Sibley strikes again

Sibley writes:

Saturday, November 30, 2013
In Re: Douglas Vogt – Part III

In response, Doug has now filed an extraordinary pejorative Writ of Mandamus asking that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal order Judge Robart to “do his duty” in those three regards. Each “duty” presents a Hobson’s Choice for the Ninth Circuit. (A Hobson’s choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered.)

Perhaps he meant prerogative although pejorative does appear to describe the petition much better imho.

Expect a simple denial in a few weeks. There is no foundation for an extraordinary writ of mandamus, and there is no support for criminal behavior on the part of the court, who merely gave Vogt the choice to either file a complaint or have his submission be ignored and filed under miscellaneous filings. Assuming that Vogt intended to file a miscellaneous case, he failed to provide sufficient reason as to why the case should have been filed as such. Regardless, the court would have found in either instance, that Vogt lacked standing and thus the suit would be dismissed.

See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_13-cv-00578/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_13-cv-00578-0.pdf

Or

If Riddle intended to simply file a miscellaneous case giving this type of notice, then there is nothing more for this court to do, and this case should be administratively terminated.

Riddle v. Internal Revenue Service, Dist. Court, D. Oregon 2004

The Court and the Clerk realized that the notice had no legal relevance unless Vogt were to file a real legal complaint, otherwise, it would be a document that it could ignore or decide to file as a miscellaneous filing and ignore it. In an effort to help the plaintiff, the clerk advised him to file the document appropriately. This was done in several cases relating to the American Grand Jury petitions.

Miscellaneous case numbers are normally assigned to a variety of matters filed with the court which are not considered a civil case. They are ancillary and supplementary proceedings not defined as a civil action. If the miscellaneous case is contested before a district judge, it then receives a civil case number. Miscellaneous cases could be directly or indirectly related to a case, such as an application to perpetuate testimony as defined in Rule 27, Fed.R.Civ.P., Etc. Miscellaneous actions require resolution through the judicial system.

  1. A filing fee is required.
  2. Filings in a miscellaneous case must follow the same guidelines set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our Local Rules.

For the Federal Circuit of Western WA

Filing a Miscellaneous Action

For help, please contact
the Clerk’s Office

206-370-8400 (Seattle)
253-882-3800 (Tacoma)
questions@wawd.uscourts.gov

In this court the Miscellaneous mantle covers a large variety of cases. All supplemental proceedings in a federal post judgment action, such as a garnishment or debtor exam, become a miscellaneous case.

To determine if a case is a miscellaneous matter.

  • It is an action which does not qualify as a civil case, OR
  • It is an action which requires the decision of a U.S. district court judge, or magistrate judge, such as disbursement of a deceased seaman’s personal effects or perpetuation of testimony.

Miscellaneous cases cannot be opened on CM/ECF by the attorney or pro se party. They must either be delivered to the courthouse in person, via mail, or electronically through our e-mail box for new case filings (newcases.seattle@wawd.uscourts.gov or newcases.tacoma@wawd.uscourts.gov). Please be aware that some cases require certified copies for the court and may not be transmitted electronically. The filing fee for a miscellaneous action is $46.00.

The Clerk’s Office cannot tell you what documents you need to file for your case, but we will assist you in understanding the filing procedures. Some examples of miscellaneous actions are:

  • Motion to Compel or Quash a Foreign Subpoena
  • Applications for Writs of Garnishment
  • Judgment Debtor Examinations
  • Registrations of Foreign Judgments
  • Notices of Receivership