New Order In Berg's Hollister v. Soetoro Birfer Lawsuit

[jberryhill]

For anyone following the fun & games in the Hollister v. Soetoro lawsuit brought by the irrepressible Philip Berg, there's a new sign of exasperation in an order just issued:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Instead of the opposition plaintiff was ordered to file
by 2/13/09 (or defendants' motion to dismiss would be granted as
conceded, see <#10>), what plaintiff filed was (a) the affidavit
of a paralegal (who works in the office of a Pennsylvania lawyer
who has not been admitted to practice in this Court), complaining
about her treatment by an employee of the Clerk's Office, and
(b) many blank pages, decorated only by what appear to be
botanical drawings and the illegible photocopy of an Hawaiian
certificate of live birth. (a) The affidavit was apparently
intended as a response to my earlier observation that plaintiff's
motion to file interpleader was frivolous, see <#2>, <#10>, the
argument being, "Maureen Higgins made me do it." What was
frivolous about the motion, however, was not the fact that it was
filed, but the suggestion that "duties" could be filed in the
registry of this court. (b) The blank pages were either
somebody's idea of a joke (in which case I don't get it) or a
mistake. If the latter, plaintiffs have until 5:00 pm EST on
2/26/09 to correct it, by re-filing their points and authorities
in opposition to the pending motion to dismiss (in the .pdf
format required by the Court's CM/EDF system), or otherwise to
show cause why that motion should not now be granted as conceded.

It is SO ORDERED.
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-02254-JR Document 14 Filed 02/25/2009 Page 2 of 2

[Milspec]

1. Oh my

trouble with a Philip Berg case, must be a problem with a court clerk.

[jberryhill]

2. Ding....

In fairness, if you've been following this...

There was a defense motion to dismiss. Instead of opposing the motion, Berg filed an amended complaint. The judge noted that the changes were minor, did not moot the dismissal motion, and ordered an opposition to the dismissal.

Berg did file an opposition to the dismissal motion, and you can download it from the court's own public ECF system. It's all there, but yes he did include an irrelevant portion about a claimed "clerk problem" in addition to the "substantive" opposition motion. The part about the clerk problem was backed up by the affidavit which the judge saw, and there was another exhibit of a Hawaiian document of some kind.

The thing is, this judge is saying that he got a bunch of blank pages. The fact that you can download the entire motion from the court's own docket system indicates that, yes, there must be an internal problem in the court, because there is no way that I should be able to download the opposition motion, while the judge is saying it is "blank pages".

What I expect next on the docket is a letter from Berg(1) saying something like - "ummm... check the electronic filing system, because it's there".

(1) ...and signed by the local counsel, since Berg's pro hac vice admission motion is still being held in abeyance by the court pending scheduling of a live hearing to determine his competence, which is covered in a prior order from the judge. When they schedule that sucker, if the case is not dismissed prior to then, I'm taking the day off and watching this judge give Berg a piece of his mind.

[Hepburn]

3. HOLY SHIT!!!!!

I started practing law years and years ago...and I have NEVER seen anything even remotely like that!

:wow:

[jberryhill]

4. Go on Pacer and look at the last three orders...

Have you ever seen a denial of a pro hac vice motion subject to "examination in open court" of the movant's "competence, good faith, and legal basis for the complaint"?

That would be one big clue of where the judge is headed.