File a False Lien - Go To Jail (Ronald Hoodenpyle)

[notorial dissent]

Merrill has repeatedly shown his awesome depth of knowledge of court and courtroom procedure, why should this be any different?

[wserra]

The clerk of court carefully checks the date and time of the hearing on the subpoena before authorizing it. That is part of what authorizing means.

Others have already told you that you are wrong, David, and I have never practiced in Colorado. But consider Rule 45(a)(3), F.R.C.P.:

The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service.

As I said before, the clerk checks nothing other than that the subpoena is for a real pending case, and a lazy clerk might not even check that. What do you think "signed but otherwise in blank" means?

You are the liars and I don't think you can actually be so stupid. You must be lying to annoy me.

Because, of course, everything revolves around you.

[.]

See how that works, Van Pelt?

Courts at all levels assume that an attorney or even someone appearing pro se (other than you or one of your criminal buddies) can accurately fill in the date and time they want someone to appear to testify and/or produce documents. All by themselves without need of any supervision, by the court or anyone else.

The courts reasonably assume that people requesting subpoenas are rational. They don't assume that criminal whack-jobs will play useless games with routine paperwork and that other whack-jobs will propagate it on the internet.

Clearly a big mistake, at least with regard to you and your equally delusional/criminal buddies.

[notorial dissent]

Or, to put a finer point on it, the clerk has better things to do than worry that you don't know what you are doing, don't have the right times or information, or whatever. Or conversely, they expect that lawyers in particular are competent at what they are doing that they will fill them out correctly, doesn't always happen that way, but that is the presumption.

Basically the clerk isn't there to pick up after you or correct your mistakes, so once again Merrill, your awesome knowledge struck out.

I guess I missed the earlier Merrillian temper tantrum, but it was to be expected when someone contradicted his awesomeness.

[David Merrill]

Courts at all levels assume that an attorney or even someone appearing pro se (other than you or one of your criminal buddies) can accurately fill in the date and time they want someone to appear to testify and/or produce documents.

Fascinating! You are actually pulling that kind of a stunt to cover up the clerk of court defrauding Ronald Roy; one way or another. Either the clerk told Ronald Roy the hearing was on the 22nd or the hearing was on the 22nd and like I said, the hearing was held on the 16th because Deutsche Bank was going to lose the foreclosure – because Deutsche Bank had sold the original note into the derivatives marketplace. Your thinking that Ronald Roy sabotaged his own home ownership is disingenuous.

Understand that Deutsche Bank had just suffered two hits, a moment of legal lucidity, from federal judges BOYKO and O’MALLEY. Look at that and Wesley’s evasion of the Doc 70 issue right here. He wont click on the docket or try pulling it up on PACER; so here is a whole new collection of exhibits supporting that Deutsche Bank stole Ronald Roy’s home from him.

Now you may say that Ronald Roy was wrong to stop making payments; but then of course Deutsche Bank could have shown up for the foreclosure hearing with complete transparency, or Magistrate ERLER could have set another hearing because of the misunderstanding about the hearing date, in order for Deutsche Bank to produce the original note demanded on the subpoena.



First off; what kind of docket report starts on Doc 94?



The August 11th docket shows that the link to Doc 70 is disconnected. Notice the Witness List is linked inside the box. [Don't miss the nature of Doc 69.]



The link to the internally linked Doc 66 is still viable. Wserra can still read the Witness List on Pacer, but only from the Docket Report I saved back in August!

[Thule]

Fascinating! You are actually pulling that kind of a stunt to cover up the clerk of court defrauding Ronald Roy; one way or another. Either the clerk told Ronald Roy the hearing was on the 22nd or the hearing was on the 22nd and like I said, the hearing was held on the 16th because Deutsche Bank was going to lose the foreclosure – because Deutsche Bank had sold the original note into the derivatives marketplace.

You can start by showing us anything from Planet Earth that requires clerks to check and correct the dates on subpoenas.

[wserra]

Wesley’s evasion of the Doc 70 issue

I finally figured out WTF David was talking about. It wasn't worth it.

In the middle of a conversation of Hoodenpyle's dumbass misadventures with the justice system, David starts babbling about some supposedly secret "Doc 70". Since we were talking about Hoodenpyle, I assumed David meant in Hoodie's document, especially since he didn't grace us with any mention of another docket. So I link to Doc 70, the govt witness list in Hoodenpyle. David starts babbling about hidden documents and "juxtaposition". I have no idea what he's talking about, and say so.

