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

[Thule]

Just to get back on topic, any sign of the 20 millions yet? No? How strange...

[David Merrill]

Just to get back on topic, any sign of the 20 millions yet? No? How strange...

You betcha! You Quatlosers have been most helpful indeed.

What I will let on though is that the Refusal for Cause was exclusively to the point that the clerk's civil suit and dismissal could in any manner effect access to the judiciary in the future. I think that will be easy to show that the clerk converting a waiver of tort action into a civil suit rendered the action unintelligible according to like what BLACKBURN said - One Form of Action.

The beauty of it is that BLACKBURN has admitted to ruling as a politician and that opens up a lot of doors for collections. Blending law and equity makes the judge a politician.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

A special deal, just for me?

No, thanks.

Coward.

Noooooo! Pottapaug1938 what would we do without you? We are just lucky that the world is not ready for Davey's proof. Because if he could show us his piles of proof you would be gone.

Hey -- I'll take the risk. We will all be the better for it if Davey can come up with proff for his assertions, because among other things we will all be wealthy. But then, he's too much of a coward to admit he's wrong.

[Pottapaug1938]

[quote="David Merrill"]

Blending law and equity makes the judge a politician.

No, you buffoon. When I was a first year law student, one of the first things I learned, in Civil Procedure, was that the procedural reforms of the 1930s did away with the separation of law and equity. That's why you'll see references to "Attorney at Law" and "Counselor in Equity" in old pleadings (which is why lawyers are sometimes still addressed as "Counselor").

[wserra]

Blending law and equity makes the judge a politician.

Blending flour and sugar makes the pizza crust a cookie.

[silversopp]

You betcha! You Quatlosers have been most helpful indeed.

Great, does this mean that you're going to abandon your crazy antics and focus on rebuilding your family relationships?

I think that will be easy to show that the clerk converting a waiver of tort action into a civil suit rendered the action unintelligible according to like what BLACKBURN said - One Form of Action.

It would be much easier to show that you submitted unintelligible nonsense.

The beauty of it is that BLACKBURN has admitted to ruling as a politician and that opens up a lot of doors for collections. Blending law and equity makes the judge a politician.

Collect what? Your case was dismissed. That translates as "refused for dumbass" in Van Peltian. There's no $20 million for you to collect.

[David Merrill]

Blending law and equity makes the judge a politician.

Blending flour and sugar makes the pizza crust a cookie.

Both very true.

Bennett v. Butterworth - 52 U.S. 669.

[David Merrill]

You betcha! You Quatlosers have been most helpful indeed.

Great, does this mean that you're going to abandon your crazy antics and focus on rebuilding your family relationships?

I think that will be easy to show that the clerk converting a waiver of tort action into a civil suit rendered the action unintelligible according to like what BLACKBURN said - One Form of Action.

It would be much easier to show that you submitted unintelligible nonsense.

The beauty of it is that BLACKBURN has admitted to ruling as a politician and that opens up a lot of doors for collections. Blending law and equity makes the judge a politician.

Collect what? Your case was dismissed. That translates as "refused for dumbass" in Van Peltian. There's no $20 million for you to collect.

That was not my case that was dismissed. My evidence repository is still what is was before the clerk made an error.

[Pottapaug1938]

{quote="wserra"]

Blending law and equity makes the judge a politician.

Blending flour and sugar makes the pizza crust a cookie.[/quote]


Both very true.

Bennett v. Butterworth - 52 U.S. 669.[/quote]

Was that a case involving someone who couldn't stand the stuff that's sold to put on pancakes instead of real maple syrup?

[Pottapaug1938]

]

Collect what? Your case was dismissed. That translates as "refused for dumbass" in Van Peltian. There's no $20 million for you to collect.

That was not my case that was dismissed. My evidence repository is still what it was....

Yeah -- the rest of us call it a "wastebasket".

[bmielke]

]

Collect what? Your case was dismissed. That translates as "refused for dumbass" in Van Peltian. There's no $20 million for you to collect.

That was not my case that was dismissed. My evidence repository is still what it was....

Yeah -- the rest of us call it a "wastebasket".

Is there a time limit that a file can remain open in Federal Court without a suit being filed?

I cannot imagine Federal Courts actually offer themselves as Evidence Repositories. If they do offer that service what it normally used for? Other than a onetime filing fee compared to a monthly payment what is the benefit to having a Federal Court act in this role ove a safe deposit box or self storage unit? Anyone can see your evidence on PACER, which could be bad if you are still investigating and trying to keep a low profile.

[David Merrill]

Is there a time limit that a file can remain open in Federal Court without a suit being filed?

I cannot imagine Federal Courts actually offer themselves as Evidence Repositories. If they do offer that service what it normally used for? Other than a onetime filing fee compared to a monthly payment what is the benefit to having a Federal Court act in this role ove a safe deposit box or self storage unit? Anyone can see your evidence on PACER, which could be bad if you are still investigating and trying to keep a low profile.

You haven't the imagination that the Founding Fathers had - that's for sure.

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

[wserra]

The Judiciary Act of 1789 contains some fairly incomprehensible language, David, but that doesn't excuse you from failing to quote an entire sentence - especially when you do so in order to misinterpret it. Here is the entire first sentence of section 9, which contains your partial quote:

That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States.

I've underlined the parts that put your quote in context. The seizures on land must arise at least "under the laws of the United States", and perhaps per "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" as well. In any event, if federal agents seize something from you, yes, you can sue to get it back.

