of a “crusade.” This gave a clear
appearance to the public that it was biased. This bias was also evident in the
attempts of the lower court, relying upon its evident distaste for Philip J. Berg and
Lawrence Joyce, to assess the entire legal costs of the appellees, which it clearly
saw as extensive, against the undersigned. This last was an effort not even
permitted by the language of Rule 11 which the court below invoked in attempting
to assess the undersigned with this steep financial burden. In this Opposition the
appellants seek to compare this evidence of the appearance of bias with the judicial
notice in exercised in the case of Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 832 F.2d
601, 607 (D.C.Cir.1987). But the two situations are not analogous. Veg-Mix was
about judicial notice. There is nothing here in the Berg case that was being taken
judicial notice of. The only reason to take note of the case was to use it to smear
26
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 32
CONCLUSION
and pejorative mischaracterization, is to make the Court feel that if it dares to take
its oath to the Constitution as seriously as Colonel Hollister does, and apply the
Law.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
John D. Hemenway
Counsel for Appellants
4816 Rodman Street, NW
Washington DC 20016
(202) 244-4819
johndhemenway@comcast.net
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a) and D.C. Cir. R. 32(a), I hereby certify
that this brief contains 6,975 words, excluding the parts exempted by the rules,
and has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft
Word 2003 in Times New Roman 14-point typeface.
27
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1223831 Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
/s/
John D. Hemenway
Counsel for Appellants
28