[Lurking Libertarian]

So far as I can tell in this particular case, it looks like the clerk for the court required something of the plaintiff that wasn't required. So the paralegal files documentary evidence of what transpired. Then, the judge takes it out on the plaintiff's paralegal? This appears to me that the judge on this case is basically saying he and his court are above the rules.

What the judge's order states is this:

The plaintiff filed an interpleader action--that is a special kind of lawsuit where one person is holding money or property and isn't sure who it belongs to and asks the court to tell him who to pay so he doesn't wind up paying twice. The Complaint said that the "property" they were holding was their "loyalty" to the President and they needed interpleader because they don't know who the real President is. (Aside: when this lawsuit was first filed, I posted here that this was a frivolous claim, and got seriously flamed for saying that.)

The Judge said that it was frivolous to sue for interpleader because "loyalty" is not property. However, he didn't dismiss the Complaint because the defendants hadn't yet asked him to.

Obama then moved to dismiss the Complaint and Berg missed the deadline to respond to Obama's motion to dismiss. The judge gave Berg more time to respond to the motion. Berg still didn't respond to the motion to dismiss. Instead, he has his paralegal file an affidavit saying that the court clerk bullied her into filing a motion she didn't have to file. The judge said that he ordered Berg to respond, not the paralegal, and that what he wanted was a response to the motion to dismiss, not an explanation for the filing of the motion. The judge is now giving Berg a third chance to respond to the motion to dismiss.

Added to all of this is that Berg is not licensed to practice law in D.C. He filed a motion to be admitted "pro hac vice" -- that is, allowed to practice just for this one case. The judge said that he is not inclined to do that because Berg is clearly not following court rules (although he has not definitively rejected Berg's motion yet).

[rxsid]

True.

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?

[Sibre Fan]

Obama then moved to dismiss the Complaint and Berg missed the deadline to respond to Obama's motion to dismiss....

I don't think Berg missed the deadline. He filed an Amended Complaint on February 9 (when the opposition was due), apparently believing that that obviated the need for an opposition.

The Judge disagreed and issued an order (available on Right Side of Life that read:
"Plaintiff's amended complaint [#11] adds nothing to the original complaint except rhetoric and legal theory and creates no obligation upon the defendants to respond to it. Nor is the amended complaint responsive to defendants' motion to dismiss [#9], opposition to which was due on 2/9/09. Unless points and authorities in opposition to the motion to dismiss are filed by 2/13/09, the motion will be treated as conceded and granted. It is SO ORDERED."

Berg then filed an Opposition on February 13th. He filed both the Opposition Brief and the Declaration. See Pasted text from Docket at obamacrimes.com.

However, from what I can tell reading other sites following this case, something was wrong with the document. Some people had no problems with it but others couldn't open it correctly or print it. It seems that the Judge could not see the document either as the Order said that he had a bunch of blank pages, plus the Declaration.