What's your point?

[bmielke]

Is there a time limit that a file can remain open in Federal Court without a suit being filed?

I cannot imagine Federal Courts actually offer themselves as Evidence Repositories. If they do offer that service what it normally used for? Other than a onetime filing fee compared to a monthly payment what is the benefit to having a Federal Court act in this role ove a safe deposit box or self storage unit? Anyone can see your evidence on PACER, which could be bad if you are still investigating and trying to keep a low profile.

You haven't the imagination that the Founding Fathers had - that's for sure.

"...the United States, ... within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; (a) saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land,..." The First Judiciary Act; September 24, 1789; Chapter 20, page 77. The Constitution of the United States of America, Revised and Annotated - Analysis and Interpretation - 1982; Article III, §2, Cl. 1 Diversity of Citizenship, U.S. Government Printing Office document 99-16, p. 741.

Way to not answer my questions. Can a real poster take a shot?

[Pottapaug1938]

The Judiciary Act of 1789 contains some fairly incomprehensible language, David, but that doesn't excuse you from failing to quote an entire sentence - especially when you do so in order to misinterpret it. Here is the entire first sentence of section 9, which contains your partial quote:

That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States.

I've underlined the parts that put your quote in context. The seizures on land must arise at least "under the laws of the United States", and perhaps per "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" as well. In any event, if federal agents seize something from you, yes, you can sue to get it back.

What's your point?

While you're answering that, David, please explain why a federal statute has any constitutional bearing on a case arising under Colorado law.

[bmielke]

While you're answering that, David, please explain why a federal statute has any constitutional bearing on a case arising under Colorado law.

What about a FDCPA Claim? Moot in this case obviously, but theorgininating case would be CO. Contract law with a counter claim.

Or A VAWA Eviction Defense? The orginating case is an eviction, defense and possible counter claim is Federal.

Fair Housing? Housing is generally covered by state law, but a Federal claim can be made.

ADA Claims?

All can be used in state court. All are Federal Statutes.

[Pottapaug1938]

While you're answering that, David, please explain why a federal statute has any constitutional bearing on a case arising under Colorado law.

What about a FDCPA Claim? Moot in this case obviously, but theorgininating case would be CO. Contract law with a counter claim.

Or A VAWA Eviction Defense? The orginating case is an eviction, defense and possible counter claim is Federal.

Fair Housing? Housing is generally covered by state law, but a Federal claim can be made.

ADA Claims?

All can be used in state court. All are Federal Statutes.

OK -- I should have said "a federal statute setting up a federal judicial system".

[wserra]

Is there a time limit that a file can remain open in Federal Court without a suit being filed?

Most (perhaps all) districts have a "Miscellaneous" docket. As far as I know, there is no time limit on filing things in them. Moreover, since the person who opens the file and pays the fee can always file something (unless a judge orders otherwise), unless someone notices a miscellaneous case can theoretically go on forever. When David filed what purpored to be a lien enforcement, the clerk noticed and gave it a "Civil" docket number. The rest is history.

I cannot imagine Federal Courts actually offer themselves as Evidence Repositories.

They don't. There aren't that many Davids around.

[bmielke]

More to the point, I wonder why SFB is constantly quoting the 200 year old version of the law rather than the current one in force.

As amended, Title 28, U.S.C, has this provision regarding jurisdiction of admiralty cases:

§ 1333. Admiralty, Maritime and Prize Cases

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:

(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.
(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.

Among other things, the phrase "common law" was deleted at some point.

Maybe the libarian at the public library won't let Van Pelt near the law books, so he needed to use a history book.

[David Merrill]

The action is definitely taking a wonderful turn in my favor.

I will fill you in on the foundation only. Remember that BLACKBURN ruled upon One Form of Action.



That blending happened in the federal jurisdiction in 1938:

...The delay may seem strange, especially in light of the quite rapid effects
of the 1938 merger of the Equity Rules into the first Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
But the late depression era was one of great social activism on the part of the
Federal government, and this faded seamlessly into wartime legislation which
appropriated control of private property. The District Courts under the new FRCP
were quickly forced by the volume of litigation into the wholesale application of
equitable remedies in actions "at law".

The 1938 merger of law and equity rules left no loose ends; the procedure is entirely
uniform regardless of the nature of the remedy prayed, though of course issuance of an
injunction requires at least an ex parte hearing in chambers. The 1966 merger, however,
leaves six special Supplemental Admiralty Rules appended to the body of the FRCP,
and in order to apply those Supplemental Rules it is necessary that the complaint
specifically invoke the jurisdiction of the "admiralty side" of the Court, so as to
ensure that the action does not proceed on the "law side" if the common law is
competent to supply an in personam remedy in the particular case.

And Wesley recalls:

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/su ... rrant1.gif
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/su ... rrant2.gif

Not only do we see in rem being federal and admiralty, the victim who trusted in that, the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims got all his money back by filing a Verified Statement of Interest and Right.

FRCP

Rule C

(6) Responsive Pleading; Interrogatories.
(a) Maritime Arrests and Other Proceedings.

(i) a person who asserts a right of possession or any ownership interest in the property that is the subject of the action must file a verified statement of right or interest:

(A) within 14 days after the execution of process, or

(B) within the time that the court allows;

Applying the process inversely works well too.



A certificate of search signed by the owner in allodium is equivalently, Failure to State a Claim for Which Relief Can be Granted.