| Key links: | ||||||||||
| * |
* | * GordonWatts.com * | * GordonWayneWatts.com * | * Electronic Full Case Docket Search * | * 2013 (Current) Rules of the Court * | * Rules and Guidance * | * U.S. Sup. Court Contact Information * | * U.S. Supreme Court * | * Court Humour * |
| (Sat. 13 Feb. 2016, BREAKING) Courts ; Politics * Justice Antonin Scalia dead * U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin G. Scalia has passed away, late Friday or early Saturday, at the age of 79, recent news reports confirm. The Register sends our sincere condolences to the Scalia family. |
| (Wed. 17 Feb. 2016, BREAKING) Higher Education ; Courts * Texas man arrested for not paying student loan * Click here for details. |
Case #: 15-485, Mark Warren Tetzlaff, Petitioner v. Educational Credit Management Corporation (U.S. Supreme Court, Docketed:
October 16, 2015)
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Case #: 14-3702, Decision Date: July 22, 2015)
Docket items in the "College Loan Bankruptcy" case from The Register's archives: an unofficial (but hopefully accurate)
docket:
INTRO: *College Loan case may get a break from High
Court* - Mark Warren Tetzlaff, who is partially disabled, is seeking bankruptcy of his college loan, since he is unable to work.
Famous 'Gay Marriage' attorney,
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier has has taken Tetzlaff's case, but has stalled and apparently
declined to seek rehearing. Register
editor, Gordon W. Watts, who self-identifies as Conservative, is not asking the High Court for outright loan forgiveness in his request to intervene.
Instead, he is asking merely that the same standard consumer protections as Credit Card holder (and the “über-rich”) have also be returned to Student
Loans, as in the past. Watts, who is himself under financial duress, has asked the Court to intervene as a matter of right, since he is affected, and his
own rights aren't represented in this case. Watts has pulled out all the stops and filed a
professionally-done brief. In case The Court claims his filing is late, he
has documentation of delivery to a commercial carrier in a
timely fashion. Update: Watts used Hallward-Driemeier's old address & made a couple of odd 'Scrivener's Errors' (typos), invoking Rule 201(c)(2),
Fed.R.Civ.P., to give The Court judicial notice. Short, to-the-point, and a good read -
with proof of delivery.
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F  and
use the find bar.
** Official Court Docket (U.S. Sup. Ct.) **
Unofficial docket (SCOTUS
Blog) ** News coverage of 'Tetzlaff' case-below:
Besides having obtained degrees in biology, chemistry, and electronics technology, all with honours, Mr. Watts' recent brief documents these legal accomplishments: APPENDIX A: Citations to show Watts' involvement in the famous 'Terri Schiavo' case (nearly won) APPENDIX B: Citations to show Watts' involvement in 'Gay Marriage' (allowed to participate 11th Cir.) APPENDIX C: Screenshot of U.S. Supreme Court online docket for Obergefell et al., v. Hodges, dated February 04, 2015 (showing Watts was docketed in error; Court thought he was a lawyer) APPENDIX D: This Court has visited my website numerous times (One representative screenshot) APPENDIX E: Watts' research regarding Constitutional problems with current U.S. bankruptcy law Source: Tetzlaff-Intervention-GordonWayneWatts.pdf |
(Click to view / download) |
|||
| July 22, 2015 | Opinion below |
Case #: No. 14-3702, Before FLAUM, MANION, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed the ruling of trial court, No. 14-cv-767 — Lynn S. Adelman, Judge, denying discharge of college loan in bankruptcy. | |
| Oct 15, 2015 | PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2015) Petition and Appendix as filed - as one document | |
| Nov 10, 2015 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 16, 2015. | I'm not sure why the court extended time, but it was probably to be fair & give the respondent, ECMC, time to put on a good defense. ~Editor | |
| Dec 16, 2015 | BRIEF IN OPPOSITION | Brief of respondent Educational Credit Management Corporation in opposition filed. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 | REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER | Reply of petitioner Mark Warren Tetzlaff filed. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016. | The court met on Friday, 08 January 2016, and discussed this case, and, no doubt, many others. ~Editor | |
| Jan 11, 2016 | Petition DENIED. | Translation: No, we will not accept review of the case. (Had the court accepted review, it would have ordered merits briefs filed by both sides.) ~Editor | |
| Feb 05, 2016 | MOTION OF GORDON WAYNE WATTS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OR
JOIN AS PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER IN ORDER TO FILE A PETITION FOR REHEARING |
Concurrent with Petition for Rehearing filed as one document.
