New from that appellate court

In case you thought that was enough, that federal appellate court added a new thing to its outrageous show yesterday.

Remember the story mentioned in this post
The wider view to the game

of the required CIP form which I showed with the help of links in that post that I sent overnight on 9/23/2013 but did not show on the docket sheet at least until after  10/6/2013?

Later I complained in this post
Late Entries

about the late entries of that court docket sheet

Then later in this post
Docket forgery or backdating ?

I showed how some entry was added for a past date which I also showed through many links that it did not exist in the docket sheet before.

Yesterday a new thing of this kind was added. This order of 11/26/2013
The first extension granting order

I talked about here
Deeper Corruption at the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeal

which was earlier mentioned in the docket sheet as granting the first time extension request for defendant Action, was changed yesterday to be described as also granting that same extension to the other defendant and to whom I did not even give my agreement to that extension.

I even referred to that at the end of this post
People Courts, Hedge Fund Guy Chuck-E-Cheese

when I talked about how this recently added defendant filed his brief late without being granted an extension from the court (Notice that post also contained in the second page of the link at the end the original version of that order of 11/26/2013) .

Here is a link showing the new change that happened yesterday to the past entry of 11/26/2013
Entry of 11/26/2013 on the docket sheet starting from yesterday


(This link was pointing to the wrong address and has been corrected)

And here is a link showing how that entry was until the day before (I have so many other links pointing to the same entry for various dates saved to my computer).

Entry of 11/26/2013 until yesterday

Notice also that dependence on the docket sheet description of an order could also be the only way to know to which motion or entity that order was directed unless something in the text of that order also indicate that. Here the text of the order mentioned the word "Appellees'" which could indicate that it is being directed to a plural. But then it was attached to the word "motion" instead of "motions". So was it directed to a plural or singular entity or just someone playing a game? Now one may say that it was directed to a plural entity but used "motion" instead of "motions" to refer to the identical request in both motions. But then how about when the order mentioned "Appellees' brief" instead of "Appellees' briefs"? There is certainly no reason to believe in having identical briefs here. In any case, even if inside the order was clearly indicating to whom it was directed, I do not know any reason for the insufficiency of  the dependence on court docket sheets.