[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
record and then proceed with your argument.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
I'm up here, Johannes.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
I'm representing myself in this case.

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
I'm not an attorney.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:00:23] Speaker 02:
What would you like to tell us about the district court decision in this case and why you are appealing?

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
I would like to start the facts

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
in its interpretation of the facts.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
For example, if we start with the assignment of a claim, I am arguing that the assignment of claims that the defenders produced is fraudulent.

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
This court

[00:01:30] Speaker 02:
the issue that we sent back to the court.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
So the assignment of claims is already, that's already been resolved by us.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
The one issue that we sent this back for the district court to determine was whether or not OCI properly filed a notice of service

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
the service of the writ on me at all.

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
The notice that they sent was sent to a wrong address that is incomplete and they knew it was not my address from the beginning.

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
This court

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
Right from the beginning, the dependents have my address, my employer, and phone number.

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
say that apartment building is inaccessible.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
That misstatement of fact is actually being used to actually damage my reputation with the court where they say I have a secret life or I have secrecy and I think such a misstatement of fact and attack on my character

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
to this later.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
And I didn't actually have any means of knowing how to file a dispute with the court.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
And part of the service that the defendants were supposed to do was to let me know how I can claim exemptions.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
Such information was not in my hand.

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
And by the time I went to the court,

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
any notice of the ritual of garnishment being served against me, and I don't even know that there was a judgment against me.

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
So, counsel, the district court on remand said there is no record of the affidavit confirming service in the state court record.

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
the state court has since destroyed the relevant files for that case.

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
So what are we to do with that?

[00:05:49] Speaker 02:
So the district court said that there is no record of the service of affidavit

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
in the docket and the state court has destroyed the file.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
So what does that mean for our decision in this case to you?

[00:06:10] Speaker 02:
How should we interpret those facts?

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
The state court docket that you see in the record is a court

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
printout and I reconstructed the court file and the district court gave a judicial notice of those records.

[00:06:38] Speaker 02:
And the document shows that there was no affidavit filed in the court confirming service?

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
Yes, there was, there is none.

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
Council, it might be helpful if we hear from Council for OCI and then you can come back after we've heard from them and tell us

[00:07:10] Speaker 04:
Steam panel.

[00:07:12] Speaker 04:
Um, I'm Mark Rosenberg on behalf of Appellee is Olympic collection.

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
Uh, it's employee Susan Cable, it's president Farouk Ansari and it's attorney Norman Martin.

[00:07:24] Speaker 04:
Um, my intention originally was to talk for about 10 minutes, uh, and then answer questions for five, but, uh, you've asked me, uh, you've pulled out what you're mainly interested in hearing.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
or anything submitted to go on there, our client, my clients, indicated that notice was sent to the court and nothing came back.

[00:08:03] Speaker 04:
And so I think it's not so much the district court said there was no record in the state court.

[00:08:10] Speaker 02:
The district court did say that.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
I know, I know.

[00:08:12] Speaker 02:
The district court said there is no record of the affidavit confirming service of the writ of punishment

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
record was destroyed.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
I think we reversed that.

[00:08:31] Speaker 02:
No, it says, I'm reading you verbatim what the district court said and these are the facts that the district court found.

[00:08:39] Speaker 02:
There is no record of the affidavit confirming service of the writ of garnishment in the state court's docket and the state court has since destroyed the relevant files for the case.

[00:08:55] Speaker 04:
They destroyed the files and nothing after that went on the docket.

[00:09:00] Speaker 04:
So without the file there, there's nothing to put anything my client sent in there.

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
And so the state court destroyed the file.

[00:09:08] Speaker 04:
So there's no record of the service.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
So there's nothing to give to the court.

[00:09:14] Speaker ?:
Well, who does that?

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
So if you have the burden to show that there was service,

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
there is nothing in the record that will show that.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
Doesn't that mean that you are unable to show that you served him?

[00:09:33] Speaker 04:
That would be correct because we'll never know exactly what was sent in, what would have been in the docket had the foul not been destroyed.

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
Under what statute was the foul destroyed?

