= new reply since forum marked as read
Since you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to the contrary. Come on... this should be easy, shouldn't it? Just provide ONE example of a court keeping the US Senate from voting on a nominee.
The rules here forbid you from making personal attacks.
I haven't made any. That's in your imagination (as it seems is your "case"
. "Fool for a client" was intentionally in quotes to point out that it was our 16th President who made the (entirely true) analogy.
Either stick with a particular argument, based on legitimate debate, or I'll block you again.
Oh dear! However, will I sleep at night? I have stuck with a particular argument... which was to educate you on the Constitutional separation of powers.
You are making other victims upset.
I recommend they hire an actual attorney if they're upset. I haven't commented on what was done to them and have no opinion on etoys or events of decades ago. I merely pointed out that you didn't know what you were talking about.
... then you do of legal procedure.
Clerks have NO (zero) authority to violate due process rights.
You haven't demonstrated that one did.
The LAW commands they docket the case, immediately upon reception.
Cite the law that commands this. Don't worry... I won't hold my breath. 
Im done with you.
I've got news for you. You were "done" when you first tried to invent reality on what the court could do.
A clerk can't "direct" a party until one has a dam case number; and that's the issue here. The clerk is required, by the law, to docket all filings; which would result in a case number.
Sorry. That's simply incorrect. It isn't a filing until it's accepted and there's no evidence that he has come close to an acceptable filing. There is no court that will give you a case number in such circumstances.
LCvR 5.1 - G
NONCONFORMING DOCUMENTS.
A document that does not conform to the requirements of this Rule and Fed. R. Civ. P.
10(a) shall not be accepted for filing.
Neither Mr. Haas, nor I, know what your motivation is;
He seems to be quite certain what that motivation is... as do you. You're both convinced that it's some imagined hostility toward the victims of some prior offense. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Not knowing any of the actual facts, I have no opinion on events that did or did not take place 15+ years ago. I'm commenting on this OP - which claims that the author tried to get a federal court to place a restraining order on the US Senate. I politely corrected the author that such a thing is not possible - whether we like it or not.
I thought this was a place for Democrats to fight Republicans. Not to fight each other.
Then stop fighting. You've been given valid advice. It was his failure to listen to that advice that was the "fight".
In reality - there was no fight because he had no a leg to stand on.
Certainly, it could not be that of a legal professional; because you appear to be making things up in a disingenuous manner, just to fit your contrary, pro bad guys and anti Laser Haas agenda.
No Clerk of Court may deny a complaint to be filed.
As for your purported FRCP (Federal Rule Civil Procedure) 10(a) this is what it actually states and the link corroborative.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_10#rule_7_a
Rule 10. Form of Pleadings
(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The title of the complaint must name all the parties; the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may refer generally to other parties.
Both Mr. Haas and my husband have been after justice for more than a decade; and have filed a hundred items in that time, collectively. Never, in the entire ten years plus, has a clerk of court arbitrarily refused to docket am item, until now.
I find it very convenient that such a time semsitive document is being prevented from being entered into the record; which only benefits Trump's agenda.
This is the Law of our nation.
Each document not properly forwarded is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2076, which provides for a fine and up to one year in jail. Each document concealed or destroyed is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 and provides for a fine and up to three years in prison:
"
a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office†does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."
FRCP Rule 5(d)(2): "A paper is filed by delivering it: (A) to the clerk" FRCP Rule 77 (a) "When Court Is Open. Every district court is considered always open for filing any paper, issuing and returning process, making a motion, or entering an order."
notably in United States v. Lombardo, 1916, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S. Ct. 508, 60 L. Ed. 897 and more recently in Milton v. United States, 5 Cir., 1939, 105 F.2d 253, 255. The latter case points out that all that is required on the part of a person filing a paper with an official is 'merely the depositing of the instrument with the custodian for the purpose of being filed'. (See Palcar Real Estate Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 210; Schultz v. United States, Ct.Cl.1955, 132 F.Supp. 953, 955; McCord v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 369, 123 F.2d 164, 165; Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 902, 904. (Johansson v. Towson, 177 F. Supp. 729 (M.D.Ga. 02/17/1959).) [emphasis added.]
The filing of a paper takes place upon the delivery of it to the officer at his office. Milton v. United States
These are case cites and facts.
And the question still begs. Who or why are you so motivated to defeat our quest for justice?
Why are you arguing to let a wolf guard the henhouse, so that Goldman Sacks and Bain Capital can continue to get away with frauds?
He has elsewhere on DU admitted that he flunked out of high school. On the other side of that same coin, he has rejected the legal opinions of multiple experts (including any number of court justices up to and including the 9th circuit court of appeals).
So I ask again: Why pretend that he cares about actual expertise? I'll just say that it's solidly in between those two levels.
No Clerk of Court may deny a complaint to be filed.
That's a common misconception. A clerk can't reject it solely due to improper form. But that does not at all mean that the clerk must docket everything it receives. Some guy walks in off the street with a piece of paper purporting to be a complaint about reduced property values caused by the sun unfairly rising exclusively in the East - and the clerk will absolutely not accept the filing. When the court lacks the jurisdiction to even hear the case and lacks the power to order the requested remedy... you're pretty much stuck in "frivolous lawsuit" territory.
Question - Why do you think they have a stamp that says "Received but not filed" if the clerk must file everything you give her?
As for your purported FRCP
You appear to have an imaginary interlocutor. I gave you the rules for the court that he claims wronged him. They said that documents that don't conform to their rules and 10(a) "shall not be accepted for filing". Perhaps you should go tell them that they don't understand the rules?
Both Mr. Haas and my husband have been after justice for more than a decade; and have filed a hundred items in that time, collectively.
Have they ever filed one that... you know... actually ended up winning?
Never, in the entire ten years plus, has a clerk of court arbitrarily refused to docket am item, until now.
Have they ever requested something that the court lacks the power to grant in an area for which the court lacks any jurisdiction?
I find it very convenient that such a time semsitive document is being prevented from being entered into the record;
You seem to share Haas' mistaken belief that getting something "entered into the record" grants it some magical weight (hint - it doesn't). One would think that multiple times having things "entered into the record" yet finding that his claims were held to be entirely without legal merit... would open his eyes. Apparently not.
These are case cites and facts.
They sure look like them... don't they? Unfortunately... what they aren't are relevant cites/facts.
And the question still begs. Who or why are you so motivated to defeat our quest for justice?
Actually the question still begging is why you desperately need to believe that anyone correcting your misunderstanding must want to "defeat your quest for justice". I've said multiple times that I simply don't know enough about the original scenario to form an opinion for or against. From the beginning I merely pointed out that you can't ask a court to do something that it lacks the power to do. It's laughable that he actually thinks that he can walk into court and tell them how bad someone is... and walk out with a court order telling the US Senate that they can't vote on a confirmation.
If I give you all benefit of the doubt - then the correct remedy is to petition the US Senate to vote down his nomination.
One might say EXACTLY like him.
I look forward to meeting your next personality. 