Well, it appears that I was supposed to read David's mind (a truly scary thought) and know that he was referring to one of the cases where DeutscheBank failed to show standing, the Tarantola bankruptcy out of Arizona (09-bk-9703). Would you like doc 70, that hidden supersecret lump of legal Kryptonite that the courts don't want you to see? Well, here it is, downloadable from PACER by anyone who wants it. Guess the courts screwed up by letting that out, right?

First off; what kind of docket report starts on Doc 94?

A docket you delimited by date while searching PACER. Try resetting the date to include the earlier docs. Bloody rocket science.

The August 11th docket shows that the link to Doc 70 is disconnected.

Well, no, it doesn't. That's why I was able to retrieve it, you see.

The link to the internally linked Doc 66 is still viable. Wserra can still read the Witness List on Pacer, but only from the Docket Report I saved back in August!

Wrong again. Here it is, just downloaded from PACER. BTW, your alleged excerpt doesn't appear in it. I'm shocked.

And none of this, of course, has anything to do with Hoodenpyle.

[Thule]

In the mincer, words of power,
salad will make Quatloos cower
Knowledge is so overrated,
truth is just what I have stated

Hoodenpyle and missing doc
surely this is not ad hoc
Mix it up with salad fork,
gibberish on level Bork

Add some names in CAPITAL,
and some facts, anecdotal

Double, double toil and dabble,
time to blather and to babble
Top it off with magic words,
that will please the Sui herds.

[David Merrill]

Wesley’s evasion of the Doc 70 issue

I finally figured out WTF David was talking about. It wasn't worth it.

In the middle of a conversation of Hoodenpyle's dumbass misadventures with the justice system, David starts babbling about some supposedly secret "Doc 70". Since we were talking about Hoodenpyle, I assumed David meant in Hoodie's document, especially since he didn't grace us with any mention of another docket. So I link to Doc 70, the govt witness list in Hoodenpyle. David starts babbling about hidden documents and "juxtaposition". I have no idea what he's talking about, and say so.

Well, it appears that I was supposed to read David's mind (a truly scary thought) and know that he was referring to one of the cases where DeutscheBank failed to show standing, the Tarantola bankruptcy out of Arizona (09-bk-9703). Would you like doc 70, that hidden supersecret lump of legal Kryptonite that the courts don't want you to see? Well, here it is, downloadable from PACER by anyone who wants it. Guess the courts screwed up by letting that out, right?

First off; what kind of docket report starts on Doc 94?

A docket you delimited by date while searching PACER. Try resetting the date to include the earlier docs. Bloody rocket science.

The August 11th docket shows that the link to Doc 70 is disconnected.

Well, no, it doesn't. That's why I was able to retrieve it, you see.

The link to the internally linked Doc 66 is still viable. Wserra can still read the Witness List on Pacer, but only from the Docket Report I saved back in August!

Wrong again. Here it is, just downloaded from PACER. BTW, your alleged excerpt doesn't appear in it. I'm shocked.

And none of this, of course, has anything to do with Hoodenpyle.

Now we are getting somewhere! Just view the Doc 70 and note that there is no electronic court marking. The clerk never filed it!

I apologize for that date delimiting. Had I seen that it would have avoided some confusion as to why the earlier part of the docket was excluded. I have a complete docket and sure enough the link to Doc 70 is still functional from PACER. (My docket from August has a failed link to Doc 70.) The witness list is Doc 67, not 66. I was just testing out links and got mixed up thinking I had pulled up the Witness List again. So far as reading my mind goes; all Wserra had to do was click on the link, which he finally did to discover that I am talking about Deutsche Bank as related to Ronald Roy's case, not Ronald Roy's Liening a Public Official Case.

It has everything to do with Ronald Roy because this is the cause of his distress, being evicted on an unfair foreclosure. It has to do with the unfair banking practices of Deutsche Bank. The ‘kryptonite’ as Wesley puts it, is worth reading to discover why the clerk kept it from being properly entered into the record. Additionally it is important to discover the asset-backed feed-through certificates playing a role instead of the original note. If that notice on the Foreclosure Notice is accepted by acquiescence, then the lender does not have to produce evidence of ownership according to law.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[webhick]

The August 11th docket shows that the link to Doc 70 is disconnected.

No, not according to your screen capture. The error message does not say that the file is disconnected, it says that Microsoft Word cannot open the specified file. That's probably because Microsoft Word can't read PDF files. Try opening it with a PDF reader like Adobe. Right tool for the right job, David.