[00:09:44] Speaker 02:
Generally, court fouls are supposed to be retained for a substantial period of time.

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
honor and spend my time on, is I'd like to focus on the constitutionality of Washington's post-judgment garnishment statute.

[00:10:05] Speaker 02:
That's not the issue.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
That's not the issue at all.

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
If proper notice is not given, that's a constitutional violation.

[00:10:13] Speaker 04:
I disagree, Your Honor, and I'd like to say why.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:10:18] Speaker 04:
So let's assume notice was not given, right?

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
To start with, it

[00:10:46] Speaker 04:
opportunity for a trial prior to dispersal of funds, awards, fees, and other penalties in addition to recovery of actual damages for a prevailing judgment debtor.

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
Yes, Counsel, that would all be pertinent if this were a facial challenge to the statute, but this is a challenge to the statute as applied to Mr. Yohannes.

[00:11:15] Speaker 04:
There is no state action.

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
Mr. Yohannes argues that the statute was there and my client didn't follow it.

[00:11:24] Speaker 04:
And so if that's what's being argued, then it's not the Constitution that's the issue.

[00:11:30] Speaker 04:
It's that there was an error in carrying it out.

[00:11:33] Speaker 04:
And that is not...

[00:11:52] Speaker 04:
statute is governing this no your honor because basically in order for there to be state action the state has to essentially be the one taking the action and be able to prevent it if the statute authorizes a private actor to take action that the state ordinarily would take that state action because this statute allowed

[00:12:26] Speaker 02:
And so then this private actor becomes the actual agent of the court in issuing the writ.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
Well, first of all, as a general rule, attorneys acting in doing certain things such as issuing subpoenas or doing other things than an attorney normally does doesn't change it into a state actor.

[00:13:01] Speaker 04:
Johannes argues the flaw here is that the state was not involved in the issuance of the right of garnishment.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
But if Mr. Johannes complains about the conduct of a private party, the creditor's attorney

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
Collectively debt that Johannes refused to pay.

[00:13:17] Speaker 04:
Private misuse of the statute does not describe conduct that can be attributed to a state.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
And that's Lumber 457 U.S.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
at 940 through 41.

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
And also this court's decision in Seattle Fishing Service

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
Judge Rollinson's comment that because your client, you know, obtained the writ of garnishment from a state court, that they're acting under color state law.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
I don't know if I've expressed my position.

[00:14:23] Speaker 03:
is whether Mr. Yohannes got notice or not.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
And I couldn't really tell from the district court opinion very clearly if he received the notice.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
I know he said he never got it, and the OCI

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
Was there a finding by the district court as to whether service was made?

[00:15:14] Speaker 03:
Well, if there's not an express finding, could our court romantic the district court to make a finding one way or the other, was service made or not?

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
Well, I think the court found that the record was destroyed in the state court and there was

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
Presumably because the foul was destroyed.

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
Counsel, let me ask you this.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
Generally, when attorneys foul something in the court, they get a foul-stamped copy of it.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
Is there a foul-stamped copy that your client has or that the attorney has that shows that they filed it with the court?

[00:16:01] Speaker 04:
Well, the court had already destroyed the foul by the time it was sent.

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
So there was nothing to put it in.

[00:16:08] Speaker 04:
I probably did not get back a file.

[00:16:10] Speaker 04:
I mean, if you mail something in and the court's not fouling it because the file is destroyed, it's just not going to be there.

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
Where in the record is there verification that the file was destroyed?

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
Where can we look in the record to confirm that?

[00:16:27] Speaker 04:
Well, it's undisputed.

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
Mr. Yiannis said so when he was standing here.

[00:16:31] Speaker 04:
It's in the briefing.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
I can't pinpoint anything right now.

[00:16:36] Speaker 02:
I'm asking you, how do we know the file was destroyed?

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
Did the clerk send a letter out?

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
How do we know that the file was destroyed?

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
Mr. Yohannes went into the court to get a copy of the file and they told him it was destroyed.

[00:16:53] Speaker 04:
And subsequently the parties checked and the file was destroyed.

[00:16:57] Speaker 04:
So there's just nothing there.

