PlanetMerrill aka Saving to Suitors Club

[Pottapaug1938]

Funny you would look at the clerk's case that way. It was not my case. I never filed anything in it. Only the clerk did. It was his case. When it came to lawful money though (last page), he went back to filing in my evidence repository.

I do not believe in the negative averment process. Which is what you have going there. Nikki or Gregg make something up and I don't bother refuting, so you decide their assertions must be true and go with it.

I think Poppycock may be onto something there though. I have been making fun of you all for a long, long while.


Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill -- the Quatloosian Don Rickles.

[David Merrill]

Funny you would look at the clerk's case that way. It was not my case. I never filed anything in it. Only the clerk did. It was his case. When it came to lawful money though (last page), he went back to filing in my evidence repository.

I do not believe in the negative averment process. Which is what you have going there. Nikki or Gregg make something up and I don't bother refuting, so you decide their assertions must be true and go with it.

I think Poppycock may be onto something there though. I have been making fun of you all for a long, long while.


Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill -- the Quatloosian Don Rickles.

Well, almost. But you finally are spelling my name correctly! For a moment I thought you were on to me.

[David Merrill]

Well, it looks nice.

Well, that's is just plain boring!!

Aesthetically your website does look nice.

That's called a compliment, David. That's the only you'll ever get out of me.

I apologize for calling your compliment boring. I associate you easily with the general attitude.

For those who may have forgotten, here is the epic failure which occurred when Dave asked a federal court to enforce his "lien":

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50157378/DMVPepicfail

The billing cycle is based in simple billing waiver of tort:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1113 ... oftort.jpg

Like the paper you linked explains, there was no complaint. The bill is based in the facts in my evidence repository and I find it refreshing that the Notice of Lien to China Today is properly filed there. Thanks for reminding everybody Lawdog!

I think you are mistaken to think the clerk's case affects my lien. I will agree though, the clerk created that civil suit with that intent, to affect the validity of the lien. But it was not my case and he never charged me or asked me if I was pauperis. Therefore I am correct to assume it is the clerk's case, not mine. If I were to put WESLEY SERRA on a civil suit and then dismiss it because he would not file any papers in it, that would not make it Wesley's case.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[fortinbras]

The "waiver of tort" case that DVP is citing is James L. Harway v. [Mayor of] New York City (July 1874) 1 Hun. 628, 4 T&C 167, which did not deal with retaliatory liens at all but with an implied contract and a set-off for money already taken. It also depended on some issues of "code pleading" that are inapplicable in modern court practice. This case involved a convoluted situation of municipal bad decisions and has hardly ever been cited as an authority.

You can try to read it at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=NecDAA ... &q&f=false

I suspect that DVP hasn't read the full decision yet.

[Pottapaug1938]

[David Merrill -- the Quatloosian Don Rickles.

Well, almost. But you finally are spelling my name correctly! For a moment I thought you were on to me.[/quote]

I'm using your stage name.

[Pottapaug1938]

The "waiver of tort" case that DVP is citing is James L. Harway v. [Mayor of] New York City (July 1874) 1 Hun. 628, 4 T&C 167, which did not deal with retaliatory liens at all but with an implied contract and a set-off for money already taken. It also depended on some issues of "code pleading" that are inapplicable in modern court practice. This case involved a convoluted situation of municipal bad decisions and has hardly ever been cited as an authority.

You can try to read it at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=NecDAA ... &q&f=false

I suspect that DVP hasn't read the full decision yet.

Therein lies one of David's fundamental problems -- he finds an old court decision, or a reference in a pre-Civil War legal dictionary, and banners it as an authoritative citation of the law, while over looking the facts that his decision may have been overturned or limited by subsequent decisions, may have been judged to be of limited precendal value (as in this case), or may be a poor statement of the legal principle involved (as happens with his old law dictionary).

David's whole comedy act is based on his character as a scholarly dilettante.

[wserra]

I suspect that DVP hasn't read the full decision yet.

The case is actually a good example of the old code pleading maxim, "Waive the tort and sue in assumpsit". Code pleading has not been in effect anywhere I know of in some time. In addition, of course, David didn't sue anyone and has no cause of action against anyone, so it has no relevance to him even were code pleading still in effect.

That's not to say the concept is of no use at all. When I or one of my partners gets carried away on the prospects of a potential case we really shouldn't take, the rest of us yell, "So waive the tort and sue in assumpsit!"

[Doktor Avalanche]

I apologize for calling your compliment boring. I associate you easily with the general attitude.

Apology accepted.

