Okay, update on what has transpired. (As much as possible, I'd like to document what happens in this matter. Perhaps this thread will help someone else out who finds themselves in a similar circumstance.)

I learned that the local U.S. Magistrate Court is connected with the USDC, but that in order to open a case file, I would need to travel to the State capital (or use the mail) to begin the process at the main District Court there. They don't handle this type of thing in the local Magistrate Court. This would mean if I wanted file stamps on documents submitted to the Muni court, I would have to go to the capital to get them (a 170 mile trip).

Question: Other than in the instructions to the DC court clerk which get published on a certificate of mailing back to a presenter, how else might I be able to demonstrate to the Muni court that documents are being filed with the USDC such that the court becomes aware of this? Perhaps (answering my own question) this is where the LoR comes into play once it is filed with the District Court. So, this would still be effective if I were only to file documents with the DC by mail rather than in person?

Today I was able to file the copies of the two returned letters of the appointed attorney into the case file at the Muni court. I was a bit apprehensive about whether or not the clerk would accept them; she asked, "You have an appointed attorney, don't you?" I told her that I was obtaining my own assistance of counsel and that these needed to be filed providing evidence that the appointed attorney had never been engaged in the matter. She seemed to understand that and filed the photocopies.

I also filed a certified copy of my recorded Affidavit of Administrative Notice along with a certified copy of the original certificate of mailing in 2009. On the back of each of the three pages of the affidavit I placed a stamp in the lower right hand corner, signed (First Middle) at a diagonal over it cancelling it, then sealed it putting my thumb print to the right and covering it, dated it, and placed the EIN (SSN without dashes) on each of the front pages at the top right.

According to information I researched about the Universal Postal Union (UPU), I should have done this on the presentments. I goofed! It's been a while since I read it. There are so many little things to remember that this slipped my mind. But what I was thinking originally was: I wanted to establish myself as the postmaster of this affidavit. Had it been on a presentment, this action would have constituted a cross-claim. On any presentments in the future, I'll try to remember to do this; not sure what effect, if any, this might have on matters. The affidavit went unrebutted back in 2009, so I wanted to establish this document within the jurisdiction of the UPU. Would this still qualify as a cross-claim? The following is the pertinent explanation about the significance of invoking the UPU:

Autographing a stamp not only establishes you as the postmaster of the contract but constitutes a cross-claim. Using the stamp process on documents presents your adversaries with a problem because their jurisdiction is subordinate to that of the UPU, which you have now invoked for your benefit. The result in practice of doing this is that whenever those who know what you are doing are recipients of your documents with autographed stamps they back off. If they do not, take the matter to the US Postmaster to deal with. If he will not provide you with your remedy, take the matter to the UPU for them to clean up.

Use of a notary combined with the postage stamp (and sometime Embassy stamps) gives you a priority mechanism. Everything is commerce, and all commerce is contract. The master of the contract is the post office, and the UPU is the supreme overlord of the commerce, banking, and postal systems of the world. Use of these stamps in this manner gets the attention of those in the system to whom you provide your paperwork. It makes you the master of that post office. Use of the stamp is especially important when dealing with the major players, such as the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Treasury, etc. They understand the significance of what you are doing. Many times they hand documents back to someone using this approach and say, "Have a good day, sir." They don't want any untoward repercussions coming back on them.
I don't expect the affidavit to do magic. But it's certainly going to establish the record I've been keeping.

I was also able to obtain the judge's oath of office. The county recorder didn't have on file an oath for the city attorney. They suggested I check with the city clerk.

In looking at the judge's oath, it seems to be a valid oath: "I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution and laws of the State of XXXX, and the Charter, Ordinances and Laws of the City of XXXX, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of Municipal Judge for the City of XXXX, according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm)"

So, I can accept the judge's oath in an affidavit and hold him to his agreement on the record. I like the sound of that: "On the record." That's what David teaches.

I've read where matters such as this are most often settled in the validity expressed in the paperwork, or the written record. That's where I can excel. That the actual trial is often a formality. Although I hardly expect that in this case. But I'm going to do my best to establish a valid written record expressing the truth. We'll see whether the adversarial actors will honor their oaths. (I'll be preparing an allocution just in case.)

I've also read that filing a motion for discovery (since I haven't seen a verified complaint and have no idea yet what I'm supposed to be defending), getting the judge to grant it, and giving the prosecuting attorney a deadline like 10 days can be effective. When the prosecutor doesn't come up with valid discovery, the judge has no recourse but to dismiss.

All of this sounds fine in a fairy tale world where people have integrity and are honest. We'll see how it flys in the real world.

What made the difference was: I went back and carefully re-reading what David was suggesting at the outset of this inquiry, and it was all beginning to fall into place. I could see what I needed to do. I needed to get clear on what process I wanted to pursue. I also needed to calm down so that I could think straight. Once that occurred, I went about following David's suggestions as best I could.

There's one more thing I'm considering doing. I came across a private insurance bond for financial responsibility that I could swear out in an affidavit and record. If I entered that into the matter, maybe the judge might be a bit more accepting of my position. Only problem is, I'm not real happy about the way the affidavit is worded. I don't want to admit a connection between a legal fiction and true name. May need some help with the wording.

Any comments or clarifications will be appreciated.