PROOF OF DELIVERY: |
|
| Feb 05, 2016 | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS | Poverty declaration, with details and a request to proceed without prepayment of court filing fees.
PROOF OF DELIVERY: |
|
| Feb 08, 2016 | Supplemental Certificate of Service concurrent with Judicial Notice of Two Scrivener's Errors |
A couple of small, human errors made - fixed. Short, 3-page document. Brief and to the point, a good read. Also, I spoke with court clerk, Erik Fossum, and I asked him if the court received my filings. He confirmed that both my filings (those from Fri.2-5-16 and Mon.2-8-16) were safely received and filed. However, he said that the court was still waiting to see if the petitioner was going to file a petition for rehearing before reviewing my filings. Not sure why this is, but I guess it is prudent for the court to be up-to-speed on the case before considering new filings in the case. ~Editor
PROOF OF DELIVERY: |
|
| Feb 22, 2016 | Letter from Court | Letter in *.jpg (Jay Peg image) format -- Letter in *.pdf ('PDF' Portable Document Format) -- Hon. Erik Fossum, Associate Clerk, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, takes issue with 2 perceived problems: (#1) My filing was allegedly on the 6th (not the 5th) and thus late; (#2) Even if I were timely, since the case was closed, he alleges that Intervention is impossible in a 'closed' case; (#3) Although he doesn't call me on it, I discovered a missing required statement of compliance, and I treated his letter as if he had indeed called me on it. (I gave him credit here.) Thus, I invoked the requisite rule and make the required correction, and resubmitted my filings in a timely manner. | |
| Mar 04, 2016 | ** RULE 21 MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REHEARING ** in the alternative RULE Rule 44.6 Resubmission |
Pursuant to my telephone conversation with the clerk assigned to my case, who did not object, I file a response to the ruling of The
Court:
'SUMMARY' of the ARGUMENT Here is documentation that I printed out my resubmission motion, as well as a receipt proof of FedEx delivery.
UPDATE: You can track these packages at FedEx.com, but for your convenience, see the tracking and receipts documentation:
It arrived: |
|
| Mar 11, 2016 | Letter from Court | Letter in *.jpg (Jay Peg image) format --
Letter in *.pdf ('PDF' Portable Document Format) -- Hon. Jeffrey Atkins,
Deputy Clerk for case initiation (Assoc. Clerk, Erik Fossum's supervisor) replied. I called him up by phone, and I asked him what gives: Federal case law was on my side both regarding Intervention as well as Joinder. He responded & answered that that the Intervention case law was from a Federal Appeals Court, and thus not legally binding upon the U.S. Supreme Court. I replied that this may be true, but: (#1) Since the U.S. Supreme Court case law on Intervention at any time was silent, my holding was persuasive, and hinted that the court should take up my case, since this was a gray area of case law (and rule one way or the other to clear things up). (#2) Moreover, I pointed out that the case law allowing Joinder under F.R.Civ.P. 21 is even broader than Permissive Intervention under R.24(b). Rule 21 provides a court may join parties to an action “[o]n motion [of any party] or on its own…at any time [and] on just terms.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 21; Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832 (1989) (noting the policies behind R.21 apply to appellate courts). Indeed, The U.S. Supreme Court frequently exercises its authority to add similarly-situated parties to avoid potential mootness or other jurisdictional problems where doing so entails no prejudice to parties, and requiring the movant “to start over in the District Court would entail needless waste and run[] counter to effective judicial administration.” Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415, 417 (1952). *** What part of “at any time” does The Court not understand!? *** I pointed out that since that Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832 (1989) was U.S. Supreme Court case law (and very current to boot), that it was binding upon his court to grant me PDP (Procedural Due Process). Thus, while the Sup. Ct. is a court of "discretionary" jurisdiction, and thus may say "no" on the merits without violating SDP (Sustentative Due Process), nonetheless, it was the clerk's 'ministerial duty' (a legal term, which is plain in its meaning to most non-lawyers) to file my paperwork. Clerk Atkins sympathised with my financial poverty and the associated FedEx costs shipping my filings back and forth. I thanked him for being considerate, and asked him if, in light of binding Federal case law on this point, whether he would indeed file my paperwork. He replied to the effect that he would think about it and get back with me - and that if I had any questions, to direct them at him, and not his clerks, apparently for the sake of brevity and judicial efficiency. I am thinking about filing a "Motion to allow filing nisi Clarification contra," and I'm sure that he would allow me to do so, but I plan to call him and, possibly, Chief Clerk Scott S. Harris, and speak with them first, before throwing any more money down the FedEx drain. ~~Editor, Gordon W. watts The translation of that motion, above, from the Latin roots means, in plain English: In other words, this motion asks The Court to allow the timely-submitted Intervention/Joinder motion (and the enclosed errata relating to the certificate of service and misc. scrivener's errors) to be filed by The Clerk, “unless 'contra' Clarification” can be given by the court as to why it would be OK to disregard current and applicable case law. If the court files my paperwork, and I'm granted either Intervention and/or Joinder, I would automatically have legal standing, as a co-petitioner, to seek rehearing. Since my paperwork was all filed on time, it would be accepted as timely (and not late) should the court follow its own rules. PS: I do not envy Mr. Atkins or his colleagues: No matter what they do, they will anger one side or the other, as there are "loud voices" on both sides --not even counting the news media who are circling like a Vulture: There have been no less than two (2) explicit press inquiries, and many more news media who are silently watching, and visiting this page, as my web trackers have indicated. Click the 'planet-like' icon in the top left of any of The Register's pages to verify page-tracker data. ~Editor |
|
| Mar 18, 2016 | ** Motion to
allow filing nisi Clarification contra ** concurrent with Oral Argument request – and RULE 25.4 Motion for Approval to expand Page Limitations |
I decided to go ahead and ask the court to follow binding case law - and follow its own rules here: I'm essentially asking that the clerk file my paperwork unless he can find solid case law, statutory law, etc., to the contrary (and, effectively, grant a motion for clarification explaining why he feels that way). I'm also asking the court to expand page limitations, since this is a complex matter. Lastly, I'm pushing my luck and asking for Oral Arguments - in spite of the recent rule change prohibiting "non-lawyers" from oral arguments before the High Court. (In SEC v Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, non-lawyer Samuel H. Sloan had oral arguments before the high court, and successfully argued that the SEC, in issuing successive 10-day suspensions, abused its power, and Sloan won 9-0. That 1978 case was the last time a "non-lawyer" orally argued before the high court.) While the court is not likely to grant me oral arguments (and really doesn't need such to fully review it), oral arguments can be helpful in difficult cases (as is this one), and moreover, this shows the court that I'm serious about prosecuting my case.
PS: Here is tracking information to verify that I served the Court via USPS “Priority Mail 2-Day™” and parties as required: Long range scanners have locked on to this package, and you can bet your bottom dollar that we are tracking it more-so than NORAD tracks Santa's sleigh as it makes its yearly jaunt across the globe! ~~Editor
Tue. 03-22-2015 UPDATE: Surprisingly, the package arrived early yesterday morning, even though it was only sent USPS Priority,
this past Fri. 03-18-2016. Fast delivery for 'simply priority' 2-day mail, almost as fast as the expensive 'Overnight Priority' that I normally use!
