What seems to have worked for me - so far

[David Merrill]

Any attorney worth his salt (and you cannot quote me on that one) knows the process of contempt must follow common law notice and grace. Whenever I hear somebody penalized for contempt I inquire for a detailed accounting of exactly what happened. You can pretty well count on being clearly warned before being penalized for contempt*.

But there are ways to get around that too. File for another hearing about your motion but when you know when it is coming up, hire your own transcriber and tell her (or him) what courtroom and time. That's all there is to it. The attorney in the black robe is accostumed to being the court of record (or morelike being sure there is no court of record). The transcriber will as a matter of professional record file the transcript with the clerk. Remember, that is where the authority is - with the clerk. The clerk will become your court of record by holding the transcript.

If the judge rules against you in spite of the statute and facts, then threaten him with contempt. He is breaking the law and his oath in a court of record; punishable by law. Combine the court of record with validation of oath above. According to your account MADDOG you have them in a corner but you do not know how to get the ruling that is inevitably coming down the pike. Do not try another motion, unless it is for a hearing to rule on the motion already in place. A less specific or motion based on a different point or argument will become a novation and the winner motion in place quickly forgotten - new contract. I can almost guarantee that because it will let the judge off the hook you have him on.

Where is the authority? Well the illusion is that it is on the bench but maybe you should start focusing on what is getting filed with the clerk of court. And if one of the parties or the attorney in the black robe has stalled out; consider moving into that position of authority. If the judgment gets filed, there is a judgment in place.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* It is almost always the case, "What did you say?" Then the poor person fulfilling the requirement of testifying in the second instance - "[Repeating the offending verbiage.]" One fellow, a punk called Judge Peters a "F--ker". Peters demanded he repeat the name but the punk just stood there smiling.

One fellow who had just received an especially difficult sentence said, "Well you don't have to be a peckerhead about it." He was too scared to repeat the namecalling so the judge called the clerk to play it back from the tape recording. When asked, "Was that you?" the poor fellow said "Yes" and got another 30 days for contempt. My advice would be to say, if anything, "No, that was a tape recording. The recorder cannot testify for me."

John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

P.S. Here is the generic template for default judgment on a Libel of Review. Note that this is filed in the common law (county clerk and recorder or county deeds and only utilizes the district courts of the United States as conduit to notify and inform foreign agents in admiralty; exclusive original cognizance:

In the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado

Re: 04-XXXX

Default judgment

Respondent has failed to assert any claim to Petitioner by proving the certificate of search in the district court to be faulty or fraudulent within the twenty days stipulated. As stipulated on the summons properly formed and served;

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiff, whose address is: Petitioner; street address; Colorado Springs, Colorado. [zip] AND FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty 20 days of service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

default judgment is hereby entered and the injunctive relief sought in the counterclaim is awarded to Petitioner. Respondent is by law to forfeit seizure upon Petitioner's property and person. If Respondent fails to do so, a certificate of exigent circumstances will issue calling for Respondent's arrest in the cognizance of the State Department and Speaker of the House.


___________________________
street address
Colorado Springs, Colorado. [zip]

The round-date and certificate of mailing testify that certified copies of this default judgment were posted as follows:

United States District Court Registered mail # RA XXX XXX XXX US
for the District of Colorado
901 19th Street - A105
Denver, Colorado.
[80294]

Respondent Registered mail # RA XXX XXX XXX US
Service address
Service City, State.
[service code]

[MADDOG]

David Merrill wrote:

According to your account MADDOG you have them in a corner but you do not know how to get the ruling that is inevitably coming down the pike. Do not try another motion, unless it is for a hearing to rule on the motion already in place. A less specific or motion based on a different point or argument will become a novation and the winner motion in place quickly forgotten - new contract. I can almost guarantee that because it will let the judge off the hook you have him on.

(emphasis in bold, mine)

That paragraph of advice is worth its weight in gold, David... REAL gold!!! You are a treasure - Thank you!

