Skip to comments.HOLLISTER v OBAMA, Memorandum in Opposition (Entered 2/17/09)
Posted on 02/19/2009 3:06:08 PM PST by rxsid
HOLLISTER v OBAMA, Memorandum in Opposition
3. On or about January 2, 2009 at approximately 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, I received a call from John Hemenway, Esquire, local counsel and sponsors of Philip J. Berg, Esquire and Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire to be entered in this Court to practice pro hac vice in the within matter.
4. Mr. Hemenway informed me he had received a call from Maureen Higgins, a Clerk at the United States District Court, District of Columbia. Mr. Hemenway stated Ms. Higgins refused to file Plaintiffs Complaint without a Motion for Leave to File an Interpleader Action.
#1, the legal industry would disintegrate were it required to use words of six or fewer letters, that is, write in plain English, and,
#2, does this mean that some twit of a clerk took it upon herself to not file a document with the court simply “’cuz she dint wanna?”
And this means....? (for the legally blind.)
That appears to be the assertion. After reading, it's clear to me that the clerk took it upon herself to attempt to obstruct the process, IMO.
"Ms. Higgins refused to file Plaintiffs Complaint without a Motion for Leave to File an Interpleader Action"
That the clerk refused to file the complaint, without a 'Motion for Leave' to be filed. The plaintiff's could find NO reference, anywhere, where that was required by the court. Therefore, it appears the clerk refused the Plaintiff's Complaint based on nothing. From what I can tell, that looks like obstruction of justice (or at least, the legal process) in some form.
Thank you. This is really getting intense.
An Obamaloid masquerading as a clerk in the D.C. Circuit? Who knew?
“Somethiing is wrong when a minor clerk thinks they can determine the procedures of any court”
“She should be joining the ranks of the unemployed soon”
Amazing. Obstacle after obstacle.
Der Fuhrer Obama is more equal than we are. He shall not be questioned!