As you can see, "The delivery record shows that this item was delivered on [Monday] March 21, 2016 at 11:06 am in WASHINGTON, DC 20431 to J KOUROS,"
in other words, "John Kouros," apparently a mail-room employee. OK, now it's time to effect e-service, optional, but a courtesy to the court
and parties: Not only for their convenience, but let's say The Court decides to make this case a 'High Profile' case? They would need electronic
copies of the briefs to post on their website - like they did with the recent 'Gay Marriage' cases - for example; well, here they are in my email to the
court and counsel. ~Editor |
|
| Mar 22, 2016 | Letter from Gordon W. Watts to The Court (e-filing, but with an added note, which is pretty rare, as most lawyers know) | “An electronic version of every brief on the merits shall be transmitted to the Clerk of Court and to opposing counsel of record at the
time the brief is filed in accordance with guidelines established by the Clerk. The electronic transmission requirement is in addition to the requirement
that booklet-format briefs be timely filed.” (Rule 25.9, Briefs on the Merits: Number of Copies and Time to File) An electronic version of the document shall also be transmitted to all other parties at the time of filing or reasonably contemporaneous therewith, unless the party filing the document is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis or the electronic service address of the party being served is unknown and not identifiable through reasonable efforts. (Rule 29.3, Filing and Service of Documents; Special Notifications; Corporate Listing) Commentary: As you can see, this does not apply to me: Not only am I not at the merits stage, but moreover, I'm proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. However, I am e-serving the court and counsel of record for 4 reasons:
(1) As a professional courtesy;
-----Original Message-----
Hon. Jeff Atkins, Deputy Clerk for case initiation (202-479-3263) RE: Mark Warren Tetzlaff v. ECMC, No. 15-485: Response of Gordon Wayne Watts Mr. Atkins, I am in receipt of your letter to me, dated March 11, 2016, in the above-styled case. Thank you for speaking with me on the phone about our misunderstanding here - and thank you for being honest enough to admit that you don't know what to make of Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 832 and other current (and not overturned) Federal case law from the US Supreme Court all of which disagree with your claims that I may 'intervene' or 'join' a lawsuit at any stage of the game. Since we last spoke, I called, wrote, and/or spoke with probably 25 or 50 attorneys barred in the US Supreme Court to try and "get a grip" on this seeming contradiction... {{redacted for length - click on link to see whole email - Editor}} 15-485_Tetzlaff-v-ECMC-Tue22Mar2016-email-to-clerk-Atkins-de-GordonWayneWatts.pdf (e-Service & letter: PDF format) 15-485_Tetzlaff-v-ECMC-Tue22Mar2016-email-to-clerk-Atkins-de-GordonWayneWatts.html (e-Service & letterg:*.html web-page format) |
| ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~Phone~~~ |
| Attorney(s) for Petitioner: Douglas Hallward-Driemeier Counsel of Record Party name: Mark Warren Tetzlaff |
Ropes & Gray LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Douglas.Hallward-Driemeier@RopesGray.com |
(202) 508-4600 |
| Attorney(s) for Respondent: Natalie R. Eness Counsel of Record Party name: Educational Credit Management Corporation |
ECMC 1 Imation Place, Bldg. 2 Oakdale, MN 55128 neness@ecmc.org |
(651) 325-3636 |
| Attorney(s) for Intervenor/Petitioner: Gordon Wayne Watts, pro se Counsel of Record Party name: Gordon Wayne Watts |
Gordon Wayne Watts 821 Alicia Road Lakeland, Florida 33801-2113 gww1210@aol.com, gww1210@gmail.com |
(863) 688-9880, (863) 409-2109 |
STATEMENT from Gordon W. Watts:
“The ability to file bankruptcies is the 'Economic Second Amendment,' and when colleges knew student loans were
almost impossible to discharge in bankruptcy (due to the Brunner test), the colleges and lenders knew student borrowers of college loans were
unable to defend themselves—and both parties engaged in Predatory Lending, victimising the helpless & defenseless college student borrowers with
soaring & skyrocketing tuition—price-gouging them, like one shoots 'fish in a barrel'.