My paralegal friend tried to convince me to move the court for dismissal, but I said, "Wait a minute! My existing motion hasn't been ruled on yet!" and your advice confirmed what I suspected - that I should wait and expect the judge to rule on my existing motion now that the Plaintiff has failed to respond as ordered. I do not want to let the judge off the hook I've managed to put him on! I suspected that filing any new motion would supplant the effective one that is already in place, and you so eloquently confirmed that David, putting it in even clearer focus - a "novation" - new contract. HMMMMM!!! After today's discussion here on suijuris I now have a better understanding of novation. And my intuition about not filing a new motion, and therefore not letting the judge off the hook has been clarified and further enlightened by your advice. It's been a great day for me on suijuris!
=oD
Sweet dreams, everyone... time for beddy-bye. =)

[David Merrill]

I had the suitors keep close eye for novation. Many of them Refuse for Cause presentments from the IMFIRS/Treasury. The presentment R4C'd would be supplanted (thanks for that nearly forgotten word MADDOG) with an almost identical one.

This conclusion is formed by deduction - not direct testimony or science. The victim, or defendant is always thinking the Refusal for Cause must have failed, because three weeks later they are still pestering him. However the R4C worked fine. That is why the Treasury spelled the name differently (apparently a typo) or adjusted the alleged debt amount. To the attorney in the black robe this is a fresh and independent cause - different name; different monetary amount. Silent judicial notice is only taken that the subsequent presentment was not properly Refused for Cause.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Your love for truth is very refreshing MADDOG. Many people would take my posts as bad news about your motion. In other words I am discouraging you from expectations of the attorney in the black robe. Instead you are simply encouraged that you find the truth why the motion, iron-clad as it is, went silent.

For instance if you move for a hearing about your motion they (Plaintiff and Judge in collusion) will be very wary because you did not supplant your motion with novation. They will probably fly when they discover you have hired your own professional transcriber - that you are establishing your right to a court of record is something unalienable (won by combat) - meaning generated from yourself. But if they do not, that is a good time to get your mandatory judicial notice for the judge to validate his oath on the record. Just before you have him rule on the default obviously before his bench.

If he rules for the Bank in spite of the obvious default notify him he will be held in contempt. He has just admitted he took an oath to uphold the Constitution(s) and now has ten days to get a certified copy of that oath into the case jacket. You will give him time to reconsider his erroneous and contemptious ruling in light of the law. Conclude business by verifying the mandatory judicial notice is in cognizance of his court and set the next hearing for twelve or fifteen days to hear his revised or amplified ruling on the default. [And by "conclude business" do not allow the judge or plaintiff to bring any new business into the hearing! Keep saying things like, "I am only here to verify that you and the plaintiff are aware of this mandatory judicial notice to validate your oath on the record."; "I only came today because..." or remind them, "I called this hearing today solely for the purpose..." Remember you are paying the transcriber. Do not let them drive up your expenses with new and unwanted business. Keep control of the record. If they pester be quite frank, "I have a fiduciary responsibility not to allow either of you (prove collusion by asking the judge's attorney registration number [already have this information and when he refuses to state it ask if it is #XXXXX? He will refuse to verify so then say hearsay (you have just formed exception to the Hearsay Rule), that the State Bar or Supreme Court registry told you his Bar Number is #XXXXX]) to bring any unwanted novation (new business/contracts) into this hearing. I am reminding you that I am paying the transcriber out of my own pocket."]

[MADDOG]

(I don't think I need to quote everything David wrote, above, because my post is right beneath his.)

I've been reading and re-reading everything you said, David, and I'm impressed with your ability to think outside the box. I'm unfamiliar with those tactics, but they seem innovative and potentially very effective. Unfortunately for me I'm not as confident appearing in person at a hearing, because I function much better when I have time to ponder things, do research, and formulate my response without being "on the spot". The attorney in the black robe knows that most pro se litigants are not as relaxed and confident, and can be made flustered when asked a direct question by a judge. Setting a hearing on my motion seems disconcerting to me... I keep hoping the judge will need to rule on my existing motion, but my paralegal friend, and you both tell me that the judge could just pull back, remain silent, and let the whole thing just sit unresolved.

