What should you do when a judge ignores your motions?
Bill Windsor is not an attorney, but he is a very experienced pro se litigant.
Judges usually ignore his motions because they are corrupt, and Bill has a target the size of Texas on is back. Here's what he has learned...
This is one of the questions that I get asked the most: What do I do because my judge is not ruling on my motions?"
Know that they do it because they are dishonest, corrupt, and/or dislike pro se parties.
I file motions trying to get judges to act. I file appeals. I file judicial misconduct compaints. I file motions to seek recusal or disqualification of the judge. I attempt to get criminal charges brought against the judges for obstruction of justice. But I am hated by dishonest and corrupt judges, so be careful.
You need evidence.
I document everything. When I am in the same town as the courthouse, I hand-deliver my motions to the clerk of the court myself or use a courier service. Regardless of how you get your motions to the clerk, you want a receipt. I have recently learned that, at least in some states, the United States Postal Service is superior to hand delivery.
Document, document, document. Clerks will destroy or lose your filings on orders from a corrupt judge.
I print copies of the docket on a regular basis so I have proof of what the docket showed in case the clerk criminally alters the docket in the future.
I file motions politely requesting a hearing on my motions. When that is ignored, I file a less polite motion for order on my motion(s).
Court clerks are duty-bound to know the law and to docket and process the filings that they receive. This does not mean they do. My experience is that many court clerks are corrupt.
The key legal issue to know is this: Delivery of documents to the office of the clerk of the court constitutes filing.
The office of the clerk has no legal right to block the docketing of anything that is properly delivered to the clerk of the court. So, the mission is to ensure that your documents are delivered to the clerk. You can do this by mail, certified mail return receipt, Federal Express with a direct signature required, or by personal delivery. The method you use does matter. Use the United States Postal Service with tracking so you can prove when it was sent. If it is a really important filing, send it Express Mail with a delivery date guarantee. It is best to get a signature to prove delivery to and receipt by someone in the office of the clerk of the court, but proof that it was received from the U.S. Postal Service is sufficient. Case law provides benefits to using the mail that do not exist with FedEx, UPS, or a courier service. Hand delivering them yourself isn't best as it is awkward at best for you to get a signed receipt. It's easy if you use the postal service.
I always send a cover letter listing the precise documents that are being filed. That, the documents, and the signed receipt or proof of receipt PROVES filing.
If anyone interferes with the docketing of the documents received by the clerk's office, I consider that they have committed the crime of obstruction of justice, and I will attempt to get criminal charges against them with the District Attorney and the Grand Jury.
Each document not properly forwarded is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2076, which provides for a fine and up to one year in jail. Each document concealed or destroyed is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 and provides for a fine and up to three years in prison:
"(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
I research the law using www.versuslaw.com. This is a low-cost online service that allows you to search all the court cases using Boolean logic. So, I can seach for precisely what I need. Versuslaw has help to explain Boolean logic if you don't know what it is or how to use it. The basic functions are and, or, and not. If you want to search for either recusal and disqualification, your search is (recusal) or (disqualification) because that will bring up uses of either word in a case. If you want to search for recusal and overruled, your search is (recusal) and (overruled) because that will bring up a list of cases where recusal and overruled were used in the same court decision. If you want to search for recusal and not overruled, your search is (recusal) and not (overruled) because that will bring up a list of cases where recusal and overruled were not used in the same court decision.
Understand that a judge does not have the option to ignore motions. Ruling on motions is a "ministerial act." It is a requirement of the judge's job.
A “ministerial act” is an act that is performed according to statutes, legal authority, established procedures or instructions from a superior, without exercising any individual judgment. (The Legal Dictionary - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com.) (See Texas A & M University v. Bishop, No. 14-97-00153-CV (Tex.App. Dist.14 04/10/2003); Kendall v. Poos, No. 05-99-01391-CV (Tex.App. Dist.5 05/31/2001).)
