Just by looking at even only the content of that ORDER one would question how could that court seriously issue the order on 6/10 and require the summons to be served by 6/26. Also, what kind of a court ignores why a motion was entered as a letter instead of a motion in addition to how that motion was not answered but still fault the litigant for not following a third party legal advice?According to what rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) someone without authority from the judge can rule on motions or issue orders? Actually that unsolicited responding letter itself stated that it was a response to my "letter" not my motion. Nevertheless I already commented on the merits of its contents here so there is no need to get into that again.
No comments:
Post a Comment