DMVP "Writ of Enforcement" for $20M "Lien" III

[The Observer]

And despite your fevered interpretation of what you think the judge was doing, you are simply plain wrong. More than likely the judge is ignoring you and not giving you the attention you crave because he knows you don't have any cause that will prevail in any court in this land.

So far, wserra has called it exactly right as to what would occur and what the results would be every step of the way in your courtroom hijinks. If I were you, I would be paying very close attention to the advice that wserra has freely given you and actually follow it before you suffer further embarrassment by losing in court again.

[David Merrill]

And despite your fevered interpretation of what you think the judge was doing, you are simply plain wrong. More than likely the judge is ignoring you and not giving you the attention you crave because he knows you don't have any cause that will prevail in any court in this land.

So far, wserra has called it exactly right as to what would occur and what the results would be every step of the way in your courtroom hijinks. If I were you, I would be paying very close attention to the advice that wserra has freely given you and actually follow it before you suffer further embarrassment by losing in court again.

That does not explain why he falsified the record. Criminal misprision of office as a chief judge is a lot of trouble to go through to hide a five year Review - that would only be an illegal deferred prosecution. - Which is of course a blatant violation of his oath of office - which is a bond - which was accepted for value and the charge set at $10M per order; which deal was accepted by both SAMELSON and SUTHERS.

You go into your denial of the facts, that is what pleases me about you Quatlosers. What you don't really think about is that it was you Quatlosers who prompted me to order up that transcript yesterday - that will go into the record for when I get a jury. Magistrate MIX is nothing but in collusion with SAMELSON now. That is easy to see. Especially considering that SAMELSON recused himself from the case that resulted in the civil suit against his subsequent judge GILBERT. He had no business ruling on the matter.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[silversopp]

What do you plan on doing with that $20M that you think you're going to win?

[bmielke]

What do you plan on doing with that $20M that you think you're going to win?

I imagine a good chunk of it will go for back child support...

[The Observer]

That does not explain why he falsified the record.

That is your accusation. As of today, I have yet to see record of a criminal or civil conviction in court against the judge that shows he is guilty of such action. For that matter, I don't see any factual logical evidence that would indicate that the judge possibly falsified the record. You have been complaining on this site about people willingly convicting you of elder abuse when you were never tried for that crime and you have a point. But it also follows you need to stop stating that the judge hjas committed crimes/torts that he has not been convicted of.

Criminal misprision of office as a chief judge is a lot of trouble to go through to hide a five year Review - that would only be an illegal deferred prosecution.

I would agree. But it may also possible that he wasn't hiding anything since he didn't do anything wrong. I know you don't like Occam's Razor, but most of the time it is applicable, given the known facts.

What you don't really think about is that it was you Quatlosers who prompted me to order up that transcript yesterday - that will go into the record for when I get a jury.

Thanks for affirming that we have provided a measurable and beneficial advantage to your establishment of the $20 million lien and pursuit of collection of such. This establishes an offer of a share of the award amount on your part and we here at Quatloosia will accept the 99.% legal assistance fee that establishes a lien against your lien.

[Nikki]

Has anyone else ever wondered why David pays substantial sums to file documents with the Recorder ("his clerk") and to get certified copies of them?

Wouldn't the original document -- or, if needed, copies certified by a notary -- carry just as much evidential weight?

Perhaps David believes his "evidence repository" carries some form of shamanistic magical power.

[Dr. Caligari]

that will go into the record for when I get a jury.

You will never get to a jury because the federal court is about to dismiss your case. If you try to re-file in another venue, the defendants will be able to get it dismised as res judicata. You have really check-mated yourself this time.

[The Observer]

You have really check-mated yourself this time.

More like a fool's mate.

Oh well, at least we found a way that David could win in court - by defeating himself.

[David Merrill]

For that matter, I don't see any factual logical evidence that would indicate that the judge possibly falsified the record.

Yet I showed you. You have no eyes to see.

False judgments can be overturned. Especially such erroneous ones as recommeded by Magistrate MIX.


But that most of you will never see because of your perspective.

[Thule]

False judgments can be overturned. Especially such erroneous ones as recommeded by Magistrate MIX.

So, what will you do when you fail to get the "false" judgement overturned? Seems to me like the world constantly fails to conform to your whims.

But that most of you will never see because of your perspective.

Yup, sanity is a b*tch.

[wserra]

So, what will you do when you fail to get the "false" judgement overturned?

Why, he will just have to overturn the false order which failed to overturn the false judgment. Have windmill, will tilt.

It never ends, you see. Never works, but never ends.

[David Merrill]

It cannot set judgment res judicata. The clerk of court never notified the STATE OF COLORADO CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION of his law suit.

[wserra]

It cannot set judgment res judicata. The clerk of court never notified the STATE OF COLORADO CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION of his law suit.

(1) Clerks of court do not notify defendants of lawsuits. Plaintiffs notify defendants of lawsuits. If they don't, the lawsuits get dismissed. Where have we seen that lately?

(2) Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel - the general principle of which res judicata is a special case - the identity of the person asserting the estoppel is unimportant. What matters is the identity of the person against whom the estoppel is asserted. That would be you, David.

[David Merrill]

It cannot set judgment res judicata. The clerk of court never notified the STATE OF COLORADO CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION of his law suit.

(1) Clerks of court do not notify defendants of lawsuits. Plaintiffs notify defendants of lawsuits. If they don't, the lawsuits get dismissed. Where have we seen that lately?