FEDERAL CASE LAW
"...it is settled law that delivery of a pleading to a proper official is sufficient to constitute filing thereof." United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S. Ct. 508, 60 L. Ed. 897 (1916); Milton v. United States, 105 F.2d 253, 255 (5th Cir. 1939). In Greeson v. Sherman, 265 F. Supp. 340 (D.C.Va.1967) it was held that a pleading delivered to a deputy clerk at his home at night was thereby "filed." (Freeman v. Giacomo Costa Fu Adrea, 282 F. Supp. 525 (E.D.Pa. 04/5/1968).)
FRCP Rule 5(d)(2): "A paper is filed by delivering it: (A) to the clerk" FRCP Rule 77 (a) "When Court Is Open. Every district court is considered always open for filing any paper, issuing and returning process, making a motion, or entering an order." [emphasis added.]
"The duty of the clerk is to make his record correctly represent the proceedings in the case." (Wetmore v. Karrick, 27 S. Ct. 434, 205 U.S. 141 (U.S. 03/11/1907).) Failing to file documents presented and reflect the documents on the docket is a failure to perform the ministerial duties of the Clerk of the Court. [emphasis added.]
"...his [Clerk of the Court] job is to file pleadings and other documents, maintain the court's files and inform litigants of the entry of court orders." Sanders v. Department of Corrections, 815 F. Supp. 1148, H49(N.D. Ill. 1993). (Williams v. Pucinski, 01C5588 (N.D.Ill. 01/13/2004).)
The clerk of a court, like the Recorder is required to accept documents filed. It is not incumbent upon him to judicially determine the legal significance of the tendered documents. In re Halladjian, 174 F. 834 (C.C.Mass.1909); United States, to Use of Kinney v. Bell, 127 F. 1002 (C.C.E.D.Pa.1904); State ex rel. Kaufman v. Sutton, 231 So.2d 874 (Fla.App.1970); Malinou v. McElroy, 99 R.I. 277, 207 A.2d 44 (1965); State ex rel. Wanamaker v. Miller, 164 Ohio St. 176, 177, 128 N.E.2d 110 (1955.).) (Daniel K. Mayers Et Al., v. Peter S. Ridley Et Al. No. 71-1418 (06/30/72, United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.) [emphasis added.]
The specific allegation in Mr. Snyder's complaint is that Mr. Nolen, acting as the Circuit Court Clerk, refused to file or actually removed already filed papers from the court's docket. Under Illinois law, the clerk simply has the ministerial duty to file papers that conform to the technical rules of court. See In re Estate of Davison, 430 N.E.2d 222, 223 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981) ("Delivery alone has been held to constitute filing since the person filing has no control over the officer who receives documents. Subsequent ministerial tasks of the clerk evidence the filing of a document but are not essential to its perfection." (internal citation omitted)); Roesch-Zeller, Inc. v. Hollembeak, 124 N.E.2d 662, 664 (Ill. App. Ct. 1955) ("The duty of the clerk to file the document on the date it was presented to him was a ministerial act, the performance of which could be compelled by writ of mandamus."). (Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279 (7th Circuit, 08/13/2004).) [emphasis added.]
The word "filed" the Act uses, is, as applied to court proceedings, a word of art, having a long established and well understood meaning, deriving from the practice of filing papers on a string or wire. It requires of one filing a suit, merely the depositing of the instrument with the custodian for the purpose of being filed. Except where some specific statute otherwise provides, and none such is present here, it charges him with no further duty, subjects him to no untoward consequences as a result of the failure of the custodian to do his duty, by placing the instrument on the file, or as in modern practice placing his file mark on the instrument. Collected in vol. 3 Words and Phrases, First Series, pp. 2764-2770, inclusive; vol. 2 Words and Phrases, Second Series, pp. 531, 534, may be found cases from many jurisdictions, all to the same effect, that the filing of a paper is the delivery of it to the officer at his office, to be kept by him as a paper on file, and that the file mark of the officer is evidence of the filing, but it is not the essential element of the act. A paper may be filed without being marked or endorsed by the clerk, In re Conant's Estate, 43 Or. 530, 73 P. 1018; Holman v. Chevaillier, 14 Tex. 337; Eureka Stone Co. v. Knight, 82 Ark. 164, 100 S.W. 878; Darnell v. Flynn, 69 W.Va. 146, 71 S.E. 16. Perhaps the best statement of the meaning and consequences of filing is to be found in the Chevaillier case, supra. "Though the ancient mode of filing papers has gone into disuse, the phraseology of the ancient practice is retained, in the common expressions 'to file,' 'to put on file,' 'to take off the file,' &c., from 'filum' the thread, string, or wire used in ancient practice, for connecting the papers together. The term 'file' is also used to denote the paper placed with the Clerk, and assigned by the law to his official keeping. A file is a record of the Court.(1 Litt., 112; Burr. L.D. tit. File.) It is the duty of the Clerk, when a paper is thus placed in his custody or 'filed' with him, to endorse upon it the date of its reception, and retain it in his office, subject to inspection by whomsoever it may concern; and that is what is meant by his 'filing' the paper. But where the law requires or authorizes a party to file it, it simply means that he shall place it in the official custody of the Clerk. That is all that is required of him; and if the officer omits the duty of endorsing upon it the date of the filing, that should not prejudice the rights of the party. And hence it is the common practice, where that has been omitted, for the officer, with the sanction of the Court, to make the endorsement now for then; the doing of the act now, that is, at the time when it is actually done, being allowed to operate as a substitute and equivalent for doing it then, or when it should have been done. And acts thus allowed to be done by the Clerk of the Court, with the sanction of the Court, have the same effect as if they had been done at the proper time. (1 Stra. 639; 2 Tidd's Pr. 932.) It was the filing of the affidavit and certificate by the party, under the statute, and not the endorsement of the date of their reception, or the filing by the Clerk, which was a condition precedent to the issuing of the execution in this case. The object of the motion to obtain the authority of the Court for the filing of the clerk now for then was that the Court might receive evidence of the time of the actual filing by the party, in order that the filing by the Clerk might relate back, and take effect from that period, as though it had been done then, when it should have been done. (Milton v. United States., 105 F.2d 253 (5th Cir. 07/06/1939).) Johansson v. Towson, 177 F. Supp. 729 (M.D.Ga. 02/17/1959). [emphasis added.]
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that 'The district courts shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing any pleading * * *' Rule 77(a); that 'The clerk's office with the clerk or a deputy clerk in attendance shall be open during business hours on all days except Sundays and legal holidays * * *', Rule 77(c); that 'A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court', Rule 3 and that 'The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as required by these rules shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court, except that the judge may permit the papers to be filed with him, in which event he shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk.' Rule 5(e), 28 U.S.C.A. The tracing of our word 'file' to the Latin word 'filum' and its reference to the ancient practice of placing papers on a thread or wire for safekeeping and later reference is done in many cases, notably in United States v. Lombardo, 1916, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S. Ct. 508, 60 L. Ed. 897 and more recently in Milton v. United States, 5 Cir., 1939, 105 F.2d 253, 255. The latter case points out that all that is required on the part of a person filing a paper with an official is 'merely the depositing of the instrument with the custodian for the purpose of being filed'. (See Palcar Real Estate Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 8 Cir., 1942, 131 F.2d 210; Schultz v. United States, Ct.Cl.1955, 132 F.Supp. 953, 955; McCord v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 369, 123 F.2d 164, 165; Central Paper Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 902, 904. (Johansson v. Towson, 177 F. Supp. 729 (M.D.Ga. 02/17/1959).) [emphasis added.]
