Notice that a game similar to the one I talked about here
in its aim of confusing who is responsible for the action was also played by this federal Appeal Court in its order talked about in the preceding post . If you compare the orders in the two order links in that post you would see that unlike the older one the newer order has the thirty days extension mentioned at the first page but not with the main content of the order. It started by stating that "The enclosed order has been ENTERED" then stated that "Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date of the enclosed order" which was not included in the "enclosed order". So which judge made the ruling of 30 days instead of the 14 days limit granted by the order granting the second time extension motion? Or was it the clerk of the court not only exceeding the limits of his authority but also contradicting an order issued by a judge in the court?
Again, what kind of court plays low games like these?
No comments:
Post a Comment