So far this judge has preferred to rule without a hearing. In fact, his motion practice order stated that:

“6) Oral argument. Motions and other applications will ordinarily be determined by the court on the basis of motion papers and legal memoranda unless a hearing is required by rule or law. (For example, under the rules, summary judgment motions should be set for hearing. This would not, however, extinguish the requirement that the motion be accompanied by and responded to with memoranda.)

“When a request for hearing is granted, counsel for the requesting party will be asked to coordinate the calendars of the Court and counsel.”

SO... didn't this judge commit himself to ruling based upon motion papers and legal memoranda on any motion for which a hearing is not required by law? So if my existing motion does not legally require a hearing, can't I expect the court to rule according to its own motion practice order and do so without a hearing? =)

Do you think there is some way that I can accomplish this on paper, without a hearing? I'd like to save such inflammatory and confrontational moves as asking for his Oath of Office for circumstances in which there is already such an adversarial climate that it can't hurt, but will only help. Right now the judge seems to actually respect me for holding the Plaintiff to the dictates of his Motion Practice Order and I hate to offend him by holding his feet to the fire until absolutely necessary. Isn't there some way of politely urging him to rule without a hearing, based on motion papers and legal memoranda (as he said himself)?

[MADDOG]

What if I move the court to rule on the motion currently before it by attaching the unruled-upon motion and thus incorporating it in the new motion? Do you think that would work without supplanting my earlier motion and letting the judge off the hook?

[David Merrill]

That in theory would be a new motion but without it being less specific. I just completely agree that you should expect the court to follow its own rules of practice about motions in the first instance.

Readers may begin to see here why I am so comfortable dispensing legal advice in my true name without a signature-line disclaimer that "this is no way, shape or form legal advice". You, MADDOG and your husband are obviously responsible adults. And I must also say that you have managed to mirror a technical tactic back on the System with a motion that has brought the wheels of the Bank and Fund to a silent halt.

In 1999 I think it was, the layman's ability to execute arrest by direct complaint - that is to just approach the clerk with your complaint and expect satisfaction, was removed from the Colorado Revised Statutes. I expect that movement was uniform accross the nation because the 2000 Revisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure brought forth Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) Arrest warrant. So you could in theory just have this JUDGE arrested and let him explain why he will not rule on your motion wearing handcuffs in an E(4)(f) hearing.

That is to say his dereliction of duty is a libel against you and your husband. [Presuming admiralty/executive gold fringes are flying in the courtroom.] Simply file a Libel of Review about the matter in federal court, in admiralty; paying proper respect to the law of the flag. The judge is who declared the laws you would be contracting under with the gold fringes. He is in breach of contract and dereliction. Upon grilling you will find he has an attorney registration number and that puts him in collusion with the Plaintiff Bank and Fund. The Plaintiff being a foreign principal that has never cleared to operate on this land through procedures (Title 22) of established law means that his delay in ruling is misprision of treason.

So the moment the clerk of the U.S. district court seems to vascillate about keeping your case in admiralty, that is exigent circumstances. Judicial review (Article III) has just proved "impracticable". Arrest the judge. What for? Impersonating a judge? Maybe. It does not matter. You have him arrested for being the "person liable". [Of course now you have to convince the U.S. clerk that the rule means what it actually says.]

(B) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must promptly issue a summons and a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.

Of course that admiralty process and fringe only works when U.S. Attorneys and federal judges use it. They just moved your right of arrest into the federal courts for show.

So seriously consider your thoughts on letting sleeping dogs lie. Beware of some rule that after a motion sets for so long without you complaining, then the Plaintiff begins moving the court as though that motion does not exist.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[MADDOG]

David Merrill wrote:

So seriously consider your thoughts on letting sleeping dogs lie. Beware of some rule that after a motion sets for so long without you complaining, then the Plaintiff begins moving the court as though that motion does not exist.

Uh OH! Does anyone know of such a rule? I'd better examine the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure again - or would the Florida rules be superceded by some Federal Rule allowing the Plaintiff to move after some period of time elapsing without the judge ruling on our motion?