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
We'll never know what was in it.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
I don't know why, I don't know what their methods are.

[00:17:05] Speaker 04:
But I do know, in regard to the question we're dealing with right now, is that the Washington legislator expressly considered the ministerial nature of the collection process post-judgment.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
The protection of post deprivation hearings and the statutory protection that applied to exempt assets and do assets necessary for ordinary subsistence.

[00:17:28] Speaker 04:
And that was, we've cited to the Washington

[00:18:01] Speaker 04:
as in here was a ministerial act.

[00:18:05] Speaker 02:
That doesn't mean that it's not an act by the government, though, by a government actor.

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
Even if it's ministerial, it still can be performed by a state actor.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
Well, the fact that it can be done doesn't make it

[00:18:21] Speaker 02:
This is delegated to the attorney in North Georgia Finishing, Inc.

[00:18:26] Speaker 02:
versus Dicam.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
The Supreme Court said that if the writ of garnishment is issuable on the affidavit of the creditor or his attorney by the court clerk without participation by a judge, that's unconstitutional if it's not, if there's no notice, if the debtor is deprived of the use of the property.

[00:18:50] Speaker 02:
under a statute that allows the attorney to submit an affidavit, and it's just rubber stamped by the court.

[00:19:08] Speaker 02:
David that says we provided the notice there is a debt that's payable and so we've complied with everything and so the grid can issue and there's no review of that by the court there is review

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
wages were garnished.

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
Mr. Yohannes' wages were garnished.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
Well, the problem is Mr. Yohannes didn't provide the opportunities for review that I'm trying to inform the court about.

[00:20:28] Speaker 04:
So the statute that I was talking about here, 627-1302B, permitted Mr. Yohannes to move to set aside the garnishment and have damages awarded.

[00:20:39] Speaker 04:
Mr. Yohannes didn't make such a motion.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
permitted Mr. Yohannes to submit an affidavit, controverting the writ or the answer.

[00:20:57] Speaker 04:
If he didn't get notice of it, how could he do that?

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
Well, he did have notice of the answer.

[00:21:01] Speaker 04:
I mean, first of all, he did get notice because in the record, I can't pinpoint a site right now, he says his employer called him in and they, and talked him about it.

[00:21:13] Speaker 04:
In fact, some of his claims are based on that.

[00:21:16] Speaker 04:
And so,

[00:21:24] Speaker 04:
by the time the answer was filed, and his employer gave the answer right to him, he knew about it.

[00:21:31] Speaker 04:
Now, the money was still on the bank.

[00:21:32] Speaker 04:
It hadn't gone to my client yet.

[00:21:35] Speaker 04:
There's disputed funds and Matthew's analysis, and then there's a variety of interests.

[00:21:41] Speaker 04:
Certainly, Mr. Yohannes has an interest in wages, but the state has an interest in the execution of its judgments, and the creditor has an interest in the money because

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
I think they did do that.

[00:22:53] Speaker 04:
I'll note here that this case has been going on about six years now.

[00:22:57] Speaker 04:
The whole case is about $1,500, although my client's paid about $100,000 in legal fees at this point.

[00:23:04] Speaker 04:
Well, Mr. Yohannes hasn't had to pay anything other than to be court charged.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
Well, that's because your client executed on a debt that was not really informed.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
this whole thing started, that the judgment was not enforceable and they had to give the money back.

[00:23:23] Speaker 04:
That's untrue.

[00:23:24] Speaker 04:
That's untrue, Your Honor.

[00:23:27] Speaker 04:
When the right was first issued, there was still time to renew the judgment.

[00:23:31] Speaker 04:
It was garnishable.

[00:23:33] Speaker 04:
And then when it was discovered, I mean, our client's employee got sick, didn't renew it like she was supposed to, and that was a bona fide error.

[00:23:45] Speaker 04:
But when they first issued it,

[00:23:50] Speaker 04:
and my client returned the money even though

[00:24:05] Speaker 02:
It wasn't Mr. Yohannes' fault that this case started.

[00:24:09] Speaker 04:
It's interesting we say that, Your Honor, because certainly there were two garnishments.

