Nonlawyers arguing in court
Pohle v. John G. Roberts
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Daniel Pohle and Otter Creek Trading Co. say Trump v.
- What's at stake
- Pohle and Otter Creek are seeking Supreme Court review of their claims, but the Court has not yet agreed to hear them.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
United States shielded Donald Trump from civil claims over an alleged pre-election cover-up involving Mike Pence and Indiana’s alleged violation of an international sales treaty, costing them money; they also challenge Supreme Court Rule 28.8’s limits on oral argument by people without lawyers. Pohle has filed a petition asking the Court to review the D.C. Circuit case.
Pohle and Otter Creek argue that Trump v. United States shielded Donald Trump from civil claims over an alleged pre-election cover-up involving Mike Pence and Indiana’s alleged breach of the United Nations sales treaty, which they say caused business losses; they also challenge Supreme Court Rule 28.8.
Question presented
1. Whether the United States Supreme Court ruling “ TRUMP v UNITED STATES ” gave Trump civil immunity for his 2016 - 2020 pre-election cover up of his former VP / Indiana Governor Pence and Indiana ’ s violation of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG TREATY), which has defamed and financially cost Daniel L Pohle and his corporation, Otter Creek Trading Co Inc billions of dollars in lost revenue? 2. Whether there is any wonder that the Indiana Supreme Court is completely ignorant when it comes to the CISG TREATY with President Trump and the United States Supreme Court refusing executive or judicial preemption to create case law for guidance to the 30,000 state and 1,500 federal judges? 3. Whether the knowing and willful non-compliance with a self-executing United States Treaty (CISG) by a President Trump and The Supreme Court is the blocking Otter Creek Trading Co Inc and Daniel L. Pohle ’ s Constitutional Right to Due Process in a court with proper jurisdiction and knowledge represents a Criminal Conspiracy to Violate the Constitutional Rights of another person under 18 U. S. Code 241? 4. Whether Supreme Court Rule 28.8 barring argument by non-lawyers is constitutional when it is subordinate to The Judiciary Act of 1789 and 28 USC 1654 and Article VI-2- -SUPREMACY CLAUSE?
What happens next
The next step is for the Court to decide whether to hear the case. No argument date or decision window is set; argument would come only if the Court agrees to hear it.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.