[Gregg]

So let's sum up,

1) David cannot get a document in PDF format to open in Word
2) A document that the guy filed himself has the wrong date on it, because the guy who filed it put the wrong date on it.

And what David Van Pelt thinks is yet another example of the dark forces conspiring against him (hey, at least this time no airliners were harmed in the making of this conspiracy) is in fact just another example of David's incompetence and that of the nutbag he's trying to defend.



David, get help.

[The Observer]

So let's sum up,

1) David cannot get a document in PDF format to open in Word
2) A document that the guy filed himself has the wrong date on it, because the guy who filed it put the wrong date on it.

And what David Van Pelt thinks is yet another example of the dark forces conspiring against him (hey, at least this time no airliners were harmed in the making of this conspiracy) is in fact just another example of David's incompetence and that of the nutbag he's trying to defend.



David, get help.

Well, David is overlooking the real sinister event: the fact that you can't open a PDF file with Word. It should have become painfully obvious to him at that point that Microsoft and/or Bill Gates were conspiring against him. And that alone should be proof that somehow Deutsche Bank was involved in a fraudulent foreclosure.

Of course, what David is really upset about is that the mixup in dates meant that he didn't get to appear in court and grab some public time to satsify his ego.

[Gregg]

You have to think that if David ever actually did appear in a case outside of one of his own fantasy island filings, under cross examination some attorney might rip him so bad he could end up getting committed. I'm serious, I can easily imagine him coming unglued on the witness stand. Even if he didn't, any potential appearance is not gonna be something a normal person would be proud of once it was over. I'm almost in favor of it it might lead to him getting some help.

[Gregg]

You have to think that if David ever actually did appear in a case outside of one of his own fantasy island filings, under cross examination some attorney might rip him so bad he could end up getting committed. I'm serious, I can easily imagine him coming unglued on the witness stand. Even if he didn't, any potential appearance is not gonna be something a normal person would be proud of once it was over. I'm almost in favor of it it might lead to him getting some help.

I'm not sure under what basis he could "appear" in a case where he was not a party. He's obviously not a lawyer, and one has to be mentally competent to appear as a witness. If someone put him on a witness list, any competent attorney checking his background would eventually stumble across the forensic evaluation wherein the psychologist gave the opinion he was not mentally fit even to proceed as a defendant in a criminal case.

Never occurred to me (but I'm not a lawyer). And so ends David's quest for glory as a big name expert witness.

[wserra]

If someone put him on a witness list

Let me ask you something, Lawdog. One day an adversary of yours notices David as a witness. Are you going to object?

I think I'd probably offer to pay David's expenses.

[Nikki]

Just because it makes no sense on OUR planet, there is no reason to impugn the validity of David's logical constructs bases on the underlying rules to which he strictly adheres.

For example, everyone knows that the interior angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees -- unless that triangle is delineated by Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Orleans.

Different frame of reference ===> different results.

David dwells in a different frame of reference. Unfortunately, the rules of our planet take precedence over those of Planet Merrill.

Being unwilling to accept that, David will continue to shout into the echo chamber of the Internet until he dies. With any luck, he won't do any harm to anyone else or any major harm to himself.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Just so their is no confusion, the David Merrill referred to is probably W. David Merrill. He works for AHMS (servicer) for Deutsche Bank.

[David Merrill]

Just so their is no confusion, the David Merrill referred to is probably W. David Merrill. He works for AHMS (servicer) for Deutsche Bank.

Their's JRB clearing things up alright.

[The Observer]

Just so their is no confusion, the David Merrill referred to is probably W. David Merrill. He works for AHMS (servicer) for Deutsche Bank.

Their's JRB clearing things up alright.

So there are two of you now? Or did this David Merrill steal your name? Or perchance he is trying to steal your identity? Wait a minute, is he older than you? If so, then you stole his name. That would be ironic, you not really being David Merrill after all of these years telling us that that was your real name.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
So there are two of you now? Or did this David Merrill steal your name? Or perchance he is trying to steal your identity? Wait a minute, is he older than you? If so, then you stole his name. That would be ironic, you not really being David Merrill after all of these years telling us that that was your real name.

Just another example of Van Pelt's need to conflate things that have nothing to do with him to impress the ignorant.

Sadly, people who have been abused by the perpetrators of mortgage servicing abuses may be led into the looking glass.