(2) Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel - the general principle of which res judicata is a special case - the identity of the person asserting the estoppel is unimportant. What matters is the identity of the person against whom the estoppel is asserted. That would be you, David.

I guess you would have to read Caligari's silly post to get it, Wesley.

[The Observer]

Yet I showed you. You have no eyes to see.

No, you are failing to take note of the qualifiers that I had included:

For that matter, I don't see any factual logical evidence that would indicate that the judge possibly falsified the record.

When you can meet that criteria, then we can start talking about whether you had a case or not.

False judgments can be overturned. Especially such erroneous ones as recommeded by Magistrate MIX.

I would love to see a court order that has overturned such an erroneous judgement as you claim that Mix filed. But I won't be holding my breath, since I sincerely doubt that you could produce one. This is just bluster on your part.

The clerk of court never notified the STATE OF COLORADO CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION of his law suit.

Because the clerk never filed suit. I know that you want to pretend that he or she did, so that you don't have take responsibility for your failure.

The time for SFB to file an actual, comprehensible objection to the magistrate's recommendation has passed.

I'm not sure that we could ever expect that to happen, no matter how long David was given to do it.

It never ends, you see. Never works, but never ends.

Which is, ironically, David's raison d'etre.

[notorial dissent]

What enquiring minds want to know, really really want to know, is where Merrill, who is by all accounts one step about a street person and panhandler, is getting the money for all the filing fees and doc fees he seems to be putting out. The last time I checked they are pretty steep when you are wasting Federal Court time, particularly when he apparently can’t be bothered to pay any of his other bills. Either the unlicensed practice of law pays better than expected, or Merrill has other talents we don't know about, or maybe he's just still stealing from mommy's purse.

[Dezcad]

David loses - again - and files another useless Writ. Check out footnote 2!

04/06/2010 28 ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 20 filed 03/15/2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court. The objections stated in plaintiffs Objection 27 filed 03/24/2010 are OVERRULED. Plaintiffs Petition for Writ of Enforcement 20 filed 12/28/2009, is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 04/06/2010.(sah, ) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
04/07/2010 29 WRIT OF CORAM VOBIS and REFUSAL OF CAUSE by Petitioner David Merrill. (sah, ) (Entered: 04/07/2010)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 09-cv-03001-REB-KLM
DAVID MERRILL,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF COLORADO CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION,
Respondent.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#20]1 filed March 15, 2010; and (2) plaintiff’s Objection [#27] filed March 24, 2010. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, deny plaintiff’s petition, and dismiss this case.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed, and have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. Moreover, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton,483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly,
plaintiff’s objections are imponderous and without merit.2

I concur with the magistrate judge that action should be dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, whether considered individually or collectively, the papers filed by plaintiff fail to satisfy even the liberal requirements of pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Substantively, the papers filed by plaintiff fail to state any claim on which relief may be granted.
Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#20] filed March 15, 2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in plaintiff’s Objection [#27] filed March 24, 2010,
are OVERRULED;
3. That plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Enforcement [#20] filed December 28,
2009, is DENIED; and
4. That this action is DISMISSED..
Dated April 6, 2010, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT

1 “[#20]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

2. Plaintiff apparently believes that this action has erroneously been filed as a civil action. He now suggests that the matter should have been docketed as a petition for a writ of coram nobis. See United States v. Denedo, – U.S. –, 129 S.Ct. 2213, 2220-21, 173 L.Ed.2d 1235 (2009) (describing the origins of the writ). Putting aside the fact that the first mention of the writ of coram nobis appears in plaintiff’s objection, there are at least three problems with his arguments and concomitant objection.
First, there is but one form of non-criminal action in the district courts of the United States, a civil action, which is commenced by the filing of a complaint. FED.R.CIV.P. 2 & 3. Thus, assuming arguendo that plaintiff may be entitled to a writ of coram nobis, or any other relief for that matter, he must commence a civil action and file a complaint to secure that relief. (Neither plaintiff’s current Petition for Writ of Enforcement nor his various evidentiary filings – which he refers to variously as “billing process” and an “evidentiary repository” – constitute a complaint sufficient to commence a civil action in this district court.)
Second, coram nobis is not the appropriate remedy for the injury of which plaintiff appears to
complain, that is, payment of a judgment or debt owed. “[C]oram nobis is but an extraordinary tool to correct a legal or factual error.” Denedo, 129 S.Ct. at 2221. Nothing in plaintiff’s prolix filings suggests that he seeks to correct any such error in a prior proceeding. Moreover, coram nobis is an “extraordinary remedy” and, thus, “may not issue when alternative remedies . . . are available.” Id. Again, nothing in plaintiff’s papers indicates that the relief he seeks is anything more extraordinary (except perhaps in amount) than monetary damages or that such relief cannot be secured through the more pedestrian, but usually efficacious, form of a civil action.
Third, the court’s power to issue a writ of coram nobis pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1651, presupposes an independent basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at 2222. Nothing in plaintiff’s pleadings regarding the alleged debt suggests that any claim herein arises under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). Additionally, although plaintiff styles his action as one involving a foreign judgment, it appears that he and all the individuals and entities implicated herein are located in Colorado, thereby, providing no apparent basis for diversity jurisdiction. See id. § 1332.

[silversopp]

Looks like David has failed yet again to become an overnight millionaire.

[David Merrill]

The record still forms...

I am not discouraged by this clerical error. There is more to it than meets the eye.

[Thule]

There is more to it than meets the eye.

Not really. Your magic words don't work, your case flunked, you won't get your millions. You failed. That's about it.