Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rxsid
However, that doesn’t address my question. How can the court (the clerk) require something that isn’t required? Is this particular court above the rules (law) such that they can mandate whatever they want whenever they want?

We don't know for sure what the clerk said-- all we have is something from Berg's paralegal, and I personally think that Berg's credibility is questionable. But it does happen sometimes that clerks make mistakes, and there is a procedure for asking the judge to correct them 9which Berg didn't follow).

But all of that is a sideshow here. The judge's order has nothing to do with whether Berg followed (or disn't follow) the clerk's alleged advice. Berg is being called on the carpet for missing three deadlines to respond to the motion to dismiss. Instead of responding, he filed something about how the clerk supposedly bullied his paralegal-- not a response to the motion to dismiss.

110 posted on 02/26/2009 10:28:44 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]


To: Lurking Libertarian
"But all of that is a sideshow here"

True, this is a tangential issue...however, if that is indeed true that the court required something that isn't required...that's hardly a sideshow IMO.

It could be seen as judicial activism or the judiciary acting as lawmakers.

That would be another major Constitutional issue there unto itself.

116 posted on 02/26/2009 11:49:39 AM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson