In Uncategorized on 11/02/2017 at 17:01

It’s truly a puzzlement. I mean correcting the “inadvertent clerical error” (I often wonder if a clerical error can be advertent; can you intend to make a mistake?) in Scott A. Spicer & Diane E. Spicer, Docket No. 19185-17SL, filed 11/2/17.

Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel begins correcting Scott’s & Diane’s case by ordering the Clerk to delete the letter “L” from the docket sheet and other records in the Clerk’s office. OK, that happens when a non-lien-or-levy is mistakenly tagged.

But then Ch J Iron Fist goes on to befuddle me (and possibly the Clerk as well).

She orders the Clerk to “…process this case to trial or other disposition pursuant to the of [sic] the Petition for Lien and Levy Action Under Code Section 6320 (c) or 6330 (d) procedures of the Court.” Order, at p. 1.

Well, doesn’t the letter “L” designate a case proceeding as a lien or levy action, whether large case or small-claimer? Isn’t leaving the petitioners’ “S” hanging out there confusing?

Or have we got the stealth lien-or-levy in addition to the stealth subpoena? As to the stealth subpoena, see my blogpost “The Stealth Subpoena is Alive and Well,” 12/2/16.

You see to what I am reduced, when I missed the NYSBA Coop/Condo Committee meeting to prepare for a closing, on a stuffy November day?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: