Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: R4C on Order to Desist R4C's

  1. #1

    R4C on Order to Desist R4C's

    This is a bit revealing, and entertaining as while the Document says ORDER, the clerk has it registered on PACER as an "opinion". - Just a federal judge's opinion folks...

    Click Here to View.

    Here is my opportunity to share how delightful it is to check the account summary and find a balance of $00.00 even though I like to download suitors' process regularly. Somebody realized that PACER should not be charging at all, being a government publication service and they opened up a Cloud (I believe) calling it Public Archive. NOTICE: RECAP it turns out is not free. It loads to "Public Archives" and is free from there but PACER charges for the initial download! Once you download the free document it becomes available for free from this public archive too! RECAP is a browser tool you load on to your browser.

    Read the clerk instruction and note the next time a suitor encounters resistance to publication (Record Forming) I will instruct that he or she add the demand the clerk publish it on PACER too. Notice that the R4C is marked as FILED by the US Clerk of Court. For now however, it would seem the clerk feels publication on PACER is at the discretion of the court.


    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by David Merrill; 07-06-14 at 12:06 AM.

  2. #2
    That Judge must have been in a hurry because he forgot to sign it.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by LearnTheLaw View Post
    That Judge must have been in a hurry because he forgot to sign it.
    The judge's name was typewritten on the signature line. I sanitized it well...

    David,

    This morning I have news of federal refund (attached) as result of lawful money tax return filing. Have wonderful example docs from start to finish, just need to sanitize. So a big THANK YOU! there.

  4. #4
    Naturally it couldn't be a true "order" because there was no stipulation of the parties. These administrative courts require stipulations.

    All law is contract and contract makes the law!

    From Bouvier's; http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_s.htm

    STIPULATION, contracts. In the Roman law, the contract of stipulation was made in the following manner, namely; the person to whom the promise was to be made, proposed a question to him from whom it was to proceed, fully expressing tho nature and extent of the engagement and, the question so proposed being answered in the affirmative, the obligation was complete.

    2. It was essentially necessary that both parties should speak, (so that a dumb man could not enter into a stipulation) that the person making the promise should answer conformably to the specific question, proposed, without any material interval of time, and with the intention of contracting an obligation.

    3. From the general use of this mode of contracting, the term stipulation has been introduced into common parlance, and, in modern language, frequently refer's to any thing which forms a material article of an agreement; though it is applied more correctly and more conformably to its original meaning to denote the insisting upon and requiring any particular engagement. 2 Evans' Poth. on Oblig. 19.

    4. In this contract the Roman law dispensed with an actual consideration. See, generally, Pothier, Oblig. P. 1, c. 1, s. 1, art. 5.

    5. In the admiralty courts, the first process is freq uently to arrest the defendant, and then they take the recognizances or stipulation of certain fide jussors in the nature of bail. 3 Bl. Comm. 108; vide Dunlap's Adm. Practice, Index, h. t.

    6. These stipulations are of three sorts, namely: l. Judicatum solvi, by which the party is absolutely bound to pay such sum as may be adjudged by the court. 2 De judico sisti, by which he is bound to appear from time to time, during the pendency of the suit, and to abide the sentence. 3. De ratio, or De rato, by which he engages to ratify the acts of his proctor: this stipulation is not usual in the admiralty courts of the United States.

    7. The securities are taken in the following manner, namely: 1. Cautio fide jussoria, by sureties. 2. Pignoratitia; by deposit. 3. Juratoria, by oath: this security is given when the party is too poor to find sureties, at the discretion of the court. 4. Aude promissoria, by bare promise: this security is unknown in the admiralty courts of the United States. Hall's Adm. Pr. 12; Dunl. Adm. Pr. 150, 151. See 17 Am. Jur. 51.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by EZrhythm View Post
    Naturally it couldn't be a true "order" because there was no stipulation of the parties. These administrative courts require stipulations.
    For not limited to administrative purposes the judge is free to issue an order sua sponte.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sua_sponte

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    226
    Name:  cv-00053 25 OPINION.jpg
Views: 99
Size:  67.3 KB

    OK. I see now. 19 pages should cost $1.90 but it says: "... there is no charge for viewing opinions."
    Very interesting.

    Now what if it was a real judge with a valid oath.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by EZrhythm View Post
    Naturally it couldn't be a true "order" because there was no stipulation of the parties. These administrative courts require stipulations.

    All law is contract and contract makes the law!

    I am a stuck record...

    I like the pun!

    Fraud vitiates all contracts.

    "I have not been arraigned." - If they pretend to be judicial and are not, then how could anybody expect a Defendant to understand the nature and cause of the accusation?

    This comes full circle. I did not understand the script I was imposing upon the record. I cannot even remember the guy's name. Something about inquiring of the "judge" a few questions... Establishing that the court was actually an equity court, operating administratively under criminal rules. Once this was on the record then the "judge" could not proceed; in theory.

    It never worked for me. I kept talking myself into appearances and they cured all defects...

    The Albany Remand has been labeled "Federal Question" by the clerk of court. A Constitutional Question. Easy for a second-grader though;

    Is a judge allowed to change his oath before signing it?
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-05-19 at 12:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •