Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Making $39 Notice and Demand

  1. #1

    Making $39 Notice and Demand

    Here is a fine example:




  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    On the land known as Kansas
    Posts
    154
    Short, sweet and on the record. Very nice.

  3. #3
    The fun part for me is this fellow is not a suitor. I coached him over the phone but he grasped it from here and the old SuiJurisClub website.

  4. #4
    do you file under miscillaneous?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by idotudot View Post
    do you file under miscillaneous?
    Yes. That is the $39 case jacket - Miscellaneous. It however does not seem to have the stability for years like a $350 Libel of Review and you get no summons (unless approved by a federal judge like the IRS seeking a Summons in this kind of scenario) so there is no default judgment in your favor.

    One abnoxious deputy clerk in Denver would make up a rule that you could only file one document per $39 evidence repository!

  6. #6
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Yes. That is the $39 case jacket - Miscellaneous. It however does not seem to have the stability for years like a $350 Libel of Review and you get no summons (unless approved by a federal judge like the IRS seeking a Summons in this kind of scenario) so there is no default judgment in your favor.

    One abnoxious deputy clerk in Denver would make up a rule that you could only file one document per $39 evidence repository!
    I am in the midst of dealing with an "obnoxious" judge who "ordered" that no futher filings will be entered into evidence via the Libel of Review case jacket I opened some two years ago. There may be some interesting stuff to be gleaned from a search on Pacer regarding my situation.

    The assigned "judge" to the counterclaim case offered an "opinion" that my Libel of Review case jacket cannot be used any longer "in anticipation of future litigation" since I have been sending in process to the clerk to be filed as Refusals for Cause in response to any presentments sent my way. It was also stated that I may be "sanctioned" if I continued to send in process to be filed in that case jacket.

    I Refused for Cause the "judge's" order and that process was sent back to me with a "RECEIVED" stamp on it, albeit crossed out with ink pen; I assume that was per the judge's order or verbal instruction. That prompted me to send a MEMORANDUM to that "judge" and his superior "chief judge" notifying both of a potential violation of office and requesting the requisite credentials of both claimed "district court judges".

    Here is that doc:

    Attachment 771

    The subsequent judgment for failure to respond has been recorded locally and sent to the clerk of the district court with instructions to file into the same case jacket which the "judge" has "ordered" to no longer accept any filings into.

    I have not received any response whatsoever since the date of delivery of this judgment on 12/2/2011. The original Refusal for Cause process I sent in response to the "judge's" "order" barring my access to my property was returned to me within a couple of days. My guess is that the "judges" have decided to back off of their idle threats, and unsupported opinions, which have not garnered my consent, agreement, understanding or acquiescence.

    This may be a most interesting turn of events indeed - we shall see.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    I am in the midst of dealing with an "obnoxious" judge who "ordered" that no futher filings will be entered into evidence via the Libel of Review case jacket I opened some two years ago. There may be some interesting stuff to be gleaned from a search on Pacer regarding my situation.

    The assigned "judge" to the counterclaim case offered an "opinion" that my Libel of Review case jacket cannot be used any longer "in anticipation of future litigation" since I have been sending in process to the clerk to be filed as Refusals for Cause in response to any presentments sent my way. It was also stated that I may be "sanctioned" if I continued to send in process to be filed in that case jacket.

    I Refused for Cause the "judge's" order and that process was sent back to me with a "RECEIVED" stamp on it, albeit crossed out with ink pen; I assume that was per the judge's order or verbal instruction. That prompted me to send a MEMORANDUM to that "judge" and his superior "chief judge" notifying both of a potential violation of office and requesting the requisite credentials of both claimed "district court judges".

    Here is that doc:

    Attachment 771

    The subsequent judgment for failure to respond has been recorded locally and sent to the clerk of the district court with instructions to file into the same case jacket which the "judge" has "ordered" to no longer accept any filings into.

    I have not received any response whatsoever since the date of delivery of this judgment on 12/2/2011. The original Refusal for Cause process I sent in response to the "judge's" "order" barring my access to my property was returned to me within a couple of days. My guess is that the "judges" have decided to back off of their idle threats, and unsupported opinions, which have not garnered my consent, agreement, understanding or acquiescence.

    This may be a most interesting turn of events indeed - we shall see.


    I hear you about that FILED v. Rec'd! Here is one rendition, as published on PACER - Click Here. So to all the world it is properly filed. But look at the rendition they mailed back to me - Click Here. I have always figured if I pay to have it filed and they will reproduce it, then it is filed. Fine. However lately, they mark it filed and seem to be trying to fool me into thinking they only Received it.

    Interesting...

    I suspect that they have been required to file these papers all along and that reality has finally caught up with them.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    14
    This seems to be a common problem these days.
    The USDC which houses our LoR case jacket has taken to fudging the filing of our latest documents, at the same time that the judge who was assigned to the case worked up the ORDER to dismiss the case.

    By fudging I mean documents filed and visible on the docket on PACER, but no electronic file markings along the bottom edge of the pages; clerk tapes self-adhesive return envelopes with little pieces of clear tape only, ignoring the self-adhesive feature; one document returned to us in a torn, taped-up envelope and without a FILED stamp.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  9. #9
    I actually find it encouraging when professional clerks and postal carriers behave so incompetent. In my example two counts of felony mail tampering!

  10. #10
    Was the purpose of this Demand to put the government on notice and/or the bank?
    Thanks

Posting Permissions

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