Wilson-v-NBS Default Service, LLC, et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING 26 REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING JURISDICTION; REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE DUTY; REGARDING AFFIDAVITS; REGARDING PUBLIC TRUST. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/18/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

:JEFFREY-MERRITT : WILSON,

Case No. 16-cv-06253-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

11

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION REGARDING
JURISDICTION; REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTY;
REGARDING AFFIDAVITS;
REGARDING PUBLIC TRUST

12

[Re: ECF 26]

9
10

NBS DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.

13

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff :Jeffrey-Merritt : Wilson’s request for clarification

14

regarding jurisdiction; regarding administrative duty; regarding affidavits; regarding public trust

15

with respect to the Court’s orders regarding ECF 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 23 (collectively, “requests

16

for judicial notice”). See Request, ECF 26. The Court construes this as a motion for clarification

17

of the Court’s previous orders denying Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice. Having carefully

18

reviewed this matter, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied for the reasons explained below.

19

“A court may clarify its order for any reason.” Wahl v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. C 08-0555,

20

2010 WL 2867130, at*3 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2010). This type of request “invite[s] interpretation,

21

which trial courts are often asked to supply, for the guidance of the parties.” Bordallo v. Reyes,

22

763 F.2d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 1985). From this, it is apparent that the clarification process

23

presumes some legitimate need supporting relief, such as the existence of ambiguity or confusion

24

that can be corrected with further explanation. But where an order or direction of the court is

25

clear, it follows that clarification is unnecessary.

26

On December 2, 2016, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s mandatory judicially

27

noticed evidence. Order, ECF 15 (denying ECF 14). On January 3, 2017, the Court issued an

28

order denying Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents: (1)

1

Default of Claim Administrative Remedy, ECF 17; (2) Default of Claim Administrative Remedy,

2

ECF 18; (3) “Affidavit of Truth” Re: Habeas Corpus, ECF 19; and (4) Appointment of Fiduciary,

3

ECF 20. Order II, ECF 22. On January 6, 2017, the Court issued a third order denying yet

4

another mandatory judicial notice entry on the record of self-authenticated evidence, ECF 23.

5

Order III, ECF 24. Presumably in light of these orders, Plaintiff requests that the Court clarify the

6

following: (1) the jurisdiction of this Court, as it is Plaintiff’s “belief that this is an Article III

7

Court of Record or an Administrative-Law-Tribunal in Admiralty which would be operating with

8

the rule of the Uniform-Commercial-Code”; (2) “[a]dministrative [r]emedy [p]rocedure and

9

[d]uty”; (3) the “dishonor[ing]” of his writ for habeas corpus; and (4) the “dishonor[ing]” of his

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

fiduciary appointment. Request 2–3.
Within the framework stated above, however, the Court finds the request misplaced for

12

two reasons. First, nothing in the three aforementioned orders requires clarification, as they are

13

neither confusing, incomplete, nor ambiguous. In the December 2, 2016 order, the Court denied

14

Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of “International Commercial Claim

15

Administrative Remedy” because Plaintiff filed the request without an underlying motion and

16

because the document did not appear to be of the type subject to judicial notice. Order. In the

17

January 3, 2017 order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the

18

documents at ECF 17–20 for the same reasons it denied Plaintiff’s prior request—there was no

19

underlying motion and because the documents did not appear to be of the type subject to judicial

20

notice. Order II, at 1. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of appointment

21

of fiduciary, in which he “nominate[d] and [ ] appoint[ed] Beth Labson Freeman / BETH

22

LABSON FREEMAN, a Judge or successor Judge as being qualified to fulfill the position of the

23

public ‘Fiduciary/Trustee’ for the corporate entity described [ ] in all-capital-letter assemblages =

24

JEFFREY MERRITT WILSON, TRUST[,]” because he provided no authority for taking this

25

action. Finally, in the January 6, 2017 order, the Court again denied Plaintiff’s request that the

26

Court take judicial notice without an underlying motion. Order III. No further instruction is

27

required.

28

Second, many of the specific clarification questions posed by Plaintiff seeks information
2

1

that cannot be provided by the Court. Indeed, Plaintiff’s request appears to be more in line with a

2

request for legal advice, which the Court cannot give. Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal

3

Pro Se Program, a free program that offers limited legal services and advice to parties who are

4

representing themselves. The Federal Pro Se Program has offices in two locations, listed below.

5

Help is provided by appointment and on a drop-in basis. Parties may make appointments by

6

calling the program’s staff attorney, Mr. Kevin Knestrick, at 408-297-1480. Additional

7

information regarding the Federal Pro Se Program is available at

8

http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj.

9

13

Federal Pro Se Program
United States Courthouse
280 South 1st Street
2nd Floor, Room 2070
San Jose, CA 95113
Monday to Thursday 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Fridays by appointment only

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Federal Pro Se Program
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
152 North 3rd Street
3rd Floor
San Jose, CA 95112
Monday to Thursday 9:00 am – 12:00 pm
Fridays by appointment only

15
16
17
18

Dated: January 18, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3