[notorial dissent]

Therein lies one of David's fundamental problems -- he finds an old court decision, or a reference in a pre-Civil War legal dictionary, and banners it as an authoritative citation of the law, while over looking the facts that his decision may have been overturned or limited by subsequent decisions, may have been judged to be of limited precendal value (as in this case), or may be a poor statement of the legal principle involved (as happens with his old law dictionary).

David's whole comedy act is based on his character as a scholarly dilettante.

That is in fact the basis of Merrill's fantasy land, a selection of legal cases or axiums, that mostly have nothing to do what ever he is deluding himself about currently, that generally do not mean or relate to what he wants them to relate to, or as is usually the case have nothing to do with the fantasy du jour, and as has been pointed out have long been tossed on the refuse heap of discarded law..

And point of order, Merrill is not a comedian, he is a clown, and a rather tired, pathetic, and dismal one at that. There is nothing remotely "funny" about his antics, and there is real harm in most of what he does.

And that is caricature, not character, by the way.

[Paul]

When I or one of my partners gets carried away on the prospects of a potential case we really shouldn't take, the rest of us yell, "So waive the tort and sue in assumpsit!"

The former head of the tax practice at my first law firm used to conclude discussions of particularly weak positions clients wanted us to defend by saying, "Show of hands! Who would take the government's case on a contingent basis?"

[Judge Roy Bean]

Why, in fact I think I hear Document 27 coming up the lane now. Here it is:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50247563/DMVPobjection

At the risk of being redundant . . . dogs chase cars; doesn't mean they know how to drive.

There is a small subset of the population that is ignorant to the degree that they will accept Van Pelt-styled blather if it appears on paper - especially if it has the aura of having been filed in an honest-to-God real live US of A courthouse.

Oddly, if it came to a life or death matter, I can almost guarantee the "magic words" gibberish would be tossed overboard - no pun intended.

[David Merrill]

Thank you Fortinbras;


Very encouraging, considering the construction of the evidence repository - and the facts. I appreciate that.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Well, gee, if it wasn't Dave's case, then why did he file an objection to the magistrate's recommendation, referred to in the judge's order as Document 27?

Lawdog; you dolt!

Doc 27 is not an objection, it is a writ of error - coram vobis. It says so at the top.

[Arthur Rubin]

Well, gee, if it wasn't Dave's case, then why did he file an objection to the magistrate's recommendation, referred to in the judge's order as Document 27?

Lawdog; you dolt!

Doc 27 is not an objection, it is a writ of error - coram vobis. It says so at the top.

I thought it was an error of writ.

[David Merrill]

Funny you would look at the clerk's case that way. It was not my case. I never filed anything in it. Only the clerk did.

This is what I was responding to, Roy.

If you would have only looked, Lawdog. That was filed into the evidence repository and diverted to the clerk's civil suit by the clerk of court.

[grixit]

Well, gee, if it wasn't Dave's case, then why did he file an objection to the magistrate's recommendation, referred to in the judge's order as Document 27?

Lawdog; you dolt!

Doc 27 is not an objection, it is a writ of error - coram vobis. It says so at the top.

I thought it was an error of writ.

Merrill made an error of wit? Surely not!

[Nikki]

Whatever he ever writ is an error.

[wserra]

Whatever he ever writ is an error.

A written error, at that.

[David Merrill]

And yet your "writ" specifically recites as follows on page 1:

"Comes now David Merrill special appearance RuleE(8) refusing for cause Recommendation from Magistrate MIX formed March 15, 2010."

How'd that "refusal for cause" work out for you, boy?

I filed it in the evidence repository - my case. The clerk had been diverting papers to his case in order to create the illusion I was filing into his case. There was no other way than to appear restricted, which of course is the point.

The Writ stands filed and published as you all have demonstrated and [urlhttp://img266.imageshack.us/img266/452/docketreport12911.jpg] is working out great[/url], Punk! It works out either way 1) Congress approves a new debt ceiling, or 2) Congress defaults while China is holding 1/4 of the US Debt. People with experience in law, like you superficially indicate by trying to cram a full appearance into a restricted one, know to look at the court markings Lawdog. If you Quatlosers don't start taking my posts a little more seriously you will be restricted to the 7-9th Floors with all the other Quatlosers. That's okay though - there are more Chinese speaking fluent English than Americans in America but those are the ones playing with their children in American parks. But the ones supervising you will be able to give you directions when you go off campus to enjoy some of the local culture.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

[img]urlhttp://img266.imageshack.us/img266/452/docketreport12911.jpg[/img]


http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4998 ... ingfil.pdf