The filing of a paper takes place upon the delivery of it to the officer at his office. Milton v. United States, 5th Cir. 1939, 105 F.2d 253; Poynor v. Commissioner, 5th Cir. 1936, 81 F.2d 521. When the mails are utilized for the purpose of filing an instrument, the filing takes place upon delivery at the office of the official required to receive it. Wampler v. Snyder, 1933, 62 App. D.C. 215, 66 F.2d 195. (Phinney v. Bank of Southwest National Association, 335 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 08/05/1964).) (See also United States v. Missco Homestead Ass'n Inc., 185 F.2d 283 (8th Cir. 11/01/1950).) (Dienstag v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 164 F. Supp. 603 (S.D.N.Y. 11/18/1957); Thorndal v. Smith, Wild, Beebe & Cades, 339 F.2d 676 (8th Cir. 01/04/1965); Lone Star Producing Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 208 F. Supp. 85 (E.D.Tex. 07/17/1962).) [emphasis added.]
Although Lombardo was decided before the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated, courts have relied on it and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3, 5(e), and 77 for the same proposition. See, e.g., Milton v. United States, 105 F.2d 253, 255 (5th Cir. 1939)("The word 'filed' . . . requires of one filing a suit, merely the depositing of the instrument with the custodian for the purpose of being filed. Except where specific statute otherwise provides, and none such is present here, it charges him with no further duty, [and] subjects him to no untoward consequences."); Greeson v. Sherman, 265 F.Supp. 340, 342 (W.D. Va. 1967)("[I]f rule 3 is read in conjunction with Rule 5(e) . . . [a complaint is filed when] the complaint is delivered to an officer of the court who is authorized bo receive it."); Freeman v. Giacomo Costa Fu Andrea, 282 F.Supp. 525, 527 (E.D.Pa. 1968)("[I]t is settled law that delivery of a pleading to a proper official is sufficient to constitute filing thereof.") In Cintron v. Union Pacific R. Co., 813 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 1987), the court said: The consensus is that "[p]apers and pleadings including the original complaint are considered filed when they are placed in the possession of the clerk of the court." C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Â§ 1153 (1969). See United States v. Dae Rim Fishery Co., 794 F.2d 1392, 1395 (9th Cir. 1986). The court then discussed earlier cases, including Loya v. Desert Sands Unified School Dist., 721 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1983)â€¦. (Stone Street Capital, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 300 F.Supp.2d 345 (D.Md. 11/06/2003).) [emphasis added.]
Filing is complete once the document is delivered to and received by the proper official. United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 76, 36 S.Ct. 508, 60 L.Ed. 897 (1916). Although Lombardo was decided before the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated, courts have relied on it and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 3, 5(e), and 77 for the same proposition. See, e.g., Milton v. United States, 105 F.2d 253, 255 (5th Cir. 1939); Greeson v. Sherman, 265 F. Supp. 340, 342 (W.D.Va. 1967) ("If Rule 3 is read in conjunction with Rule 5 (e) . . . [a complaint is filed when] the complaint is delivered to an officer of the court who is authorized to receive it."); Freeman v. Giacomo Costa Fu Andrea, 282 F. Supp. 525, 527 (E.D.Pa. 1968) ("[I]t is settled law that delivery of a pleading to a proper official is sufficient to constitute filing thereof."). (Central States, SE & SW Pension v. Paramount Liquor, 34 F.Supp.2d 1092 (N.D.Ill. 02/09/1999).) [emphasis added.]
The docketing of filed documents is a ministerial act that the Office of the Clerk is obligated to perform. (See Ray v. United States, 57 S. Ct. 700, 301 U.S. 158 (U.S. 04/26/1937).) [emphasis added.]
STATE CASE LAW
I suspect the law will be the same in every state, so simply research your state's case law if you are in a state court. If you research your state, please send me what you come up with, and I will add the citations for the benefit of those in your state.
