Making $39 Notice and Demand

[David Merrill]

Here is a fine example:

[martin earl]

Short, sweet and on the record. Very nice.

[David Merrill]

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.

[idotudot]

do you file under miscillaneous?

[David Merrill]

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!

[Anthony Joseph]

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:



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.

[David Merrill]

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:

[ATTACH]771[/ATTACH]

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.

[Treefarmer]

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.

[David Merrill]

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

[Lawful]

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

[InTheCrease]

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!

How exactly is the default judgment advantageous and useful?

[David Merrill]

How exactly is the default judgment advantageous and useful?

First I must apologize for deleting my traditional .zip Libel of Review on Google Docs. Now all my links around here do not work. Here is a link to a template.

Here are examples of the Default Judgment.

The default judgment is a stepping stone on a much longer journey. By doing one yourself, you learn that in lieu of a competent judiciary you are it. Any federal judge is a taxpayer; at least we might presume so. Therefore no federal judge is a neutral arbitrator and is recused from any tax matter by operation of law; Conflict of Interest.

A real good example is abatement for misnomer. It registers and is indexed in the higher jurisdiction, the public notice of county clerk and recorder as Judgment. If called upon to perform as a defendant it is impossible to arraign a man:

If you insist on changing my name it is impossible for me to understand the nature and cause of the accusation. I have not been arraigned and you cannot arraign me until you can explain to my satisfaction why you cannot correct my name in your court.

However I have heard of a suitor or two cleaning up the credit reporting with the Default Judgment. But in most cases, one goes to debit cards for the convenience of plastic. Credit cards are an indictment contrary to redeeming lawful money.

[David Merrill]

How exactly is the default judgment advantageous and useful?

Giving this some more thought...

The point quoted is about stability over time. An antagonistic US clerk once decided that Miscellaneous Case files are for only one R4C. I think that is tidy. The LoR can be revived under the "exclusive original cognizance" clause of the 'saving to suitors' clause after years of being dormant. Just cry "breach of contract" and send the R4C back with a copy of the $350 receipt.

But when I awaken in the night with such a lenthy post on my mind I certainly delve into the metaphysics - basically, that about the stepping stone above. I keep a MC evidence repository myself. And I have kept it for many years, possibly the ease by which I keep it open for use is that I nearly always use a professional process server and Certificate of Mailing services, fashioned and groomed over time. Even the Improper Seal problem has been solved...

That is my process server's thoughtful message to the USDC deputy clerk.

Part of proper record-forming is learning some rules of court, like Rules of Evidence. So if the US clerk of court sends material contrary to USPS Regulations (see 601.4.3), then you best send it back for the clerk to check the contents and resend under a proper seal, right?

Cellophane and masking tape may not be used for closure or reinforcement of packages but may be used to augment closures on envelopes or to cover staples.

The Default Judgment is therefore a stepping stone for example, for a couple to understand that constitutions are for implementation of self-governance, first through home rule and then through looking forward to convening court at the kitchen table around that USDC enclave out front, the mailbox. Adjudicating the day's process.

If I believed there were a silver bullet, I would be promoting it instead of redeeming lawful money.

One thing integral to authority is bonding. Government does this through oaths of office. Here for example the District Attorney is running a vacant office and trying to make everybody believe his contract (capture) with Traveler's Insurance for $5K cuts it? Imagine that! Even the authority for one single criminal conviction - $5K?

Dan MAY's oath of office.

So what is wrong with that? He avoided swearing to any superior authority by not swearing to God.

Form of Oath.
Form of Affirmation.

So the only way to Affirm, is to do so under the authority of someone who has sworn to God.

But Daniel MAY did not do that. He did not Affirm, he Swore with no authority!

Does this mean I can break the law with immunity from prosecution? I don't believe so enough to try it out. But I believe that I could stump prosecution while they try to get his oath in order, meaning that there is a likelihood they would release me rather than to deal with the press questioning every conviction of Dan's career...

But where I want you to explore is how I even spotted the error. Look at SUTHERS' Oath there. It is obviously a financial instrument! Not always so. He had to go through some growing pains to get to where he is properly bonded and in authority. Here is another example of authority vested in self-governance. Robert RUBIN announced his resignation in time for the 5:00 News, that same afternoon!

Looking into the Instructions at the end of the LoR we find the Bond:

3) default judgment. After 21 days the issue is ripe for default judgment. There is a bill of exchange on file with Richard Grasso NYSE since August 13, 2001 for all the money in the world to back your judgment by fidelity bond (secured confidence.) However, it is preferable to simply rely on the truth - that the defendant never filed in the appropriate district court prior to exercising a claim. Compared to the truth, the bill is only ink on paper; a representation of the Bible's original estate belonging to the rightful heirs. Nobody has challenged the bill to date but confidence in the truth goes a lot further and requires no citing the bill.

Keep a record of the truth and you become the court of record. You hold the authority of the truth. No need to flash your paper expression of the bond, I suppose, but then I obviously do. There is heritage and destiny behind my actions and like spotting Dan MAY's vacant office, this requires keys to unlock the mysteries and other esoterics disclosed only to initiates like those of the Bar Associations and Masons etc. - Custodians of the Record.


But there it is right in front of you when you find the keys without swearing along the way:

The acts of a court of record are known by its records. Judicial records are not only necessary but indispensable to the administration of justice. The court judgments can be evidenced only by its records. The acts of a court of record are known by its records alone and cannot be established by parol testimony. The court speaks only through its records, and the judge speaks only through the court. Herren v. People, 147 Colo. 442, 363 P.2d 1044 (1961).

The trick is to acquire access to the dreams and visions that will give you the keys.

[David Merrill]

I hear that the price of the $39 evidence repository has gone up to $46.

[EZrhythm]

An additional strength would be, instead of stating, "...If I had known..." put, Nunc Pro Tunc.