[00:24:14] Speaker 04:
And Mr. Yohannes had noticed prior to the second garnishment, certainly.

[00:24:19] Speaker 04:
That was the one that was not, that, where the judgment was.

[00:24:22] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:24:23] Speaker 04:
But the important thing is RCWA 6.27 has a whole host of protections.

[00:24:30] Speaker 04:
Now the second garnishment at that point

[00:24:32] Speaker 04:
He had noticed an opportunity for him before that second garnishment came up.

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
He never used it.

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
He had it available.

[00:24:41] Speaker 04:
He knew there was a garnishment issue out there.

[00:24:44] Speaker 04:
He knew his wages were going to be garnished in the following month, but he didn't use 6.27.130.210.

[00:24:51] Speaker 04:
That garnishment wasn't valid.

[00:24:53] Speaker 04:
That garnishment wasn't valid.

[00:24:56] Speaker 04:
But he still had an opportunity to challenge it.

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
especially because he had knowledge, he had actual knowledge that the garnishment was coming up.

[00:25:11] Speaker 04:
He could have challenged it.

[00:25:12] Speaker 04:
He could have gotten a trial.

[00:25:13] Speaker 04:
He could have failed an affidavit.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
There's a whole host of things he could have done before that second garnishment, before any money was taken out, but he chose not to use.

[00:25:23] Speaker 04:
But there's a difference between not having protections and not using the protections.

[00:25:29] Speaker 04:
And Mr. Yolanda certainly knew before the second garnishment

[00:25:46] Speaker 02:
actual garnishings of the check, but when the writ of garnishment was issued.

[00:25:51] Speaker 02:
But as Judge Gould said, we'll give you an opportunity because we're going to let Mr. Yohannes come back and do a more extended argument based on what you've said.

[00:26:02] Speaker 02:
But I am curious as to whether or not what your response is to Mr. Yohannes' suggestion that this case should go to a different judge because this judge

[00:26:17] Speaker 04:
The judge did respond to the questions that were asked.

[00:26:28] Speaker 04:
There's nothing any judge can do.

[00:26:33] Speaker 04:
If the file was destroyed, the mailing was returned.

[00:26:37] Speaker 04:
Well, not the mailing, but the notice that it's undeliverable has been returned.

[00:26:41] Speaker 02:
He can't do something.

[00:26:42] Speaker 02:
He can determine who had the burden and whether or not that burden was met based on the facts in the case, and that's what this

[00:26:50] Speaker 02:
court judge has to do.

[00:26:52] Speaker 02:
Notice is required.

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
The district court judge has to determine whether the notice was given.

[00:26:57] Speaker 02:
And if there is an absence of evidence in the record, who bears the burden of that absence of evidence?

[00:27:06] Speaker 04:
Well, those are legal questions for which the evidence is already in the record.

[00:27:10] Speaker 04:
And I don't see any reason to change the judge because just because you don't like the, I mean, to get rid of the judge, you usually have to show prejudice or some other reason

[00:27:28] Speaker 04:
He's been through a whole battery of summary judgment motions.

[00:27:33] Speaker 04:
He's written at least two appellations on dispositive motions.

[00:27:39] Speaker 04:
It's been up.

[00:27:39] Speaker 04:
And then he's provided this court what it needs to make the legal decisions.

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
Well, Tom, if you were in the district court decision, it made a determination as to whether or not Mr. Yohannes was provided notice pre-execution of the writ.

[00:27:59] Speaker 02:
decision.

[00:28:00] Speaker 02:
What did he say?

[00:28:04] Speaker 04:
Well, I have to go back and I can look at these.

[00:28:08] Speaker 02:
Council, when you come back up here, point us to the language in the district court decision for it made the determination whether or not Mr. Yohannes was provided notice.

[00:28:20] Speaker 04:
Pre

[00:28:28] Speaker 02:
I'm asking you in the district court decision, where the district court made the findings.

[00:28:34] Speaker 02:
When you come back, tell us that.

[00:28:37] Speaker 02:
All right, thank you.