Texas Case Law
I have just researched Texas case law:
“When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial. White v. Reiter, 640 S.W.2d 586, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). The trial court has no discretion to refuse to act, but must consider and rule upon the motion within a reasonable time. Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426.” (In re Lockett, No. 2-08-452-CV (Tex.App. Dist.2 06/16/2009).) [emphasis added.]
“When a motion is properly pending before a trial court, the act of considering and ruling on it is a ministerial act. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to rule on pretrial motions that have been properly presented to it within a reasonable time. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding).” (In re Webb, 07-15-00050-CV (Tex.App. Dist.7 07/21/2015).)
“When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act. See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall 35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 707 (1992) (mandamus conditionally issued to compel trial court to conduct a hearing); State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1987, orig. proceeding) (en banc). In such circumstances, a trial court must consider and rule upon the motion within what, when all the surrounding circumstances are taken into account, constitutes a reasonable time. See Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding) (under statute permitting mandamus to compel lower court to proceed to trial and judgment but silent as to time, mandamus would issue when lower court had not acted ‘within a reasonable time’); see also Crouch v. Shields, 385 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (where probate judge had had more than a ‘reasonable time’ to consider merits of application but still refused to act, district court properly issued writ of mandamus compelling probate judge to hold hearing). This rule does not intrude upon the trial court’s discretion, because a trial court has no discretion to refuse to act. The trial court’s judicial discretion extends instead to its decision how to rule after it considers a motion properly before it, -- and an appeals court may not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule a certain way on that motion. Womack v. Berry, 156 Tex. 44, 291 S.W.2d 677, 682 (Tex. 1956). We review the rulings produced by the exercise of that judicial power in the normal appellate process. A refusal to rule within a reasonable time would demonstrate that process and, moreover, would constitute a denial of due course of law, Baluch v. Miller, 774 S.W.2d 299, 301-302 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding).” (Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).)
“When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon the motion is a ministerial act. See Eli Lilly Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992); see also Tex. State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry v. Carp, 388 S.W.2d 409, 417 (Tex. 1965) (writ will issue to compel trial court to proceed to judgment). In such circumstances, a trial court must consider and rule upon the motion within a reasonable amount of time. See, e.g., Crouch v. Shields, 385 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (finding district court properly issued mandamus compelling probate court to act on application for probate); In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding) (finding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to rule on Father's motion to compel arbitration); Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding) (compelling trial court to proceed to trial and judgment). A trial court’s discretion extends to its decision on how to rule on a motion properly before it, and an appellate court then reviews the rulings produced by that judicial power in the normal appellate process. See Baluch v. Miller, 774 S.W.2d 299, 301-02 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding). A refusal to rule within a reasonable time frustrates that purpose and constitutes a denial of due course of law. Id. Consequently, mandamus is available to compel a trial court to make a ruling within a reasonable time. See Marshall, 829 S.W.2d at 158. A reasonable amount of time is determined by the circumstances of the case. Shredder, 225 S.W.3d at 679.” (In re Maasoumi, No. 05-08-01074-CV (Tex.App. Dist.5 11/13/2008).)
“When a relator complains the trial court failed or refused to hear and rule on a pending motion, the relator’s burden includes demonstrating the trial court had a legal duty to perform; performance was demanded; and the trial court refused to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979) (orig. proceeding).” (In re Webb, 07-15-00050-CV (Tex.App. Dist.7 07/21/2015.)
Georgia Case Law
In 2010, I researched Georgia cases, and here are the citations that I found applicable.
"The duties of the clerk relating to the filing of complaints are ministerial in nature . . ." Orr v. Culpepper, 161 Ga. App. 801, 804 (288 S.E.2d 898) (1982). "It is the official duty of the clerk of a court to file all papers in a cause presented by the parties, and to mark them filed, with the date of filing. [Cits.]" (Brinson v. Georgia RR Bank &c. Co., 45 Ga. App. 459 at 460 (165 SE 321) (1932).) [emphasis added.]
