IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
United States of America, ) Case No. 06-000 Plaintiff ) ) Vs ) Objection to Magistrate’s Order ) Robert Patriot, and ) Karen Patriot ) Defendants/ ) Counterclaim )
Defendants Robert Patriot and Karen Patriot hereby file their Objection to the Magistrate Order May 4, 2007) striking Karen’s Reply (or Sur –Reply) Doc. 19.
1. Magistrate Merz filed his Report and Recommendation (document 13) on March 19, 2007. Within ten days, we filed our Objections to the Magistrate’s report on ____________ (document 14). On April 13, 2007, the DOJ filed their Response (document 15) to Defendants Objection. On ________defendants filed their Reply (document 19) to the Government’s Response.
3. On May 4, 2007 the Magistrate filed his Order striking the Reply of Defendant Karen Patriot. The Magistrate on dispersive matters such as dismissal does not have authority to issue the final order.
4. Apparently, some dispute or objection exists in the federal courthouse about a minor procedure/problem of pro se defendants. Defendants admit that they make many procedural mistakes.
However, one mistake not made is the fact the husband Bob signs his wife’s Karen name on the pleadings when convenient. Under the common law of this state, spouses have automatic power of attorney for their spouse and power to sign their names to legal documents with certain acceptations such as deeds.
The common law of the state of Ohio has been adopted by the federal courts in this state because in theory the federal courts have no common law.
5. In any event, nobody has notified Defendants that this was a problem and given them a chance to correct any error. Pro se Bob Patriot has been signing his wife’s name all along as he is authorized to do by law.
Bob does not claim to represent Karen at this time and therefore did not sign these papers as her representative. Representation in federal court is a world of difference from power of attorney signature signing.
6. Therefore, Karen’s Reply (or Sur-Reply) should be considered by the court as well as her earlier filed Objection. Consequently, defendants request that the striking order be reconsidered by this Honorable Magistrate.
7. Defendants also request that they be allowed to file this motion out of time because they just received it due to a chronic illness in the family.
Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on his date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.
__________________ May 23, 2007
Bob Patriot, Pro Se
1776 Patriot Way
Karen Patriot, Pro Se