Quote:
|
The losing party in an Arbitration Award cannot object to the arbitrator(s) after suffering an adverse arbitration award, see: Dadeland Square, LTD. v. Gould, 763 So.2d 524...
|
I have heard it is commonplace for banks and other creditors to sue arbitration companies that do not rule for the
money interests. But whoever you are MADDOG, you seem to be holding your own. Except that this motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (apparently because the plaintiff grew delinquent on the arbitration process) seems old enough to have been ruled on by now.
Let me guess...
the judge went silent?
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. After no response to my question from MADDOG I wish to announce no insult was meant by it. The dates being 2004 suggest this motion has been sitting on some Bozo's bench for quite a few months now. I believe that this 'cornering' the administrator has caused silence, albeit he or she desperately wants to get this mess off the bench/docket.
Recently somebody had a federal magistrate try to 'unfile' a mandatory judicial notice to get a certified copy of the
judge's oath into the case jacket. Now can you imagine there is any reason nobody wants a certified copy of the oath -
in the case jacket? Well, it does not take a lot of imagination to understand it is the oath that makes the magistrate into a judge. That is the binding to the Constitution and Article III where judiciary is formed in these united States of America. It is against the fiduciary interests of the Bank and Fund to rule dismissal just because the Bank defaulted (with MADDOG's case). So I am supposing that may be a little hurtful to point out the
judge's silence. But if he went silent that is his reluctance to become a judge at all. I have simply grown accustomed to this as a routine with Libel of Review in admiralty. I was not intending to insult MADDOG if the judge/magistrate has indeed gone silent and will not address the motion.
Quote:
|
In the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
United States district courthouse Registered Mail # RA xxx-xxx-xxx US
1929 Stout Street – A105
Denver, Colorado.
[80293]
Mandatory Judicial Notice
Petitioner v. Respondent; Case # 05-X-XXXX
“Judge” (Magistrate’s Name) is to validate his oath of office with whoever administered the oath and place a certified copy of that same oath in this case jacket within ten (10) days of this notice so that either party can authenticate that this is an Article III judiciary according to the Constitution of the United States by purchasing a certified copy of the oath from the court clerk.
Hereby ordered xx/xx/xx by THE COURT
|