The habeas court clerk's duty to file a notice of appeal is ministerial in nature, and it was beyond her duty or power to concern herself with the legal viability of a notice presented to her for filing. See Orr v. Culpepper, 161 Ga. App. 801, 804 (288 SE2d 898) (1982). By rejecting Hughes' timely notice of appeal, the clerk of the habeas court, in effect, determined its legal insufficiency and then undertook to dismiss the appeal. In so doing, she usurped this Court's authority to determine its own jurisdiction. (Hughes v. Sikes, 273 Ga. 804, 546 S.E.2d 518 (Ga. 05/07/2001).) [emphasis added.]
"The actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the clerk to be filed. [Cits.]. So, where a motion for new trial has been delivered for filing to the clerk, it will be deemed filed even though that officer fails to make the proper entry of filing thereon." Brinson v. Georgia RR Bank &c. Co., 45 Ga. App. 459, 461 (165 SE 321) (1932). It is beyond the purview of the clerk to be concerned with the legal viability of a pleading presented to the clerk for filing. See Hughes v. Sikes, 273 Ga. 804 (1) (546 SE2d 518) (2001) (where clerk returned notice of appeal for supplementation); Gibbs v. Spencer Industries, 244 Ga. 450, 451 (260 SE2d 342) (1979). (Hood v. State, 651 S.E.2d 88, 282 Ga. 462 (Ga. 09/24/2007).) [emphasis added.]
"Causing a paper 'to be actually placed in the hands of the clerk of a trial court within the time prescribed by law for filing the same in [the clerk's] office is all that is, in this respect, required of' a party." Gibbs v. Spencer Industries, 244 Ga. 450, 451 (260 SE2d 342) (1979). "The actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the clerk to be filed. [Cits.]. So, where a motion for new trial has been delivered for filing to the clerk, it will be deemed filed even though that officer fails to make the proper entry of filing thereon." Brinson v. Georgia RR Bank &c. Co., 45 Ga. App. 459, 461 (165 SE 321) (1932). It is beyond the purview of the clerk to be concerned with the legal viability of a pleading presented to the clerk for filing. See Hughes v. Sikes, 273 Ga. 804 (1) (546 SE2d 518) (2001); Gibbs v. Spencer Industries, supra, 244 Ga. 450. [emphasis added.]
If pleadings are delivered to the clerk for filing they will be deemed filed even though the proper entry of filing is not made thereon. See Brinson v. Ga. R. Bank &c. Co., 45 Ga. App. 459, 461, supra; Cooper v. Nisbet, 119 Ga. 752 (1), 755 (47 S.E. 173). (05/12/78 Boston Sea Party Atlanta v. Bryant, 246 S.E.2d 350, 146 Ga. App. 294.) (See also Lavan et al. v. Philips, 362 S.E.2d 138, 184 Ga. App. 573 (10/19/87).) [emphasis added.]
"The actual date of filing is the date upon which the paper is handed to the clerk to be filed. [Cit.]" Brinson v. Ga. R. Bank &c. Co., supra, p. 461. (H. R. Lee Investment Corporation v. Groover, 225 S.E.2d 742, 138 Ga. App. 231 (03/19/76).) [emphasis added.]
18 U.S.C. 2071 Case Law:
United States v. Conlin, 551 F.2d 534 (2nd Cir. 03/17/1977); United States v. Claypoole, 227 F.2d 752 (3rd Cir. 12/07/1955); United States v. Donner, 497 F.2d 184 (7th Cir. 05/03/1974); United States v. May, 625 F.2d 186 (8th Cir. 05/30/1980); United States v. Salazar, 455 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 07/24/2006); United States v. Lang, No. 02-4075 (10th Cir. 04/21/2004). This case has some very good information -- United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 12/14/1972). 18 U.S.C. § 2071 case Law Search Results from versuslaw.com.
Photo copyright straight.com
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.