For this reason, (conservative) supporters of the Second Amendment should not deny college students. Likewise,
(liberal) supporters of helpless college students should be in agreement that student borrowers need the same protections as ALL OTHER
borrowers—including Credit Card users and the “über-rich,” all of whom can obtain bankruptcy discharge.”
There are numerous other moral, legal, practical, and Constitutional problems with the current law, justifying
it be struck and found Unconstitutional, too numerous to mention here, but addressed in my court brief:
Tetzlaff-Intervention-GordonWayneWatts.pdf
| “Higher-Ed Tuition Costs: The ‘Conservative’ view is not on either extreme,” by Gordon Wayne Watts ;
Published: Monday, 28 September 2009 ; Last Modified: Wednesday, 10 February 2016 Cross-posted to 4 mirrors: * GordonWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html * GordonWayneWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html * ThirstForJustice.net/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html * Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html |
VIDEOS: * "Ron Paul on Student Loan Debt: Nov 09, 2011," by GordonWayneWatts, Published on Mar 21, 2012 * "Student Loan and College Debt crisis Town Hall question," by GordonWayneWatts, Published on Jul 13, 2014 * "Rush Limbaugh vs. Contract Law violations in College Debt crisis," by GordonWayneWatts, Published on Jul 13, 2014 * "Epic Battles in Music: Grandmaster Flash, Britney Spears, & Sugarhill Gang," by GordonWayneWatts, Published on Aug 14, 2011 ^^_Totally UNRELATED, but a good video to watch if you need a break!_^^ |
PETITIONS:
* The 'Million Signature' petition to "Support Student Loan
Forgiveness," (Note: This editor, Gordon W. Watts, is conservative and does not seek 100%-total Loan Forgiveness, but MANY civil & criminal
torts (injuries) were committed against helpless victims, and that include victims of an illegal monopoly in higher-ed, and other victims of sub-prime and
predatory lending, and student borrowers whose college loans either had their Loan Contract terms illegally changed after the fact and/or were lied
to and/or kept in the dark by vague loan contract terms)
* "Requesting cosponsors
for HR 3451: The Student Loan Bankruptcy Parity Act of 2015," (Editor's Note: Since the current U.S. Bankruptcy Law violates the U.S.
CONSTITUTION's uniformity clause, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 4, this petition is on solid legal grounds)
 |
(Wed. 17 Feb. 2016, BREAKING) Higher Education ; Courts * Texas man arrested for not paying student loan * Yesterday, CNN reported that "A Texas man was arrested by U.S. Marshals last week for not paying his $1,500 federal student loan -- for 29 years." There were conflicting reports-with The Houston Chronicle now reporting that "US Marshals say man wasn't just arrested because he didn't pay student loans." The Register did investigative reporting to get to the bottom of this. While The Chronicle claims that the arrest wasn't just for nonpayment, but also because "A federal judge then issued a warrant for Aker's arrest for failing to appear at a Dec. 14, 2012, hearing," nonetheless, a closer review finds that Paul Aker, the recipient of the college loan "went inside to get my gun because I didn't know who these guys were," as reported by CNNMoney. Aker also told CNNMoney that he doesn't remember having a conversation with US Marshalls, who alleged they called him first. Aker further said he hasn't received any notification about the outstanding loan "in a long time." The Register supports the Rule of Law, and doesn't deny Courts may issue bench warrants for failure to appear, yet this seems, in our judgment, to be extreme - even more-so in light of the Constitutional problems with the underlying loan. (See our previous coverage of the Constitutional challenge to these laws, in our Sun. 14 Feb. 2016, UPDATES, below.) |  |
** Click here to jump back to the top of the page.
This research, as protected by Fair Use and International "fair dealing" law, is specifically for non-profit, educational research criticism, review,
and newspaper summary.
Learn
more. (Alt. 'Learn more' link.) Tip:
To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F and use the find bar.
Courtesy The
Register: GordonWatts.com
- GordonWayneWatts.com -
Irreverent, but clean Court Humour