Recently a suitor had a magistrate chime in offering an order to notify MNUCHIN that his 90 Days were coming due, for default. It turned out to be a play to regain authority after R4C on the "judge" for the deviant oath.
Waiting for another publication on PACER (life is very interesting with the new technology) I discovered
a recent filing (attached).
3. The Community submitted a contract proposal to the Department of the Interior (“Department”) requesting law enforcement funding under the ISDEAA in the amount of $8.1 million for fiscal year (“FY”) 2017. The Secretary failed to respond within the 90-day limitation or to seek an extension, and the proposal is therefore deemed approved under the law.
Furthermore because of the deviant bonding/oaths the suitor Refused the Order for Cause and the "magistrate" behaved like a child, reporting and recommending that the case be closed. - Like temperament affects the rules. Well! It turns out that the Secretary was notified anyway, because of the R4C that was sent...
Then the corrected income tax returns were redacted from publication, but the magistrate included the Addresses page in the redaction! The entire process, you see, the Order recognizes the process is Proof of Service according to the Rules. This may be a little complicated to follow so review the Rule:
Rule B(1) (c) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must issue the summons and process of attachment and garnishment. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-attachment hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.
In the state USDC the clerk was supposed to issue both process of garnishment and the summons. The $47 Miscellaneous Case was rejected, but he filed a civil suit and the clerk issued a Summons. The clerk issued two summonses in two names, then mailed the summons but it came back to the clerk for either an absent address or a bogus address; hard to tell with a sticker over it!
So at the last look, the magistrate is trying to obfuscate the Proof of Service process he first recognized with the Order! The new proof of service process is to file the R4C with the USDC Clerk and when it shows on PACER as a pdf file - send that out Certificate of Mailing with copy of the Receipt and Tracking #'s marked up with the Recipient NAME - TRUMP, MNUCHIN, TIGTA etc. Then that receipt, with the Proof of Service from FedEx, UPS or USPS is filed into the USDC evidence repository. This has been recognized as Proof of Service, because there never was a Summons. Get it? The magistrate was offering to recognize the Proof of Service process, but only if the suitor would take back the "judge" recusal by recognizing the magistrate's offer of authority. The suitor left the Rule of Law as the authority and rejected the magistrate's offer.
But to summarize, the cases in the US USDC are going quite well. All that is between MNUCHIN and garnishment of his paycheck, according to the rule is for the suitor to be heard. For the corrected tax return(s) to be reassessed according to law and the principle of redemption. The spine of voluntary compliance for the American taxation system is the right to be heard. So this is very encouraging, this new technology.
Of course, the about-face from the magistrate - the Report and Recommendation was Refused for Cause too. Interesting though, the attorney for the Native American sees the rule a default by the Secretary (Interior) while the magistrate sees the rule cause to dismiss the case! Without the scope of redemption and without a record of the redemption (monument), it is quite arbitrary and capricious.
One might say that the law of contract (insurance) is the law of surety. Who is securing the trust? Who is the beneficiary? Who settled the trust?
Regards,
David Merrill.