[00:28:38] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:28:38] Speaker 02:
Mr. Yohannes, if you could just keep your remarks to the notice issue.

[00:28:51] Speaker 02:
is whether or not the district court made a determination that you had been provided notice before the writ of garnishment.

[00:29:20] Speaker 01:
I can't hear you.

[00:30:02] Speaker 01:
but they are claiming that they said it on the same day as they served it on my employer.

[00:30:09] Speaker 01:
That is practically impossible.

[00:30:11] Speaker 01:
How would I be required to

[00:30:33] Speaker 02:
The school has suggested that maybe we send this back to the district court judge to make a specific finding as to whether or not you were provided notice.

[00:30:42] Speaker 02:
What's your response?

[00:30:44] Speaker 02:
You had asked for us to send it to a different judge.

[00:30:47] Speaker 02:
Why do you say that?

[00:31:03] Speaker 01:
Did you have a question?

[00:31:05] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:31:06] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:31:07] Speaker 01:
The written receipt was sent like it was undeliverable because it's an incomplete address and it's not my address at all.

[00:31:15] Speaker 01:
And they are supposed, I don't think there is a need to send it back to the court to determine this because what they're claiming is practically impossible.

[00:31:24] Speaker 01:
And the district court of course cannot make a determination that like what cannot be practically happened in this case.

[00:31:39] Speaker 03:
make a finding of fact that something's impossible or practically impossible.

[00:31:49] Speaker 03:
Really, we district judges are able to make factual determinations.

[00:31:57] Speaker 03:
But if your position requires such a finding, we should send it to the back of the district court.

[00:32:06] Speaker 03:
Let the district court hear from you

[00:32:09] Speaker 03:
hear from OCI and then make any required findings.

[00:32:15] Speaker 01:
I believe the district court said they didn't actually file the affidavit required by the statutes.

[00:32:25] Speaker 01:
I don't actually remember which paid to take you there.

[00:32:28] Speaker 01:
So, but that's what the district court ruled.

[00:32:33] Speaker 01:
Well, the district court didn't say that they didn't file it.

[00:32:36] Speaker 01:
They said there was no record of it.

[00:32:37] Speaker 01:
There's no record.

[00:32:39] Speaker 01:
no record of it.

[00:32:41] Speaker 01:
And by the way,

[00:33:32] Speaker 01:
can see like on May 23rd, a check in the amount of 673.72 cents was sent to Olympic.

[00:33:41] Speaker 01:
That is the second check.

[00:33:42] Speaker 01:
The first check that came to to Olympic was on May 9th.

[00:33:50] Speaker 01:
That is after the judgment has expired.

[00:33:53] Speaker 01:
That check was deposited

[00:34:04] Speaker 01:
that the judgment expired.

[00:34:06] Speaker 01:
And their own attorney, Senator Martin, told them that they have to release the garnishment.

[00:34:12] Speaker 01:
They let the garnishment to continue on after they know the judgment has expired.

[00:34:34] Speaker 01:
that the defendants present in this case is that I know about the judgment and that there is a garnishment that would become the consequence as a result of that judgment.

[00:34:45] Speaker 01:
That is not true.

[00:34:48] Speaker 01:
So like I have no notice of our own about the judgment and even if I knew about the judgment, if it is void,

[00:35:24] Speaker 01:
about why the file is destroyed.

[00:35:27] Speaker 01:
The Washington state has a record retention of the document, which is not actually filed with the state.

[00:35:33] Speaker 01:
And according to that, like the district court files, like after the gentleman has expired, get destroyed, the document, I think, stays until 20 years.

[00:35:44] Speaker 01:
And, you know, if required, I can search for that and I can file it with the court.

[00:35:50] Speaker 01:
Yeah, okay.

[00:36:42] Speaker 04:
151 at 2, the mailing was returned as undeliverable.

[00:36:47] Speaker 04:
And so basically it shows that Mestrillo-Harnas did not get the mailing, but then the judge goes on and says on page 14, however whether or not

[00:37:14] Speaker 02:
That wasn't the question we asked you.

[00:37:17] Speaker 02:
The question I asked you was where in the district court decision it determined that there was service, that there was notice to Mr. Yohannes.

