47

When the court in Florida sent me a photocopy of the sealed (stamped) summons I wondered how could that be allowed. With the one in New York, on the other hand, it appears that it was not part of its action against my case that it doesn't even send the plaintiff a photocopy of a sealed summons but a general practice. I don't know what kind of interpretation to FRCP Rule 4 allows that? If a court follow the law like that what would you expect from the ordinary person? Do those courts need more things dependent on their judgments that they crave the authority on something that much sitting on the borderline between the legislative and judicial authority like the first initiation of a law suit?

RULE 4  states that a summon "must" contain a seal and the clerk's signature? Do you see in that any possible interpretation that it could carry only the photocopy for those things, let alone the absences of a seal altogether? Neither it seems that Rule 1 gives a free pass for doing that through its application of justice, speed and inexpensiveness in the implementation of the rules.

The only seal the one in New York send is on one summons that the defendant never see and is only there to be returned to the court with proof of service. As if when the corresponding part of Rule 4 was made the main concern was how to make the summons in a way that shows its authenticity to the court that issued it in case it forgot and has no record of its own actions.