As usual, there are layers of punch lines here

The posts I made yesterday were about only part of the new story. What is the other part about? The other part is where the second punch line after that of the 30 days extension. The defendant came again to request another extension. And today I found that he was again granted a new extension by the clerk of the court until 3/12/2014.
You think you reached the final punch line here? Not yet. The clerk also issued a "public communication" on his own and in which he declared that the briefs of all appellees are due on 3/12/2014.

Aside from how ridiculous the situation orders by judges of that court allowed it to be, even on direct technical view on its face the clerk has no authority to do that. He has the authority to grant extensions (of up to seven days) but not the authority to give a new permission to file for those who had already missed the dead line. Even for the defendant who requested this later extension the clerk has no authority to give this seven days "extension" because it was not shown that the 30 days instead of 14 days previous extension was an order that came from a judge. Even if you add 7 days to the 14 days there would still be an interruption and therefore an extension cannot be granted by the clerk of the court.
Docket Sheet on 3/6/2014

Granting all appellees until 3-12-2014.pdf

[(Added 3/7/2014)Actually, I was wrong. Aside from the good reason requirement, for a second time extension request, the clerk do not have the authority to issue any extension of time. Only the court can do that and a motion is required. This was stated clearly in 11th Cir. R. 31-2 (C) stating that "A second request must be made by written motion and will only be acted upon by the court" http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/documents/pdfs/RulesDEC13.pdf and this was not even the second request for time extension]