[00:37:31] Speaker 02:
That was the question you said that the district court made that determination.

[00:37:45] Speaker 02:
he said there is no record of the affidavit confirming service of the writ of garnishment in the state court's docket and the state court has since destroyed the relevant files so give me the precise language where he said notice was served on the

[00:38:12] Speaker 04:
If the mailing was returned, then he did not receive that.

[00:38:16] Speaker 04:
He does indicate, Mr. Johannes, in his deposition, that his employer called him in and they talked about it.

[00:38:25] Speaker 02:
No, but okay, generally what happens is if a party attempts to give notice to another party and it's returned undeliverable, that is filed with the court.

[00:38:39] Speaker 02:
to inform the court that you attempted to get notice.

[00:38:42] Speaker 02:
And so that should have been with the affidavit that was filed with the court.

[00:38:46] Speaker 02:
And my client did provide that?

[00:38:49] Speaker 04:
Oh, he did provide that?

[00:38:50] Speaker 04:
Well, my client provided what was sent to the court with a letter of the declaration saying, I know this off to the court, but at this point,

[00:39:01] Speaker 04:
to put it so it doesn't upset the docket.

[00:39:04] Speaker 02:
Mr. Yohannes says that there were continuing notations made on the docket even though the valve had been destroyed.

[00:39:09] Speaker 02:
So that begs the question and that's another reason why we should send it back to the district court because the district court said there was no record of the affidavit in the docket which indicates that the docket was being updated.

[00:39:30] Speaker 04:
formulate a well-reasoned and well-supported opinion based on the endicott decisions indicating that even if, that first of all... Look, counsel, that's not the question we have.

[00:39:43] Speaker 02:
We are reviewing that de novo and we will decide whether or not we agree with the district court's analysis of the law.

[00:39:50] Speaker 02:
But first, we want a determination from the district court as to whether or not

[00:40:20] Speaker 02:
We may or may not disagree with the judge's decision in that regard.

[00:40:26] Speaker 02:
What we are focused on right now is whether or not there was notice given to Mr. Yohannes, and if not, whether or not the statute has applied to him

[00:40:45] Speaker 02:
that your position is your client's, and notice the problem is there is no proof of that in the court file, in the court docket, and the file's been destroyed.

[00:40:56] Speaker 04:
There is a lot that will never be known about the court file because it has been destroyed.

[00:41:30] Speaker 03:
But my question for you is, what would be wrong with a resolution along the lines of what Judge Robinson suggested earlier, where we would send this to the district court, ask the district court to make a finding, whether notice was given, and if notice wasn't given, whose burden it was, to prove that.

[00:42:02] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I think that under federal rule one, we're supposed to have causes that are inexpensive, speedy, and fair.

[00:42:13] Speaker 04:
My client has already gone back twice, prevailed twice, and dealing with this over and over again.

[00:42:58] Speaker 04:
We've briefed, you know, the Dion v. Bulley, the Brown v. Liberty Loan Corp, and McKay v. LP Investors.

[00:43:06] Speaker 04:
Those are from the First Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, and the Second Circuit.

[00:43:10] Speaker 04:
Nothing from the Ninth Circuit, though.

[00:43:11] Speaker 04:
That's your problem.

[00:43:12] Speaker 04:
Well, we do kind of have something in the Ninth Circuit, Your Honor.

[00:43:28] Speaker 04:
even if the former husband wasn't provided a hearing prior to garnishment.

[00:43:55] Speaker 04:
look, if you provide post-banishment procedures, you have constitutional, constitutional statute.

[00:44:07] Speaker 04:
And so, I mean, those cases are, the three I cited are all very similar to this case.

[00:44:37] Speaker 04:
Mr. Yohannes got notice, he got a hearing, and the result of that was a judgment entered against him that he didn't pay.

[00:44:47] Speaker 04:
And the cases are clear and consistent that if the statute provides sufficient post-attachment means to challenge the garnishment before the money's turned over, which the statute did, that even if there's no

[00:45:30] Speaker 02:
being the case just argued is submitted for decision.